-
What Is It About Benghazi?
May 15, 2013 | 165 comments
-
The Socialist Dragon Slayer
April 9, 2013 | 42 comments
-
What Did Arafat Get for Killing U.S. Diplomats?
March 1, 2013 | 50 comments
-
Al Gore’s $500 Million Trojan Horse
February 20, 2013 | 109 comments
-
Further Reflections on Benghazi
February 18, 2013 | 73 comments
The Obama Watch
The Coming Demise of the Strange Co-Presidency of the United States
The American people elected Barack Obama, but what they have gotten is a snootful of Nancy Pelosi.
This was a good cop / bad cop pairing, if ever there was one: he, the dreamer, the spinner of words and the perfect front man; she, the partisan bully and de facto shaper of policy. The co-presidency of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi is one of the stranger outcomes of the last election.
Imagine if it had been her name instead of his at the top of Democrat ticket last November. That is a race that even old, tired and badly confused John McCain could have won by the widest of margins.
The American people elected Barack Obama, but what they have gotten — in domestic policy matters — is a snootful of Nancy Pelosi. To quote long-time Democratic Party activist Ted Van Dyk, what they have gotten is “an expensive mess” — a series of hastily conceived bills “loaded with costly provisions designed to gain support from congressional leaders and special-interest constituencies.”
While the president has been running around the world giving speeches, Pelosi has taken charge of domestic policy. It was she who cobbled together the stimulus package and she who has taken the lead in setting energy and healthcare policies.
Mr. Van Dyk, who was active in Lyndon Johnson’s White House, hoots at the idea — floated by White House staffers — that the Obama’s strategy in pushing health-care and energy initiatives brooks comparison with the way Johnson pushed his Great Society legislation. In an article in the Wall Street Journal he wrote:
Johnson’s initiatives were framed in the White House by his administration…. Your (Obama) strategy, by contrast, has been to advocate forcefully for health-care and energy reform but to leave the details to Democratic congressional committee chairs. You did the same thing with your initial $787 billion stimulus package. Now, you’re stuck with a plan that provides little stimulus until 2010. A president should never cede control of his main agenda to others.
But it is questionable how much the president knows or cares about domestic policy issues, beyond wanting to present himself — first, last and always — as the champion of urgently needed change.
In his book Dreams from My Father, he tells how he came to give his first speech as a student at Occidental College in Los Angeles. “As something of a lark,” he says, he became involved in a campaign calling for disinvestment in South Africa. Obama says he approached the microphone “in a trancelike state” and began:
“There’s a struggle going on,” I said. My voice barely carried beyond the first few rows. A few people looked up and I waited for the crowd to quiet.
“I say, there’s a struggle going on!”
The Frisbee players stopped.
“It’s happening an ocean away. But it’s a struggle that touches each and every one of us. Whether we know it or not. Whether we want it or not. A struggle that demands we choose sides. Not between black and white. Not between rich and poor. No — it’s a harder choice than that. It’s a choice between dignity and servitude. Between fairness and justice. A choice between right and wrong …
Whatever those words were supposed to mean, they had an electric effect upon the audience. This, then, was vintage Obama — at the tender age of 20 — speaking in a way that seems to transcend both race and class. But listen to his response a couple pages later when a co-worker compliments him on his speech:
“It was short, anyway.”
Regina ignored my sarcasm. “That’s what made it so effective,” she said. “You spoke from the heart, Barack. It made people want to hear more…”
About the Author
Andrew B. Wilson, a frequent contributor to The American Spectator, writes from St. Louis.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (69) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Andrew B. Wilson
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/29/the-coming-demise-of-the-stran
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
- Self-Righteous Republic
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Melvin| 7.29.09 @ 6:45AM
Au contraire, the wicked witch of the West has absolutely no intention of going anywhere.
I was thinking the other day and it struck me, that the four most dangerous politicians on the face of this earth that will cost this Country trillions are from California. Pelosi, Waxman, Boxer, and Feinstein.
There is one thing that we need to keep in perspective. The day of reckoning will come sooner or later for those four and those like them. They must be held accountable for their destructive actions upon the American people. They must not be allowed to slink out of their titles and say, "Oops, we must have made a couple of mistakes along the way." Oops isn't good enough, they need to be tried and convicted by a jury of their peers for corruption, and the political policies that are running this Country into the ground.
What was good for Mussolini when the Italian people caught up with him is good enough for the Californian four.
