Bloodthirsty Liberal

How is this even legal?

In their latest effort to pass a health care bill by any means necessary, Democrats have struck a “tentative deal” with their big labor allies to exempt union benefits from a tax on high value health care plans, CongressDaily reports.

The idea itself is nothing new. Back in June, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus floated the idea of shielding union benefits from the new tax, but it was set aside. In September, President Obama declined to take a clear position on this so-called “carve out.” But now that the excise tax has become a sticking point in negotiations between the House and Senate — and one that threatens to cost Democrats union support for the bill — the exemption idea is evidently back in play.

If this policy is adopted, it would mean that there could be two Americans receiving the exact same benefits, but one American may be taxed and one wouldn’t, and the only difference would be one of them being a member of a union. This is unseemly and unfair, even by the standards of Obamacare. It has nothing to do with policy-making. It’s simply an outright bribe to a constituency that has contributed handily to Democratic campaigns.

Does this mean that two people earning the same amount of money, with equally expensive health care plans will be taxed differently if one is a union member and the other is not? Why, yes, that is what that means. The government cannot discriminate based on gender or religion or race or ethnicity, but they are perfectly free to discriminate based on membership in a privileged union. This is democracy?

- Aggie

Reason enough to vote for him.

- Aggie

All passengers arriving from “terror-prone” countries will receive a pat down

Is being terror prone akin to being accident prone? Is it racist, since what that means is that Muslims will receive far more intrusive pat downs that any other group? Most importantly, will the Left notice the difference between what Obama says and what Obama does?

All travelers flying into the U.S. from foreign countries will receive tightened random screening, and 100 percent of passengers from 14 terrorism-prone countries will be patted down and have their carry-ons searched, the Obama administration was notifying airlines on Sunday.

The more stringent Transportation Security Administration rules, to take effect at midnight, follow the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner headed into Detroit from Amsterdam.

“These are changes that weren’t widely in place for all carriers or countries on 12/24,” a senior administration official told POLITICO. “These are sustainable measures that are a significant enhancement of our security posture. TSA will continuously review these measures with our global aviation partners to ensure the highest levels of security.”

All passengers from countries on the State Department’s “State Sponsors of Terrorism” list – plus all passengers from other “countries of interest” such as Nigeria, Pakistan and Yemen — will receive “full body pat-down and physical inspection of property,” the official said.

The countries on the State Department list are Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. Other countries covered by the TSA directive include Afghanistan, Libya and Somalia. A complete list was not released.

A much higher percentage of all travelers from all foreign countries will receive such screening than is currently the case, the official said. “The screening “could also include explosive detection technology or advanced imaging technology where it’s available,” the official said.

Same boring question we always ask: What would the media say if the Bush administration had done this?

- Aggie

So argues the Obama administration over gay rights:

States that allow gay marriage cannot force the federal government to provide benefits to those couples, the Obama administration argued yesterday in court papers in a lawsuit by the State of Massachusetts. The Justice Department is at odds with Massachusetts - the first state to allow gay marriage - over a 1996 federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Massachusetts sued in July, saying that law is discriminatory and deprives gay couples in the state of some federal spousal benefits. The Obama administration agrees the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and wants it repealed, BUT says it has an obligation to defend laws enacted by Congress while they are on the books and can be reasonably defended.

I call BS. The laws also demand free and unfettered access to polling stations, but Eric Holder declined to prosecute the brothers from the New Black Panther Party who blocked entrances and menaced voters because… well, because he said so.

Now that I think about it, Obama has already spoken out against gay marriage, hasn’t he? So why should he support giving benefits to Adam and Steve now? Why should he repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, which he opposes, just because he’s the commander in chief of the armed forces, and can do so with the stroke of a pen? Maybe he needs months of meetings and strategy sessions before he can make up his mind.

And it is important to keep track of the results

During the campaign Barack Obama vowed he would be a different kind of leader who would move America beyond the “smallness of our politics.” That inspired promise was not an insignificant part of why he was elected last November.

In his inaugural address Obama told us that “the time has come to set aside childish things.” He promised to bring “an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.”

Not only has President Obama failed to live up to those promises so far, it appears that on more than a number of occasions he’s made a conscious decision to break them.

In the first nine months in office President Obama and/or members of his administration have accused doctors of performing unnecessary medical procedures for profit; demonized bond holders as “speculators;” produced a report suggesting military veterans are prone to becoming right wing extremists; attacked insurance companies and threatened them with legislative retribution; ridiculed talk show hosts and political commentators by name from the White House podium; dismissed and demeaned protesters and town hall attendees as either unauthentic or fringe characters; maligned a white police officer for arresting a black man without knowing the facts of the case; launched an orchestrated campaign to marginalize the country’s biggest pro-business group; and publicly declared war on a news organization.

Ah yes, but it is early in his first term. He ain’t done nuthin’ yet!

- Aggie

Obama administration “furious” with Israel

The U.S. administration is furious over Israeli incitement against President Barack Obama, Democratic congressmen close to Obama told an Israeli source who returned from a visit to Washington this week.

The congressmen even hinted that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been personally involved.

The source, who met in Washington with administration officials and members of Congress, told Haaretz he was stunned by the level of anger there over attempts to portray Obama to the American public as an enemy of Israel because of his efforts to restart peace talks and freeze settlement construction.

