Bernie Sanders Compares Global Warming Deniers to Holocaust Deniers

Bernie Sanders, the self-professed far left socialist from Vermont, compares global warming that’s right, I mean climate change, or whatever they have changed it to, to fit their agenda, deniers to Nazi sympathizers/Holocaust deniers.  The liberals are great at just cutting off debate by throwing carpet bombs at any opposition.  Slinging words like Nazi and racist as often as they do, has taken away from the seriousness of these words, and the American public is getting tired of it.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is comparing climate change skeptics to those who disregarded the Nazi threat to America in the 1930s, adding a strident rhetorical shot to the already volatile debate over climate change.

“It reminds me in some ways of the debate taking place in this country and around the world in the late 1930s,” said Sanders, perhaps the most liberal member of the Senate, during a Senate hearing Tuesday. “During that period of Nazism and fascism’s growth-a real danger to the United States and democratic countries around the world- there were people in this country and in the British parliament who said ‘don’t worry! Hitler’s not real! It’ll disappear!”

Correct me if I’m wrong Bernie, but wasn’t your far left idol, FDR, one of those individuals who ignored warnings about World War II until Pearl Harbor was hit? I also believe if there is anybody who is currently denying a war and acting like Neville Chamberlain it’s our very own President and many of you in Congress.

Sanders’ reference to the Nazi threat is sure to enrage Republicans who are already skeptical of the science behind climate change. But Sanders wasn’t the only one throwing bombs at a hearing that was ostensibly about the EPA’s fiscal 2011 budget. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has called global warming a “hoax,” is asking for an investigation into the science used in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the governing body on climate science.

Shouting down debate only proves that liberals are afraid that someone may find out that this was in fact the greatest hoax of our time; that their new beloved theology could be disproved by facts. The best form of democracy is healthy, civil debate, and I believe the American people want transparency on all issues that our government finds so important.

Holder the Hypocrite; Geneva Convention? What Geneva Convention?

Hypocrite, Eric Holder, in 2002, says the Gitmo terrorists aren’t covered under the Geneva Convention.  What article in the Geneva Convention you ask? Well, it’s Article IV and it goes a little something like this:

Click here for the Eyeblast video

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:  

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.  

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government [not a deity] or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. 

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. 

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: 

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. 

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention. 

In summary, these terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention because they are not normal soldiers, conducting war by international rules and guidelines.  They are not regularly uniformed armed forces that abide by this Convention or any other treaties. These terror cells do not act on the behalf of a government, but rather as underground radical factions set up to terrorize other cultures and individuals.  If they were uniformed soldiers, I would agree that they should be treated in a manner that abides by the Convention, however that has not, nor was it ever, the case. 

A lot of thought and legal drafting went into the appropriateness of interrogation techniques used against Al-Qaeda and the terrorists at Gitmo who initiated the attacks on 9/11.  I fail to see where the means of interrogation were unjust and completely inhumane? Waterboarding did not take place for every single prisoner and for those who were waterboarded, they could only be waterboarded so many times, while our men and women serving get waterboarded more often.  Doctors are also required to stand by during a waterboarding session.  As far as bugs in a corner or sleep deprivation – well that just reminds me of college, so what’s the big deal? Did these terrorists consider the lives or feelings of anybody before they attacked innocent civilians? I will never understand how the liberal mind works – and maybe that’s a good thing.

Oh, and it would be nice for all the Bush bashers and the liberal elite media to at least acknowledge the hypocrisy of Holder and this administration…

Crikey! The Government Is Monitoring Twitter & Facebook

*Banging head against the keyboard* – the government is monitoring the internet more now than ever.  If I wasn’t so politically charged, I probably wouldn’t care, nor would I really hear much about this, but much of my twitter and Facebook use is for political activism and pontificating on the issues of the day. If that gets me into trouble with the government, then so be it.  I’d rather get carted off for practicing my first amendment right of free speech than for doing something that was truly illegal like stealing my neighbor’s car. 