Rocco| 7.29.09 @ 6:54AM
Yes indeed, Melvin, and the next three are from Massachusetts: Kennedy, Kerry and Frank.
Bring out the meat hooks, the machine guns and the gasoline!!
Becky| 7.29.09 @ 7:48AM
I'll see your guys and raise you a Granholm, Levin, and Stabenow. Michigan sucks too, you know.
Pingback| 7.29.09 @ 8:00AM
The Coming Demise of the Strange Co-Presidency of the United States links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Big J| 7.29.09 @ 8:03AM
Speaking of the speaker, every time I click on an article and see a picture of her, I throw up in my mouth a little.
Two pictures on this one?
TAS owes me a keyboard.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 7.29.09 @ 8:14AM
So obumassiah told Regina,"... that is the last time you will ever hear another speech out of me…" Does that make this statement the first promise he ever broke?
Indiana Alex| 7.29.09 @ 8:16AM
Becky,
It's a shame, but Michigan deserves what it gets for electing these people. Granholm is possibly the worst governor in the country, yet BHO holds her up as a model.
JP| 7.29.09 @ 8:21AM
What a strange mess, indeed. Obama wins an election and assembles The Best and the Brightest for the sole purpose of allowing the House Speaker to set the agenda. The Transecendent One, The Annointed One appears to be interested in only taking the credit and not the details. Other than giving numerous press confrences, and hosting dozens of Town-Halls (almost a daily ritual, which appear to have less influence as time goes on), the White House is pretty much on the sidelines. The Blue Dogs are immune to Rahm Emmanual's threats, and no amount of pork will lure them into a yes vote on ObamaCare. They took a beating on voting Yes to Cap and Trade, and not are poised to lose thier seats in the 2010 Mid-Terms.
It is interesting to watch Obama kind of float etherally over the partisan bloodbath within his own party as Speaker Pelosi desperately attempts to salvage not only this monstrosity of a bill, but her own reputation to boot. The President's calm belies a reckoning between Blue Dogs who represent essientially conservatives and the Far Left Leadership of the Democratic Party. Without these 57 Blue Dogs, Speaker Pelosi has no job and no Majority.
I suppose last December, when this arrangement was hatched (probably by Rahm Emmanual himself), everyone thought it was brilliant. Speaker Pelosi would relish setting the domestic agenda and wielding the immense power that goes with it; all the while the President could keep his "cool" persona and speak like a reasonable moderate. But all the while the assumption was that the Blue Dogs would toe the line. I'm certain the President is now cursing the Constitution's requirement for House elections every 2 years. Emmanual's 2006 strategy of running conservative Democrats in GOP districts was brillant, but perhaps fatally flawed. As it turns out these 50-some Democrats are not willing to be one term wonders.
The President's powers of persuasion are not quite as good as everyone imagines. Nothing has been done by The Annointed One since the Stimulus was passed. Cap and Trade and Obamacare are like rubbing salt in the wound for the millions of newly unemployed. They don't want Green autos or free healthcare; they want thier lives back. This is something that Pelosi couldn't care less about, and something that is beyond the imagination of a man who's political experience is limited to prime time speeches, , auto-biographies, and Chicago ward politics.
Howard| 7.29.09 @ 9:20AM
I believe the reason Obama let the heavy lifting reside with Pelosi and the rest of the old Democratic bulls is because he was and is unqualified to be President. He had no real experience. His 4 years in the Senate were primarily spent running for his current office. I am surprised that he didn't rely more on Biden for input. Not that Mr. Nucklehead is so great, but he has been around the block enough to know what would have worked, and what was just for liberal self pleasuring. But the American people decided "hope and change" was preferable to experience. Not the first time the wrong guy won.
Aaron| 7.29.09 @ 9:21AM
They deserve each other, she is as destructive to him as he is to her as they are to us as we should be to them in the next election.
Pingback| 7.29.09 @ 9:49AM
The Aberrant Presidency Of Barack Hussein Pelosi | Stuck On Stupid links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Appleby| 7.29.09 @ 10:06AM
Ms. Pelosi knows what we all know -- that King Zero has a huge bulls-eye on his back and she is cementing her position in the full knowledge that before the end of the year she will be POTUS.
