Jackson Jambalaya

President Obama spoke yesterday at an AFL-CIO picnic about health-care reform. He spoke at great length about his opponents on the subject while predictably painting those who oppose the 1100-page so-called reform bill proposed by the left wing of his party as being against health care reform. He portrayed Republicans as heartless and greedy people who want American lacking health insurance to die and maintain the status quo. He even goes so far to ask - "Where is your solution to health reform?" then boldly declares that his opposition doesn't have any solutions. [You can view his speech here - go to about 2 minutes in the video to get to the aforementioned strawman.]

Once again, Mr. Obama is WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. The President is either clueless or being deliberately deceptive. I suspect it is the latter but this is what happens when one has the bully pulpit and no qualms about using it. You can label the opposition as the "Party of No" and no one in the media will dare question it.

Here are at least four plans proposed by members of the Senate which do not include a public option.

• S. 391 The Healthy Americans Act - Proposed by Senators Bennett (R-UT) and Wyden (D-OR).
• S. 1324 The Health Care Freedom Act - Proposed by Senator DeMint (R-SC).
• S. 1099 The Patients' Choice Act - Introduced by Senators Coburn (R-OK) and Burr (R-SC). This bill also includes support from members of the House.
• Coverage, Prevention, Reform (CPR) - A plan suggested by Senator Gregg (R-NH). [Note: At present, I found no legislation proposed by Gregg with this plan included.]

A staff source for the Senate Republican informed me Senators Hatch (R-UT), Kyl (R-AZ), Cornyn (R-TX), Ensign (R-NV), and Barrasso (R-WY) are working on another proposal. The plan has more state-based reform, which would encourage states to make needed reforms in a way that isn’t “one size fits all” currently favored by the Democrats. There are also several pieces of legislation in the House (drafted by The Republican Study Committee) that have been consolidated under the Empowering Patients First Act.

What's that? You had no idea there were all these proposals out there? Most people don't. The media and the Democrats have a strange way of sheltering us from the truth - for our own good, of course.

In the coming weeks (assuming legislation isn't passed quickly), I will attempt to break down each of the proposals and highlight things that will truly reform our nation's health care. In the meanwhile, I recommend watching some of the video clips from the Senate Doctors Show. Drs. Coburn and Barrasso talk with people in the medical industry (and the public) and listen to their concerns. It is very enlightening.

A big thanks to Kingfish for allowing me to share this with you here.

Cross-posted at my blog.

Click Here to Read More..

Warren Court was not radical enough with economic changes.

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issue of the redistribution of wealth."

Click Here to Read More..

Supporting evidence for video:

"A 55-year-old Wilmette man was charged Thursday with weapons violations after he shot and wounded a burglar in his home more than a week ago.
Hale DeMar, of 35 Linden Ave. in the north suburb, was charged with a misdemeanor for violating a state law that required firearm owners to have a valid Firearm Owner’s Identification card, Wilmette police Officer Roger Ockrim said in a news release. DeMar was also cited for violating a village code that prohibits possession of handguns in Wilmette, the release said. Violation of the ordinance is a petty offense carrying a maximum fine of $750 upon conviction." (WNBC Chicageaux)

A law was passed in the Illinois Legislature to prevent cities such as Wilmette from prosecuting homeowners who tried to defend their families from thugs breaking into their homes. The law, SB2165, "Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that it is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another. Effective immediately." Bill to Let Homeowners Defend Themselves

The bill passed 41-16. Obama voted against the bill. Obama's Vote Against the Right to Self Defense The bill was vetoed and Obama naturally did not even vote that day. Obama Skips a Vote, Again

Considering he told Georgia to show self-restraint when Russia attacked, perhaps one shouldn't be too surprised Obama expects families to stand by idly while they are raped, robbed, and murdered.

Click Here to Read More..

Conservatives and Republicans fear the Democrats will impose the Fairness Doctrine on talk radio if Obama wins in November. While they rightly worry about the Fairness Doctrine, they fail to pay attention to other plans the Democrats have for controlling the media.

Under the guise of improving diversity and attention to local affairs, Obama explicity states his goals in a 2007 press release after an FCC hearing in Chicago . Here are a sampling of reports:

"Obama Urges FCC to Reduce Length of TV Station Licenses
By Ira Teinowitz of TV Week September 21, 2007
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama is throwing out more hints that the Federal Communications Commission would have a somewhat different focus if he wins the election.
At Thursday night's FCC media ownership hearing in Chicago, an aide read a statement in which the Illinois senator complimented the FCC for holding the hearing but questioned some of the FCC's past focus on easing ownership rules.
Sen. Obama said the FCC should reduce the length of TV station licenses and get more input, more often, on how well stations are serving community needs.
"I believe that broadcaster license-renewal requests--the periodic review required to ensure that broadcasters are complying with their public-interest obligations to local communities for using the public spectrum--should require greater FCC scrutiny and public input and occur more frequently."......
"Instead of greater consolidation, I fully endorse the call for new rules promoting greater coverage of local issues and greater responsiveness of broadcasters to the communities they operate in.".....
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/reneaguilera/CWDT

The Broadcast Law Blog:"According to press reports, the statement expressed the candidate's positions favoring shorter license renewal terms for broadcasters so that they would be subject to more public scrutiny, as well as criticizing the FCC for allowing broadcast consolidation....."Broadcast Law Blog