“There are people here who are playing with fire by damaging our relationship with the U.S.,” the source said.

Last month’s summit in New York between Obama, Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas also reduced Washington’s expectations of a speedy resumption of final-status talks between Israel and the PA. While U.S. envoy George Mitchell will meet Netanyahu again Friday, the meeting is not expected to resolve the crisis in Israeli-Palestinian relations.

They are furious because the Israeli media is simply reporting what the Obama administration is saying and doing. That is called reporting the news. If it wasn’t true, they could defend against it. Since it is true, all that is left is to become “furious”.

- Aggie

The recent Letterman mess bothers them

I am not a fan of Letterman, but, let’s see if we can construct of top ten list of serial abuses of women that NOW has ignored:

1. Were they bothered when he humiliated Sarah Palin’s 14 year old daughter, suggesting that she had had sex with a sports figure? Not so much.

2. And how about the rampant abuse of women in parts of the Muslim world? Do they talk about stoning women for “adultery” in Iran? No.

3. How about hanging gay women? Silent.

4. How about encouraging women who are unable to bear children to become suicide terrorists? Not a peep.

5. Surely they’ve written scathing reports on honor killings? You jest.

6. Well, do they object to forcing little girls to marry old men? Not that I’ve heard.

Six is enough. And no, none of the above abuses has risen to the level of pure outrage . But they are deeply disturbed by the Letterman announcement that he’d had sex with employees. They can relate to those women, you see. Those women look like them, earn like them, and probably think like them - at least in the minds of whomever is making policy decisions at NOW.

Speaking of which (7), did they go after Bill Clinton back in the day? I don’t remember it at all.

What losers and hypocrites these women are.

- Aggie

This is Joe Biden after the release of the 2007 report which claimed that Iran was not building a nuclear bomb.

Question: Remember how all the intelligence reports stated that Iraq had WMDs? And when we couldn’t find them, the Left said: Bush Lied, People Died? How can we forget? Well, apparently, Biden was lying, intentionally misleading the American people. According to the rules established by the Left just a few short years ago, false information, whether it is a result of malevolence or a mistake, is actually a lie.

Joe Biden is a liar.

Thanks for reader RB for showing us the video.

- Aggie

The Tiffany Network is looking pretty tarnished today.

First, the left one got blackened:

A New York court on Tuesday dismissed Dan Rather’s $70 million breach of contract lawsuit against CBS Corp., noting that the network continued to pay the anchor $6 million a year even after he left the evening news broadcast.

Rather sued CBS and its top executives in 2007, claiming he had been removed from his “CBS Evening News” anchor post over a report that examined President George W. Bush’s military service.

The Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court — New York’s trial-level court — said the complaint “must be dismissed in its entirety.”

As must Dan himself, and everything he says.

But for every left jab, there is usually a right cross:

“This morning, I did something I’ve never done in my life,” Letterman said on Thursday’s edition of CBS’ “Late Show.” “I had to go downtown and testify before a grand jury.”

As part of the testimony, Letterman admitted that he had engaged in sexual relationships with staff members.

“My response to that is, yes I have. Would it be embarrassing if it were made public? Perhaps it would,” Letterman said. “I feel like I need to protect these people — I need to certainly protect my family.”

Hey, maybe Leno has sex with animals, but I doubt it (though if it would make me any money to say so, I’d buy a megaphone).

I just wonder how hard we’re supposed to laugh at his next top-ten list about some politician’s sexual escapade—or over his next tasteless joke about an underage daughter of a Vice Presidential candidate getting knocked up by a baseball player. As we’re learning over the Polanski affair, the Left has a sliding moral scale.

Boy, this is just wrong as wrong can be:

The US Secret Service is trying to identify the people who launched an online poll at Facebook asking whether US President Barack Obama should be assassinated.

Facebook on Monday shut down the user-generated poll, which was titled “Should Obama be killed?” and offered answer choices of yes, no, maybe, and “If he cuts my health care.”

“Once we found out about it, we worked with Facebook to have it removed,” Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley told AFP.

“We are certainly investigating; just like we would with any threat case.”

More than 750 Facebook users had reportedly cast votes by the time the poll was yanked from the wildly popular online social networking community.

“This is sick and sad,” a Facebook user with the screen name Cocoa Fly said in a posting as the poll fueled passionate online exchanges at the website.

“All of this anti-Obama rage is pure racism.”

Very likely.

But then what was this?

Held up by a secret service bodyguard in his dying moments after being shot in the stomach, this is President Bush being assassinated.

Surrounded by a crowd of panicking onlookers, the American leader is pictured just seconds after being gunned down by a sniper following an anti-war demonstration.

But rather than a repeat of JFK’s shooting or Ronald Reagan’s attempted assassination, this shocking image is part of a new Channel Four show.

The dramatic scene, which has caused outrage among Americans, has been created by a British film company for a programme about the effect of the War On Terror.

…

This scene, which was created by putting the President’s face onto an actor with digital wizardry, shows him being gunned down just hours after driving past an anti-war demonstration while doing a talk in Chicago.

Let’s just say that one can wish the president dead by violent means—and still be pure of heart, racially speaking. Which is worthless.