Pingback| 7.29.09 @ 10:07AM
We’ve got him figured out! « The912LibertyBell Blog – The local 912project for Arling links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
JAH666| 7.29.09 @ 10:23AM
The relationship between Obama and Pelosi could not be more co-dependent or self-destructive, ultimately. Perhaps Rahm was the 'Justice of the Peace' that married the two, but who can say. The back-room thug styled methods of this bunch of Chicago pols is shadowy and scary to say the least. Pelosi, remember, floated on Cloud 9 for months after becoming the first woman to be Speaker. That historic title went straight to her large head and made her believe she could get away with anything. Along comes Obama and convinces her through his mouthpiece Rham (and perhaps others) that they are both on the same page for "changing America". When he is in the WH, she will be free to craft leftist legislation to her hearts content. Ever-calculating, like the Chicago pol that he is, will he see that these left lurching plans are being rejected by US and moderate his plans and "play to the larger audience" as Mr Wilson says? I think not. His draw to statist solutions is heavily ingrained in his psyche. Pelosi also has shown no interest in moderating her desires as the American people awake from their slumbers and discover her raiding the fridge. Zealots do not see things rationally. They want it their way, and the fears and concerns of others are 'just a distraction'. It will be real surprise if the co-presidents can get together and moderate this juggernaut that they have loosed on the American people.
On the subject of the states and their representatives: Those in CA, MA, MI and all the others that continually elect Dems; well, you got what you paid for. And, maybe you got what you deserve.
Liberal Reader| 7.29.09 @ 11:52AM
I don't think you've got it quite right.
It's not a "co-presidency."
Rather, Obama understands that Congress is a "co-equal branch" of government, and he allows it a leading role in shaping legislation.
Al Adab| 7.29.09 @ 12:33PM
Hey Lib,
You actually got it right this time. It will be interesting to see how the relationship developes once they get in each others way.
As for now they both seem bent on the same projects. (I make no value judgement here of tose) What however becomes of Constitutional government under the current proposals for health care, cap and trade, ownership of business (Bush was wrong in the bailouts too) and the rest?
Would be interested in your take on these. Or do modern times demand more centralized control than the Constitution provides? Central planning is after all more efficient than markets correct?
Liberal Reader| 7.29.09 @ 1:20PM
Al Adab --
It's true. The country is much different now than it was in 1791. We're the most powerful country in the world, not a third-world agrarian power.
The Constitution is a broad document; it is spacious, flexible, and gives great (although not absolute) power to the changing will of the people.
Is health care Constitutional?
It depends how you look at it. There is no Constitutional proscription for such a plan, and no prescription. Cap and trade is the same thing.
People sometimes like to pretend that the Constitution established a free-market system of government that then became gradually degraded or tainted by subsequent government action.
Not so. The government has regulated the markets in different ways from the inception of the country.
Craig| 7.29.09 @ 2:09PM
Al Adab:
You stated, "Is health care Constitutional?
It depends how you look at it. There is no Constitutional proscription for such a plan, and no prescription. Cap and trade is the same thing. "
However, the Constitution DOES contain a proscription for such a plan, in two locations.
First, Article I section 8 lists the powers of the Congress. The original signers understood this to be a complete list unless the Constitution were subsequently amended to add more powers. It is a general clause, followed by a specific listing, which the founders understood to be the construction of a LIMITED list of powers...the list LIMITS the creation of power in the general clause.
Second, the Tenth Amendment of the original Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So ANY power not listed in Article I section 8 is expressly forbidden to Congress, unless a later amendment to the Constitution adds that power.
San Francisco Twit | 7.29.09 @ 2:27PM
I wish our darling media would show Madame Nancy the same scrutiny and respect they showed Newt.
Al Adab| 7.29.09 @ 2:35PM
Craig,
Your quote is that from Lib Reader in reply to my earlier querry.
The common understanding is that if the Constitution does not grant a power then it is reserved to the states. Where people find the penubras is beyond me.
Still every year Congress considers the Enumerated powers act (Shadegg, R-AZ) and it garners abouit 85 votes. That is what has become of our Constitution, dead in all but name.
You can see its fate in the analysis by Lib Reader. At least he knows where he stands.
Liberal Reader| 7.29.09 @ 3:21PM
The Supreme Court can alway hear challenges on Article 1 or 10th amendment grounds.
Is Social Security then unconstitutional?
If so, then Republicans should have it in their platform, and I would love -- love -- to see the day that a Republican candidate for president goes to Florida on a campaign to abolish Social Security!
The issue is not really the constitutionality of any of these programs. The people have elected representatives to Congress who have passed these laws, and the Constitution favors the will of the people.