Both parties are at fault for this obvious breach of personal privacy, but I believe one could make the argument where there are certain circumstances that warrant wire tapping or other similar techniques if it saves lives and stops terrorism.  However, the slippery slope is easily becoming not just a theory, but a reality.  I do not see the need to monitor Facebook or twitter.  These are mainly tools used by citizens to get short points across that consist of 140 characters.  Some people tweet articles, some tweet opinions, some tweet their daily activities, while others tweet photos – why should that be monitored by the government?  Does the government seriously care that I just got back in touch with Sally Muckenfuch from 3rd grade? 

I don’t want to seem like a ‘Debbie Downer’ but would terrorists really be using twitter? “Just strapped a bomb onto my back, headed to airport, can’t wait for virgins.” I am not naive, either, and believe that anything could be used for the wrong purpose, but twitter just doesn’t seem like the place to strategize and plan an attack.  Information can definitely be sent out to meet up, but whole terror plots are difficult to type in 140 characters or less, let alone hope that ADD riddled people already tweeting will follow.  Based on the latest NY Times editorial, however, that is not the intent of the government’s monitor at all though:

The government is increasingly monitoring Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites for tax delinquents, copyright infringers and political protesters. A public interest group has filed a lawsuit to learn more about this monitoring, in the hope of starting a national discussion and modifying privacy laws as necessary for the online era.

Wired magazine reported in October:

America’s spy agencies want to read your blog posts, keep track of your Twitter updates — even check out your book reviews on Amazon.

In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the CIA and the wider intelligence community, is putting cash into Visible Technologies, a software firm that specializes in monitoring social media. It’s part of a larger movement within the spy services to get better at using ”open source intelligence” — information that’s publicly available, but often hidden in the flood of TV shows, newspaper articles, blog posts, online videos and radio reports generated every day.

This is what scares common sense independents about the government — we allow them to have more power than ever should have been necessary and our rights and personal freedoms continue to disappear right from under us because we allow them to be taken PROGRESSIVELY… funny how we appear to be turning into those much storied frogs that are unable to jump out of a pot of luke warm water after it has boiled.

And as Noel Sheppard of Newbusters points out, the fact that this isn’t being reported as much as it would be if a Republican was in office, is just another hypocritical chink in the liberal media’s armor:

So be careful with your next Tweet or Facebook status, for you never know who’s watching.

On the other hand, it will be interesting to see how Obama-loving media follow this story.

After all, the press were constantly bashing the Bush White House concerning electronic surveillance designed to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

The Times might be pleased with itself by publishing an editorial on this subject in its opinion section, but under the previous administration, this would have resulted in a front page story with thousands of words.

Green Oath Takers: Climate Scientists Pledge Allegiance to GloBULL Warming

“I pledge allegiance to global warming and the corruption for which it stands.  One scam; incomprehensible, with tyranny and poverty for all.” 

The London Times reports:

The Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furore over stolen e-mails.

More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.

One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

Funny, I think I might feel uncomfortable signing an oath to not speak ill of data I’m trying to research and prove as fact.  This is not a settled science as much as anybody would like to claim it is.  Theories exist and until they are proven as fact, they merely remain as theories – which is why science seems to take forever.  The idea that man can play such a huge role in something as large as our globe and the climate is sheer arrogance and egoism.  Climate change is a naturally occurring event that has ebbed and flowed for decades if not eons.  The more emails, the more proof, the more information that comes out on this hoax, the better for everybody.  That’s not to say that people who disagree do not believe in taking care of their environment, it just means that the skeptics have serious doubts as to the legitimacy of any type of man-made climate change.  I’d like to know how liberals can rail against big oil but seem to have no problem when their own side of the aisle is in the tank for Green Corporations and have much to gain from cap and tax – how is that any different?