Broadcast Engineering.com: "Obama called for “greater clarity” of broadcasters’ public-interest obligations. The Illinois senator said he supported new rules “promoting greater coverage of local issues and greater responsiveness of broadcasters to the communities they operate in.”
He also urged greater FCC scrutiny of broadcast station license renewals and more public input into the process..." Broadcastengineering.com

Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, easing restrictions on how many media outlets a corporation (or individual) could own in a particular market. There has been much debate over this law as most radio stations are now owned by only a few companies. Critics argue that such consolidation has stifled diversity in programming and ignored the needs of local communities. An earlier post, The Changing Face of Radio, discussed how consolidation has ruined the radio industry. However, the Democrats go past the goal of increasing competition and have made it clear they want to make it easier for the government to harass and control the media.

The Democrats advocate shortening the length of a broadcast license from its current term of eight years to one that is only two or three years, thus forcing the station to constantly worry about getting its license renewed by the government. The Democrats also have a few ideas of how to improve the so-called community focus of a station. The two Democrats on the FCC Board made the following recommendations, as reported in Broadcast & Cable:

The localism items proposed -- it established no final rules -- that broadcasters be required to better demonstrate their local programming service to the community at renewal time, including forming community advisory boards to help them determine programming of local import.

Specifically, the localism item looks at nine areas: 1) communications between the community and the station; 2. the nature and amount of local programming; 3. the nature and amount, specifically, of political programming; 4. underserved audiences, i.e. are the communities whose needs have not been addressed?; 5. disaster warnings and whether, say, there is someone physically at the station to relay them; 6. the relationship of network and affiliate, and whether that can an impediment to local decision-making (preemption of programming, content issues); 7. payola and sponsorship identification (radio pay-for-play rather than TV product integration); 8. the adequacy of license renewal procedures; and 9. additional spectrum allocations that might increase the diversity of voices.It is a laundry list that has broadcasters fearing the kind of regulatory heavy hand cable has long complained of from this commission.
Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein generally supported the localism initiatives but said they wished they had been final rules rather than proposals. They worried that the final rules might be watered down and were concerned about the commission's willingness to enforce them.
"We need to put meat in the sandwich we deliver," Adelstein said. "Why not a final order," Copps added, "rather than just good ideas?" He said he was skeptical but would work with the chairman to "try to move these things along.” http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6513849

Citizen Review Boards. The Democrats want to establish citizen review boards for tv and radio stations. One can only imagine the mischief this would create. What would be the criteria for appointing people to the board? Would a station criticize a government body, local or federal, if the allies of that government were on the board? Would there be a board for each station or just one for that community? What powers would such a review board have? Would local or federal governments appoint the members? How much weight would be given to its recommendations for the renewal of a license? If the license is renewed every three years, a station would be forced to become a trollop, trying to please the government in order to stay in business.

It is also telling that Democrats want to interfere in the relationship between the network and its affiliates, by advocating the government take control of a station's content away from its owners. The Democrats complain about stations ignoring "underserved audiences." How exactly does one determine what constitutes an "underserved audience"? Ratings? Sociological studies? Focus group polling? Such a vague goal is merely an excuse to give the government more control over content as some government official will determine what audience is "underserved" (after cooking the statistics to support the ruling) and issue a decree to the offending station to whom it will market its programming (CRA in Broadcasting anyone?).

The press has its freedoms because the Founding Fathers knew government needs a watchdog. The public has a right to information provided by a media free from any form of government influence if the government is truly to be for the people and by the people. What Obama and the Democrats desire is to shield themselves from media scrutiny under the masquerade of serving the community, a tactic used by most despots and tyrants. The public is harmed when the media is controlled by a few large corporations or the government, even in the age of the internet. While there may be some legitimate complaints about how media consolidation harms local communities, such concerns can be addressed by simply re-imposing some of the limits on ownership of media outlets in a market.

However, the Democrats desire to create their own version of Huey Long's Louisiana, seeking to create Community Review Boards, make the stations constantly plead for license renewals, give outside groups more power to veto said renewals, and dictate what the content should be, all under the guise of "protecting" the "underserved" and "the community". If a Republican government came up with these ideas, one can only imagine the shrieking and gnashing of teeth among the media that would occur. However, the media does not mind selling its soul as long as it serves The Cause. Huey P. Long took over the media in Louisiana while promising to "Share the Wealth". The Democrats intend to do the same while the media doesn't just sell them the rope but ties the noose for them as well.

Click Here to Read More..

Click Here to Read More..

Still trying to blame the Bush administration for the implosion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as Obama and his lackeys are? The right-wing rag The New York Times reported in 2002 the Bush administration tried to reform the agencies while placing them under more adult supervision.

'Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. ......
At the time (1992), the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families.....
The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products...... (We all know what happened because of this, don't we?)
Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.
Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.
''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Is any comment necessary?

Earlier posts:
Thinking of blaming Bush?:
http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2008/09/thinking-of-blaming-bush-for-fannie.html
McCain tried to reform Fannie Mae 3 years ago. Obama took $126,349 from Fannie Mae:
http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-tried-to-reform-fannie-mae-2.html
2006 OFHEO report warning of Fannie/Freddie abuses and reckless management:
http://www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/FNMSPECIALEXAM.PDF

Click Here to Read More..