No, the issue is the fact that conservatives routinely fight against measures that would stabilize the middle class, like health care.
But if some "conservative" comes along who wants to abolish Social Security, or federal grants to schools, or the EPA, or the FAA, let them take their conviction to the people.
I won't hold my breath, and I wouldn't recommend you do either.
Liberal Reader| 7.29.09 @ 3:31PM
A basic misunderstanding about the Constitution seems to derive from a kind of transfer of fundamentalist attitudes towards Scripture to the secular realm.
The Constitution is not God. (Nor is the "Invisible Hand of the Market," but that's another discussion.)
The Constitution is for the most part a guide. It's language is broad, general, and -- like I said -- very flexible.
The Constitution can be amended: the amendment authorizing the federal government to raise income taxes is AS constitutional as the 1st amendment.
The government changes with the times, within certain boundaries established by the Constitution.
Al Adab| 7.29.09 @ 3:44PM
Dear Lib,
One of the debates about Federal power early in our history involved what was called "internal improvements". Could the Federal Govt. finance improvements within a particular state? Of course the public and the various states favored this approach. Madison however, (and he wrote the thing in large part) stated clearly that while it was a good idea, the Constitution did not empower the Federal Govt. to do so. He suggested an amendment to authorize such actions. It never was passed and so the proscription against internal improvements was simply ignored and they eventually became commonplace.
Here is the point. If we choose to ignore restrictions on federal action in order to accomplish popular purposes, then limited government, which is the Constitutional ideal, falls by the wayside whenever the popular will wishes it. If the popularity of a proposal is all that is required to make action Constitutional, then why are the limits there at all?
BTW we could replace SS with a system of IRA's simply by leaving the deduction intact but allowing everyone to set up their own mutual fund IRA. Just think what that would do for the Capitalization of the country. What an economic expansion would follow! And, at later age, 65?, we would all be worth a great deal and could use the IRA as we see fit for medical needs (oops did we just solve another problem?) or for retirement income or other needs as WE see fit.
Sorry for the long diatribe but our conversation is getting interesting and enjoyable.
Liberal Reader| 7.29.09 @ 4:10PM
Al Adab --
Thanks for the kind words.
I won't deny that our government and our way of interpreting the Constitution has changed since Madison. But the Constitution does prevent us from making some changes: we can't, for example, re-institute slavery, which was permitted by the original Constitution but outlawed later.
I think that the Constitution does indicate that the government is empowered to create conditions in which citizens can flourish economically. This is precisely what makes the document the epitome of Liberalism (in the broadest possible sense).
The Common Welfare is greatly increased by, for example, plenty of access to fresh water, and by universal access to basic education. The government plays a strong role in assuring have these things.
Social Security and -- I think -- public health care also essentially creates economic opportunities that increase people overall mobility. It increases economic autonomy.
With these basics assured, people take economic risks (starting a business, moving to a new job) that might not otherwise take, improving the overall health of the economy. Families don't go bankrupt caring for a sick child or nursing Grandma, thus freeing them up to do other things -- starting a business, investing, etc. -- they would not otherwise be able to do.
None of this seems to do any violence to the spirit of the Constitution, and I don't see how it is prevented by the letter.
Marc Jeric| 7.29.09 @ 4:24PM
Pelosi - rich broad with a typical Mafia name;
Abu Hussein - a revolutionary marxist depending on his ACORN brownshirts;
We have here a deadly combination.
Richard Baker| 7.29.09 @ 4:37PM
Time for the George Washington Tyrant Removal method?
Liberal Reader| 7.29.09 @ 4:44PM
Jeric --
Pelosi has "a typical Mafia name"?
Oh, no. You're no bigot.
Yvonne Garner| 7.29.09 @ 5:24PM
Nancy Pelosie is the scum of the earth along with Obama and the rest of the Communist Democrats. They will lead the Americansthose dumb enough) right down the Primrose Path and you won't even know what is happening. They have been planning this tirade against the American people for a long time. Wake Up America, you are loosing your freedoms.
Al Adab| 7.29.09 @ 5:37PM
Lib Reader,
Liberalism in the classical sense, is what Conservatism strives to be. On the other hand Statists judge by results, realized of simply hoped for, in order to justify action. I am not accusing you of anything here.
Ends justify the means is a dangerous standard to use when our first concern is the Liberty of people not even their economic well being. that materialist standard while attractive, is a false one.