Signing a pledge such as the one above seems to worsen the credibility and cause conflict of interest among people who became scientists to prove and disprove based on factual evidence.  What if, at some point, global warming is proven to be a hoax? Scientists should not be held down by some oath that forces them to hide significant information from the public.  There are other times in history when people had to pledge their allegiance to a cause, and that usually didn’t end very well…

The problem with the petition as a form is also a problem with the Met Office petition’s substance. The purpose of the petition is to shore up scientists’ authority by vouching for their integrity. But signing a loyalty oath under pressure from the government is itself a corrupt act. Anyone who signs this petition thereby raises doubts about his own integrity. And once again, the question arises: Why should any layman regard global warmism as credible when the “consensus” rests on political machinations, statistical tricks and efforts to suppress alternative hypotheses?

IMHO, any scientist who signs this petition has lost all credibility to be fair, reasonable, balanced, and able to report fact – not some fiction in which they signed onto.

Somebody Please Rebuke Pete Stark

Pete Stark was recently caught on tape being incredibly rude and condescending towards his constituents at a health care town hall held this weekend in California.  His reply to a constituent calling BS on the health care bill and treating Americans as ‘idiots’ was just the icing on the cake for the childish behavior being displayed by Democrats in the past couple of months: 

Pete Stark is notorious when it comes to being blunt and uncouth.  The double standards shown by the Liberals over the last few months, is what has my panties in a twist.  I would like for just one Democrat or one Liberal to admit that there are double standards and that much of their whining about protests, senators calling the president a liar, and fear mongering, is and has been done by those on the political side of the spectrum who now control the legislative and executive branches.  It would seem to Liberals that calling somebody out for lying is worse than actually lying under oath and committing the actual act, i.e. Bill Clinton.  In a recent post I used two examples from State of the Union addresses where Bush was Boo’ed and interrupted with raucous applause regarding social security obstructionism.  However, if we are to get specific on the House rules, these technically do not constitute a rebuke or violate those rules.  Knowing the sheer hate launched at president Bush over the last 8 years there had to be at least one Democrat who called him a liar on the House Floor and in fact there was – Pete Stark: 

Heaven forbid there is any type of consistency across both sides of the aisle.  Nope, the childish Democrats currently holding seats in Congress are acting like kindergartners and wasting taxpayer money to pass a resolution to rebuke Joe Wilson.  It should be noted that 7 Republicans voted against their Congressman and 12 Democrats actually voted with Joe Wilson.  Kudos to those Democrats who believed this was a waste of time and energy and to the 7, watch out in 2010!  Here’s the list: 

7 Republicans

Joseph Cao (La.)

Jo Ann Emerson (Mo.)

Jeff  Flake (Az.)

Bob Inglis (S.C.)

Walter Jones (N.C.)

Thomas Petri (Wisc.)

Dana Rohrabacher (Ca.) 

12 Democrats

Michael Arcuri (N.Y.)

William Delahunt (Mass.)

Gabrielle Giffords (Az.)

Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.)

Paul Hodes (N.H.)

Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)

Daniel Maffei (N.Y.)

Eric Massa (N.Y.)

Jim McDermott (Wash.)

Gwen Moore (Wisc.)

Gene Taylor (Miss.)

Harry Teague (N.M.) 

This entire debacle regarding Wilson is dishonest to the core and is merely being done to distract the American public from the health care debate.  Wake up and stop being so partisan – start calling a spade a spade, and admit to the hypocrisy: That’s all I ask!

Support Joe Wilson here.

Democrats: “Who’s Crying Now?”

I have Journey’s song playing in my head after Joe Wilson’s outburst Wednesday night.  Joe Wilson exclaimed “You Lie!” regarding President Obama’s assertion that illegal aliens would not be covered in any health care legislation, however, under all but one version of the health care bills, illegal aliens would in fact be allowed to partake in the system (no proof of documentation required).

This is something that was discovered several weeks ago by those citizens who actually took the time to read through the bills as they became available to the public.  There were other provisions in the draft legislation that also raised various red flags. 

The AP, of all publications, ran a mostly objective fact check on the President’s speech and found that he most certainly lied regarding that issue as well as various others.   

People could argue day and night over the issue of right and wrong and the appropriateness of Joe Wilson’s remarks.  There will always be those who agree with the timing of his remark and those who do not.  It’s just that simple.  Don’t cloud the issue of health care by demonizing a politician and distracting the American public when plenty of politicians have done the same thing in other forums.

I find it incredibly hypocritical to hear President Obama call Sarah Palin a liar, because she made complete sense in her recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, continue to blame Bush for everything, and state that Republicans do not have solutions, but feign outrage when somebody shouts out at a specific part of legislation that has been blatantly falsified, and all hell breaks loose. 

I also find it funny that during various State of the Union addresses by then President Bush, the Democrats would interrupt him as a raucous crowd, applauding their own social security obstructionism:  

2005:

2006:

 

(H/T Gateway Pundit)

I have to wonder in wild amazement how Democrats can be so blind to their history of doing the same things that they get so riled up about.  I realize that there are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle, but give it a rest.  How many times did specific liberal politicians give an interview during Bush’s term in office stating that he was a liar?  How many times did Democrats like Harry Reid make disparaging remarks about the support of our troops by stating that the War was lost?  What about Nancy Pelosi’s recent CIA accusation, where she called them liars?  I could go on, but I’ll leave it there.  The selective outrage of the liberal wing of the Democrat party is astounding, if not so pathetic.

An Inconvenient Health Care Truth For Media Conveniently Afraid Of Statistics

The media during Bush’s 8 years certainly was not afraid to pull out any statistics that would discredit Republicans or the administration.  One of their favorite statistics was the number of deaths during the Iraq War. 

However, now that there are wars still being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, the media has conveniently left that tiny issue to the way-side.  The only individual who still has her principles is Cindy Sheehan.  I may not agree with Ms. Sheehan’s politics, but I can at least commend her for her consistency. (via the Examiner): 

After receiving the email, I asked Sheehan to give me a call, so I could verify that the note in fact came from her.  She did, and we discussed her plans to protest next week in Martha’s Vineyard, where President Obama will be vacationing.  “I think people are starting to wake up to the fact that even if they supported Obama, he doesn’t represent much change,” Sheehan said.  “There are people still out here who oppose the war and Obama’spolicies, but it seems like the big organizations with the big lists aren’t here.”

I asked Sheehanabout the fact that the press seems to have lost interest in her and her cause.  “It’s strange to me that you mention it,” she said.  “I haven’t stopped working.  I’ve been protesting every time I can, and it’s not covered.  But the one time I did get a lot of coverage was when I protested in front of George Bush’s house in Dallas in June.  I don’t know what to make of it.  Is the press having a honeymoon with Obama?  I know the Left is.”

I have more appreciation for those who stay true to their beliefs no matter what those beliefs are, rather than changing them based on whichever way the political wind is blowing, especially when your guy won the biggest office in the land. 

So I sit here scratching my head wondering why the media hasn’t reported the latest news coming out of Canada and their health care system?  The new president of the Canadian Medical Association states that Canada’s health care is imploding.  Canada has also encouraged its citizens to buy and use private insurance to ween them off of government-run health care. 

The former president of the Canadian Medical Association was on O’Reilly last night and confirmed the same thing.  Although O’Reilly, as usual, wasn’t letting him get his statements in completely, he intimated that there are not enough doctors able to cover the volume of people covered under their system.  This leads to rationing of care and increased costs to attempt to fund everyone.  Rationing is the only way to say you are covering everyone, and try to cut costs at the same time.

France also reported that it’s health care system is going bankrupt, nearly two weeks ago.  No mention of their single-payer system and the nightmare it created for the citizens of that country by the MSM.

The English system also has horrible statistics.  Their rate of survival for any cancer or serious illness is significantly worse than it is in the States.  The National Center for Policy Analysisalso conducted a study and concluded the NHS was putting the patient last.  If NHS was a business it would fail miserably based on its standard operating procedures and business practices that it chooses to implement.