Our government was instigated to protect the Liberty of citizens not to gurantee any set of conditions, circumstances or results. Too much stress given to the General Welfare clause, which is simply the Preamble after all, and a reading of it limited to material well being simply misunderstands our history.
Iwill not disagree that for a long time now we have stressed the material over the immaterial Liberty, however that emphasis is misplaced. Material well being followed from the other and is its result not simply an end in itself.
People being ingenious it may be that Nationalisedf health care could create economic opportunity for entrepreneurs assuming they are favored by Government funders. However it is a risk with the attendant loss of Choice and Liberty I would not choose to make. Selling one's birthright for a bowl of pottage seems less than wise.
Have a good evening.
Will she get the flu?| 7.29.09 @ 6:45PM
Warning: Swine Flu Vaccine Coming Soon
Bill Haymin July 05, 2009By Dr Mercola
www.mercola.com
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/07/04/Warning-Swine-Flu-Vaccine-Coming-Soon.aspx
Specialty drug maker Baxter International Inc. says it's in "full scale" production of a swine flu vaccine. The vaccine will be commercially available in July.
The company made its announcement one day after the World Health Organization declared swine flu a global pandemic.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports 45 swine flu deaths nationwide.
The National Vaccine Information Center will hold its 4th conference in Washington DC October 2-4 of this year: http://www.nvic.org/Events/overview.aspx I will be speaking there as will some of the leading experts in vaccines in the world. Clearly the best vaccine conference in the world and it is only held every few years. If this is of any interest to you I would strongly encourage you to attend.
Sources:
Washington Post June 13, 2009
National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) June 18, 2009 http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2009/Swine-Flu-Vaccine--Will-We-Have-A-Choice--by-Barba.aspx
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
As I predicted in my first swine flu alert, http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/04/28/Swine-Flu.aspx a fast-tracked swine flu vaccine was promptly ordered, and will be available as early as July. Pharmaceutical giant Baxter claims it has patented technology that cuts the usual vaccine development time in half, to about 13 weeks instead of 26.
Although many governments and health organizations are probably celebrating this feat, you have no reason to join in the festivities. In fact, you have good reason to fear being exposed to this new swine flu vaccine more than the swine flu itself.
You are virtually guaranteed that no safety evaluations will be performed prior to the reckless unleashing of this untested vaccine.
And, making matters worse, your children may be the first guinea pigs in this public vaccine experiment against a previously unseen hybrid of human, bird and pig viruses.
School Children May Face Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccinations
I was hoping mandatory vaccinations would not happen, but it now appears as though that's exactly what we might be facing in the near future.
In the video above, Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2009/Swine-Flu-Vaccine--Will-We-Have-A-Choice--by-Barba.aspx warns that there is a campaign underway to turn schools into virtual vaccination clinics, and children will be the first to be injected with experimental swine flu vaccines.
Part of the reasoning for this is that it appears people over the age of 50 have more cross-reacting antibodies against the current swine flu virus, whereas children who have never been exposed to any of the strains before are more vulnerable.
The Post Gazette http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09156/975227-114.stm#ixzz0HahlAjDA&C recently reported experts saying, "if the new H1N1 flu comes back in force this fall, it might be better to vaccinate children first," because "in the early stages of the epidemic this spring, the new flu strain has caused "explosive outbreaks" among schoolchildren who have no immunity to it."
Again, it's troubling to see health officials using the term "explosive outbreaks" for a flu that in the vast majority of cases has been reported to be very mild.
Such inflammatory language is simply uncalled for.
Making matters worse, they want to target children who have underlying health problems, i.e. the most vulnerable of the group, which means any potential problems with this untested vaccine will have the capacity to do maximum damage.
Why are We Putting Up With the Same Mistakes Again?
The current evolution of public health decisions has disturbing similarities to previous swine flu vaccine catastrophes'. The last swine flu threat emerged in 1976, right before I entered medical school and I remember it very clearly. It resulted in the massive swine flu vaccine campaign.
However, within a few months, claims totaling $1.3 billion had been filed by victims who had suffered paralysis from the experimental vaccine. Several hundred people developed crippling Guillain-Barré Syndrome after their injections. Even healthy 20-year-olds ended up as paraplegics. The vaccine was also blamed for 25 deaths.
Meanwhile, the deadly swine flu pandemic itself NEVER materialized…
When a vaccine is developed in a mere 13 weeks, you can be virtually assured that it has NOT had the time to be tested in clinical trials to determine safety and effectiveness.