The CBC has just released new statistics that show Americans’ life expentency is on the rise while deaths are not.  But I thought American health care was ranked last?  It’s amusing to hear liberals use the common argument that the US ranks 37th out of 37 countries when comparing their health care systems.  However, when you ask for the context of those statistics, since stats can be masterfully manipulated based on outside factors/variables used to conduct studies, it’s no wonder that the CATO Institute was able to debunk that ranking. 

Those who cite the WHO rankings typically present them as an objective measure of the relative performance of national health care systems. They are not. The WHO rankings depend crucially on a number of underlying assumptions–some of them logically incoherent, some characterized by substantial uncertainty, and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares. Changes in those underlying assumptions can radically alter the rankings.

[…]while the United States ranks 37th, there is no ranking for which both claims are true. Using OP, the United States does rank 37th. But while France is number 1 on OP, Canada is 30. Using OA, the United States ranks 15th, while France and Canada rank 6th and 7th, respectively. In neither ranking is the United States at 37 while France and Canada are in the top 10.

Which ranking is preferable? WHO presents the OP ranking as its bottom line on health system performance, on the grounds that OP represents the efficiency of each country’s health system. But for reasons to be discussed below, the OP ranking is even more misleading than the OA ranking. This paper focuses mainly on the OAranking; however, the main objections apply to both OP and OA.

But, as Newsbusters reports, the media has conveniently overlooked the story regarding Canadian health care, especially when early proponents of Universal health care, like Hillary touted the system as a model the US should use. 

One would think that the media would want to get all facts out to the public, and unfortunately, if some of those facts get in the way of what they idealistically felt was the answer, then so be it.  The people will be better off knowing the truth and making their decisions on health care from there.  It may also help certain representatives who are on the fence.  It’s scary to know that the media is willing to throw the country down the toilet and inevitably bankrupt the nation in order to reach their liberal ‘Utopia.’ 

Facts just seem to get in their way.

Another Obama Double-Cross, Media Cover-up: No Additional Social Security Money Until 2012

Par for the course I guess, but this is becoming quite a pattern with the Obama administration and the news media.  Obama has this strange habit of promising everybody the world, but once in power, takes it all back and simply does whatever he wants. 

The latest political promise, double-cross involves his base – a group that I would not want to upset.  Obama had promised to implement a payroll tax on those making over $250K/year, the people he calls millionaires and billionaires, to help pay for the ever depleting bucket of money in social security.  His base strongly approved of this pledge to uncap the taxing threshold – here is what he said:

Social Security is strong, but as more baby boomers retire, the long-term cash-flow needs to be addressed. We have to make sure Social Security is there for future generations…

Here’s where I would start. Right now, the Social Security payroll tax is capped. That means most middle-class families pay this tax on every dime they make, while millionaires and billionaires are only paying it on a very small percentage of their income. That’s why I think the best way forward is to first look to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like me pay a little bit more and people in need are protected. That way we can extend the promise of Social Security without shifting the burden on to seniors. And we should exempt anyone making under $250,000 from this increase so that the change doesn’t burden middle-class Americans. This means that 97% of Americans will see absolutely no change in their taxes under my plan – 97%…

This promise, via the Collins Report, has been taken back by Obama, and due to that fact alone, Obama is now pushing the burden onto seniors to pay for this debacle (another government-run system).

Citing a 2008 third quarter cost of living decline, Congress has voted no cost of living increase in next year’s Social Security checks for the first time since 1973.

The Democrats are pointing to their own prediction of a “… [steady] decline in consumer prices through the first three quarters of this year…” Based on this they claim to foresee no need for raises until possibly 2012.

Democrats ignore Consumer Price Index: hide behind flat Inflation

Obama’s base will suffer the most. While 80% of our big cities voted for Obama it’s apparent the elderly, both White and minority, will be asked to “balance the budget” by themselves. There might not be any inflation but the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has risen steadily since January, and people are living by the CPI not the rate of inflation.

Numbers show ignoring the CPI will crush elderly and minorities.

A little history:

Back in the 80’s, Congress changed the way that the CPI was applied to the Social Security COLA, with the express intention of limiting the COLA increase.  That same year, they voted themselves a raise.  The resulting rage among seniors was palpable.  This time around things could get interesting!

There are those who are stating this is old news, but it still begs the question, why is nobody in the media bringing up the fact that he has incessantly lied to those who elected him and the American public?  Yes, all politicians lie, but I’m not sure I have ever seen it to this extent – I know, I know, I’m young, but still…

The Health Care Hypocrisy Of The Left

Could this be the Obama administration’s Halliburton?  The left attacked Dick Cheney’s ties to Halliburton and it’s no contract awards.  David Axelrod’s situation with his firm AKPD appears to have similar issues regarding the current health care legislation.

Bloomberg broke the story:

Axelrod was president and sole shareholder of AKPD from 1985 until he sold his interest after Obama’s victory, government records show. The firm owes Axelrod $2 million, which it’s due to pay in installments beginning Dec. 31. Axelrod’s son, Michael, still works there. He didn’t return a phone call. The firm’s Web site continues to feature David Axelrod’s work on the Obama campaign.

While Hugh Hewitt followed up with further investigation into the matter:

The problem is that Axelrod’s former firm is currently receiving huge fees “from Healthy Economy Now, a coalition that includes the Washington-based Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA,” as well as AARP, the SEIU and other big players in the health care debate. 

IfAxelrod has been negotiating any part of any deal involving any of these players which are funneling money to the firm that owes him money, or if he is advising the president on the deals with any of these groups, that’s a conflict of interest.  Laundering the money through a “coalition” doesn’t remove the conflict much less the appearance of impropriety.  The coalition is in effect partially funding David Axelrod’s severance package though its members might have done so unknowingly.  These forthcoming payments to Axelrod are much more significant than the sort of “retained ties”  that Democrats blasted Dick Cheney for vis-a-vis Halliburton even though there was no high level negotiations between the vice president and his former company.

AKPD isn’t the only firm that is set to make windfall profits from a health care reform bill.  GMMB also worked for various Democrats, the DCCC, the DNC, and Obama’s campaign.

President Barak Obama’s push for a national health care overhaul is providing a financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected to the president and two top advisers.

Coalitions of interest groups running at least $24 million in pro-overhaul ads hired GMMB, which worked for Obama’s 2008 campaign and whose partners include a top Obamacampaign strategist. They also hired AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by David Axelrod, a top adviser to Obama’s campaign and now to the White House. AKPD did work for Obama’s campaign, and Axelrod’s son Michael and Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe work there.

[…]

“We are deeply honored to have been part of Barack Obama’s historic campaign to change America and the world,” GMMB says on its Web site. GMMB’s partners include Jim Margolis, a senior strategist for Obama’s presidential campaign.

Both GMMB and AKPD also have worked for Democrats this year. The Democratic National Committee paid AKPD at least $106,000 for polling, media production, communication consulting and travel costs from February through April. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee paid GMMB roughly $75,000 from February through June for ads. And GMMB took in at least $9,000 this year from Senate leader Reid’s political action committee for communications consulting.

This hypocrisy goes hand-in-hand with Obama’s latest back-door deal with the health care industry/PhRMA.  His deal was eerily similar to Bush’s drug deal which had the left screaming.  Weeks after this deal was made, those on the far left and the more progressive end of the spectrum finally admitted the story was true.  In fact the story was aired on Air America today of all places!

Unfortunately, this wouldn’t be new to Obama or any of his Chicago cronies, who act more like the mob than they do petty theft politicians.  After reading Michelle Malkin’s “Culture of Corruption,” I am still learning much more than I ever imagined based on their pay-to-play politics as usual, rampant double standards, lies, and fraud.  It’s as simple and basic as checking Michelle Obama’s progression through the ranks of her career as Obama moved up in state and eventually US politics. 