The way I see it, we now stand poised to experience a repeat of the last dangerous swine flu vaccine, which destroyed the lives of hundreds of healthy young boys and girls.
The real kicker, of course, is the fact that if the new vaccine turns out to be a killer, the pharmaceutical companies responsible have immunity from any lawsuits http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/01/03/vaccine-makers-getting-inoculated-from-lawsuits.aspx -- something I've also warned about before on numerous occasions.
Absolutely no one stands to be liable if this vaccine turns out to be a health disaster.
Governments Take Unnecessary "Code Red" Attitude to Flu Threat
The U.S. Congress handed over unprecedented power to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) after 9-11, and they're chomping at the bit to exercise it now that the World Health Organization (WHO) has upgraded the swine flu threat to Phase 6, Pandemic status.
But really, the word 'pandemic' only means that a new virus is spreading across the world. It says nothing about its level of physical danger.
So far, the swine flu has claimed a mere 332 lives WORLDWIDE http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_07_01a/en/index.html (as of July 1), 116 of the deaths occurred in Mexico.
To keep this in perspective, the regular flu (not the swine flu) has allegedly killed 13,000 in the U.S. since January, http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/04/28/US-seasonal-flu-kills-13000-since-Jan/UPI-64801240974841/ although there is strong support that these types of figures are grossly exaggerated to increase vaccine sales. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/10/30/flu-deaths.aspx However, the fact remains that the regular flu at this point in time is FAR more dangerous than the swine flu, and were you worried about the regular flu before the media started hyping up this exotic new "killer flu"?
Despite the indications that the swine flu is more a pandemic nuisance than a pandemic killer, the U.S. Congress responded to the CDC's public health emergency declaration by handing over one billion dollars to a group of drug companies, including Baxter, to fast track experimental swine flu vaccines that may include whole live, dead, or genetically engineered human and animal flu viruses.
Additionally, nearly all vaccines contain a variety of adjuvants – potentially dangerous chemicals used as preservatives and/or to boost the vaccine's potency by affecting your immune system, http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/immune_suppression.htm such as thimerosal. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/07/23/mercury-vaccines-part-eight.aspx
But the 'code red' attitude to this phantom threat doesn't end there.
Barbara Loe Fisher warns in her article, http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2009/Swine-Flu-Vaccine--Will-We-Have-A-Choice--by-Barba.aspx
Liberal Reader| 7.29.09 @ 7:19PM
Al Adab --
I agree with many of the things you say. You come to a very, very important point when you write that conservatism strives to be liberalism.
This point is lost on many people, but I think it's worth pointing out that liberalism also strives to be liberalism. (I'm not joking.)
The two tendencies in American political thought tend to emphasize different aspects of Liberalism proper -- and, fascinatingly, each rejects strongly aspects of Liberalism.
For example, the general trend of Liberalism has been toward great personal liberty -- especially in areas of human sexuality. But conservatives are distressed (with reason, in my view) by how laissez faire attitudes toward sex influence society -- or what the Brits might call social cohesion.
On the other hand, Republicans are far stronger in their concern about property rights and they tend to believe in market solutions much more fervently, although it is a myth propagated on the right that liberals don't think this way ever.
Liberals do adhere to Liberalism proper, however, in their view that government can be used to increase political and economic autonomy. (Conservatives once believed this, too, but those days seem gone forever.)
This is precisely how liberalism is DIFFERENT FROM socialism, and will continue to be so, no matter how many times pundits around here accuse liberals of being socialists.
Liberals seek to use government to create conditions in which more people can have more opportunities to engage in economically aspirational ways. Socialists seek material equality and economic stability. The two are very different.
You have a good evening as well.
Had Enough| 7.29.09 @ 8:00PM
Snoot full and PIGlosi is someone trying to be funny here.
Siegfried X| 7.29.09 @ 8:49PM
The problem with Nancy Pelosi is that she's a liberal, not that she uses her power. A good House Speaker does push back on the president, even a president in his party. (Newt Gingrich)
The problem is that most Republican politicians are sheeple who meekly follow the president, whether Democrat or Republican. Yes, it's good that some of them are conservatives, but it would be even better if they grew backbones.
And while I'm on the subject, it is actually good, not bad that Obama uses a teleprompter, just like President Reagan did. The failure was President Bush, for refusing to perform a critical function of his office, communication (bully pulpit).