To make matters worse, House Democrats have decided to conduct a witch hunt against specific health insurance companies.  I do not believe that our constitution allows for witch hunts or going after a specific/select group.  This is a discriminatory attack to silence dissent and to get their way on health care when the session begins in September. 

Letters sent to 52 insurance companies by Democratic leaders demand extensive documents for an examination of ‘extensive compensation and other business practices in the health insurance industry.” The letters set a deadline of Sept. 14 for the documents.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, signed the three-page letter dated Monday.

An industry source replied when asked for comment: “This is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded fishing expedition designed to silence health plans.”

How is this legal?  Should I assume that because the House passed the cap on executive pay, which is an unconstitutional piece of legislation, although I do agree that some executive compensation is in fact superfluous and harmful, that they can nows conduct searches/investigations on any individual, any community, any genre of business?  I have an idea! If we are going to go after harmful business entities, why not conduct a witch hunt against Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, AIG, Citibank, Bank of America, Country Wide, Fannie & Freddie, GE, CLN, The unions, and the Federal Reserve.  Hell would freeze over for that to happen while the Democrats maintain a super majority, especially when Wall Streets gives almost 3x as much to Democrats as it does to Republicans. 

This all sounds eerily fascist, I hate to say that, but this is much worse than the Patriot Act folks – this is appalling.

Make That 2 Fake Doctors At Democrat Town Halls

We have another case of “I’m not a doctor, but I play one at town halls.”

Sheila Leavitt appeared at Barney Frank’s town hall yesterday, where the Associated Press article this morning claimed she was a physician. However, upon further investigation after the town hall had ended, a man who attended the event, looked into the Massachusetts database of doctors to find out whether or not this woman was in fact listed.  Lo and behold, there was no trace of either a Sheila Levitt or Leavitt as a practicing physician in the state. 

I’m tired of hearing about fake concern at town halls when average Americans attend after work or take a day off to be inside a forum to voice their opinions and concerns.  None of the people  I have met at any of the tea parties or town halls are paid, coerced, or bused to the event.  Is it so hard to believe that the real astroturf may come from the left more so than the right?  Which would explain why so many on the left believe this to be a fake movement.

During the town hall, Leavitt stated that she hoped reform would create a more even playing field regarding pay for primary care physicians as opposed to specialists who make more money.  The Associated Press picked up on this story and the fact that this woman also harped on those opposed to ObamaCare as using the “same talking points.”  I find it ironic because this woman sounds very similar to the ‘faux’ doctor at Sheila Jackson-Lee’s town hall, Roxana.  The Associated Press claimed this woman was a doctor from Newton, MA, but there is no record of her, and according to a freeper who also conducted an investigation of their own, via the AMA website/database, she does not exist.

The only references to Sheila Leavitt as a medical doctor I can find on Google (besides references to last night’s town hall) are self-references; where she identifies herself that way.  I could find no listing for a medical office belonging to Sheila Leavitt.  Physicians generally have offices where they practice medicine.

As far as I can tell, she is not listed as a licensed Physician at the Massachusetts State Medical Board web site.  Several “Leavitt”s are doctors in Massachusetts, but none are named “Sheila.”  Just for kicks I tried the Associated Press’ original misspelling of the name, “Levitt,” and also found no “Sheila” as a licensed doctor.

Note the update below, where a comment poster claiming to be Leavitt’s son claims she is a former physician.

Other references to Leavitt mention her full name and home town, but do not indicate that she is a medical doctor.  For example, I do find several references to a far-left agitator named Sheila Leavitt of Newton MA who turned a “grease car” into a rolling Bush protest with signs attacking his daughters, raises chickens, and advanced the weird conspiracy theory that the 2004 election was rigged in favor of George W. Bush.

This woman may not have personally claimed she was a doctor, but even so, this says more about the movement on the left and the real meaning of astroturf, as well as, the media lapdogs that so willingly follow Obama over a liberal cliff like little lemmings.