BOBMONTGOMERY| 7.29.09 @ 9:07PM
Let us attempt to reconcile some things: When O went to the retreat and speechified the attendees on the necessary massive amount of the stimulus, he mocked those on the other side with the condescending, paternal "Why do you think it's called a stimulus?" Six months later, it STILL HAS NOT BEEN SPENT. The author is correct: the O does not care. He told someone he "has a gift". If he deigns to share it with the rabble, it's THEIR GAIN; if not, he can think about other things and they can eat cake. His egomania is NO SMALL THING.
ds80| 7.29.09 @ 9:39PM
Becky: "... raise you a Granholm, Levin, and Stabenow. "
Hmmm. Gotta play a Maryland Mikulski, Cardin, and Hoyer, and call.
Richard Baker| 7.29.09 @ 10:00PM
ds80:
I'm from Northern Virginia and I've been watching Mikulski for a long time. I've never seen a woman always angry everytime she speaks. That what she says is usually nonsensical is beside the point. Her constant rage says to me that this woman needs institutional care in the worst way. Something about the Marylanders, I guess.
jP| 7.29.09 @ 11:03PM
"The Constitution can be amended: the amendment authorizing the federal government to raise income taxes is AS constitutional as the 1st amendment. "
THE 16th Amdendment can be rescinded; the 1st Amendment cannot. LR, you really have much to learn. If not, your thoughts border on fascism.
JP| 7.29.09 @ 11:08PM
"Is Social Security then unconstitutional?
If so, then Republicans should have it in their platform, and I would love -- love -- to see the day that a Republican candidate for president goes to Florida on a campaign to abolish Social Security"
Who here ever said they think social security is unconstitutional? LR, how many more strawmen do you have?
BTW, there are 6 Dems in the Senate that wish to partially defund Medicare in order to make "ObamaCare" more affordable.
Catherine| 7.29.09 @ 11:54PM
Siegfried:
You omit one major factor.
Big Media bias.
Madeline| 7.29.09 @ 11:57PM
Melvin, Rocco and Becky--I have you soooo beat
Obama, Durbin, Burris,(Blago) Bobby Rush--need I continue there isn't enough room on this page--I'll stop.
Catherine| 7.30.09 @ 3:17AM
"It is a terrible thing to contemplate how few politicians are hanged" - GK Chesterton
Deborah D | 7.30.09 @ 5:59AM
From Walter Williams: "'If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.'" James Madison said and later added, "'With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.'" Thomas Jefferson said, "'Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.'” …
"The Constitution provides, through Article V, a means by which the Constitution can be altered… Has the Constitution been amended to permit Congress to manage the economy? … What we're witnessing today is nothing less than a massive escalation in White House and congressional thuggery. " at www.townhall.com
Tenn Slim| 7.30.09 @ 7:01AM
All
OBNA + Pelosi = Disaster, all agree on this. Take out Pelosi, you get another Wannabe, Leftist, and the beat goes on. Take out OBNA via 2012 and the replacement is again, controlled, monitored and deadly to the Republic.
The Equation needs to be altered.
USA Electorate + Knowledge + Involvement via Net sites + Local political insight = a Republic of and for the citizens.
We stand at a HWY 61 Cross road. The Devil in his fancy Legislation to fix all our woes has driven up. His offer to ride to our most inner desires is made. Our decision, ride, or walk. Ride or walk, soundssimple. HWY 61 Crossroads decisions are always thus. The easy ride to our demise or a hard walk down dusty, dirty, and ardourous roads.
Our Forebearers, chose to walk. We can do no less.
end
(Hwy 61 Blues and Fables History is source of metaphor).
Tenn Slim| 7.30.09 @ 7:10AM
All
Hold On. A new thought. BHO drifts etherally above the fray...Why is this... He follows the Saul ALinsky rules with an intense dedication. Albeit, modified by his own drives, but fiddling while the Dems burn... AKA Nero and Rome??
What is happening here, is this an aberrant or is this normal.? A President caught up in the throes of "being President", while espousing minute control over events, all seems a bit conflicting.
IF BHO IS following Saul, IF he is indeed micro managing Congress, IF he indeed is fiddling while Dems burn, then maybe he is Ceaser, not Nero....
end
new contractors | 7.30.09 @ 7:51AM
Glad I stumbled into this article! Finally, got what I was looking for to put on my school report... Thanks for sharing this. Please come visit my site Realtor Home Builders Directory when you got time
Al Adab| 7.30.09 @ 11:17AM
Deborah D,
Your comments above are well made. I saw the same Williams collumn on Townhall and found it on point.
The conversation with Lib Reader was interesting as it does demonstrate the differences in view the sides maintain.
JP, All the amendments including the " bill of rights" are subject to repeal. Watch out for the Second as that is the current target. SS is a trans-constitutional agency (as are many since the Congress/Executive abrogate their powers to them) and as such suspect. System could easily be replaced with individual IRA's kept through the payroll deduction but then belonging to the owner. Could be used at discretion for medical expenses, higher education and other long term needs after say age 60 to 65. Think what that would do for the capitalization of the country.
All in all our discussions today were enlightening. Much better than the all too common vitriol from both sides.
Richard Baker| 7.30.09 @ 2:58PM
Al Adab:
When someone declares/decides that the Constitution is something of which to be rid, vitiol will be the result. Or would you rather that we exercise the George Washington Tyrant Removal method?
Tim Shevlin| 7.30.09 @ 5:35PM
Don't blame the conservative minority in California for our state's mess, but do keep an eye on what happens, because CA is our national lab for studying a future where the receiver majority votes itself more of everything on the backs of the producer minority.
Nevada is looking better and better all the time, but darn it, they sent Harry Reid to Washington, so things can't all be good there either...
ONTIME| 7.30.09 @ 6:46PM
There are a lot of people speaking out but who is standing up to this abuse of power, so far Eric Holder has mamged to dodge or stop any attempts to get to this sham and even though thispretender is making more mistakes than ever and revealing his true nature, not enough of the Conservatives are making a dent...Get rid of the RINO's
Texas Dar| 7.30.09 @ 7:30PM
I have to agree.................................! That face of here's makes me sick.
And now I know why. Farra died and the Angel said what can I do for you............? Please save the children......... ( "POOF" ) MJ is dead, and all little children are a lot safer !
"WAIT" Her Nose, Yea, thats why I her face. She has a nose just like MJ's nose.
No wonder I hated her face when she got that Wooden-Hammer, to pound with.
Then when her and husband were found out about shitting on thier workers by passing a law that they dident have to pay the "New Mim. Wage"......................................
Burn in the FEMA Camp Furance............"BITCH" !
We The People better wake up before thAre is no reason "To Wake Up"..............................!
Texas Dar| 7.30.09 @ 7:34PM
Sick-&-tired of thier crap......? Go here. Were taking them down in 2010 !
Check-It-Out ! "Kick Them All Out.Com" The Real Answer-2-Change
Texas Dar| 7.30.09 @ 8:16PM
I have no way to put the link on here so you can hear it, BUT, my buddy Jim says it all..........Line 425.........and it is on the tape, I wish there was a way to get it to ya's. Tex
I've heard this but brushed it off as scare tactics from the conspirators, but if you read what I sent you listing a line account, line 425 does say you will be given counsel on assisted suicide. ( illegal in all but one state to date) I know that hundred of thousands have been spent to keep me alive. Was it worth it? I'm not too sure , but my children and grandchildren think so. Since I don't speak French, don't hold me to the correct spelling. But, Say la Ve . Or pray it doesn't pass. Jim
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire e-mail list of family and friends.
Senator Thompson on the Obama Health Care bill
If you want to know how the elderly would be treated under the Obama Health Care bill
July 25, 2009
Dear Henry,
Listen to former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson as he interviews someone who has read the Obama Health Care bill.
Click here to listen. (MP3 / M3U format)
Obama’s plan would deny medical care for the elderly. This interview is 8 minutes long. Please listen and then forward it to friends and family.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
Dave| 7.30.09 @ 9:44PM
Remember back in the 50's when the USSR said "we will bury you" ? OK Now we have the first Communist President and his henchmen or in this case henchwomen (Pelosi and Hillary) -
Welcome to the "United States of Socialist Republics" !
I didn't vote for this Commie - but a lot of stupid people in this Country did !
Richard Stith| 7.31.09 @ 11:30AM
This sort of blather has gone on since the founding of this this country ( Hamilton put up with it - tragically). Luckily those with the crazy ideas cannot use them, or are not in a position to use them . Were they running this country, death would be a consolation.
Otherwise I salute you. I am taken back by your incredible ability to compile accurate research.
Dkck
Pingback| 8.1.09 @ 2:28PM
Jack’s Newswatch » Blog Archive » Obama’s Amateurism and Incompetence (2) links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
jacky | 3.21.11 @ 3:40AM
Don't you see the absurdity?