Why Obama, Pelosi, and Reid Won’t Quit Pushing Health Care Reform

Pajamas Media

The current push for government-run health care via the nuclear option and last week’s Blair House TV snooze-orama are clear demonstrations that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid share Vladimir Lenin’s tenacity to impose radical change where it’s not welcome — in fact, where there’s downright hostility to change by a solid majority of Americans.  And make no mistake, Lenin was first and foremost about the will to power.

Gale winds of public disapproval may be blowing against proposed government-run health care and its proponents, but Obama and congressional Democratic leaders plod forward with stolid determination, now extending by six weeks the time to work through an acceptable framework to pass so-called health care reform. If that extension fails to secure health care reform legislation, then these leaders may seek another extension, if possible, in an effort to wear down opposition to their designs.

Before liberals level charges of red-baiting, I’ll offer that the differences between Lenin and the Bolsheviks and Obama and left-wing Democrats are significant, many, and varied. Through skullduggery, battle, and blood, Lenin established a dictatorship of the proletariat, which history has amply shown was a thinly veiled dictatorship by Lenin and his Communist Party heirs.  There was nothing “soft” about Lenin’s tyranny or Stalin’s. The mass graves of tens of millions of victims bear mute testament to these despots’ infamy.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are decidedly pale reds, or as was said in an earlier generation, “pinkos.” But all three have grand ambitions, make no mistake, to achieve through imposition the social — or should it be said, socialist — democracy that lies with deadening weight across the width and breadth of Western Europe. These three Democratic leaders are working within our system of government to fundamentally alter government’s relationship to the people. If these three succeed, the American experiment in liberty will effectively end.

The president and the two congressional leaders are so blinded by their ideology, so bullheaded in accomplishing a radical transformation of health care, that they’ve discarded the common sense and instinct for self-preservation that usually governs politicians’ actions. Instead, this triumvirate makes rationalizations for support of a proposal that’s been DOA almost from its inception.

Complete Story:

The Obama Way: Bluster, Bully, Bribe

By Michelle Malkin

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |

The White House took great offense this week when conservatives suggested President Obama might be trading a judicial appointment for a wavering Democrat’s vote on his health care reform plan. “Absurd,” a miffed administration official told Politico.com. Wherever could the American people get such an impression? Let us count the ways.

On Wednesday, the very day Obama hosted 10 swing Democrats who had opposed the expansive health care takeover bill in November, the White House issued a press release trumpeting the nomination of Scott M. Matheson Jr. to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Matheson just happens to be the brother of Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah — one of the 10 Dems invited to sip wine and nosh on calorically correct appetizers with the arm-twister-in-chief.

The seat on the 10th Circuit has been vacant for nearly a year. When one of the judges, Michael McConnell, resigned to take a lucrative post at Stanford Law School last summer, Matheson — Rhodes Scholar, law school professor and dean — let the White House know right away he wanted the job. For nearly a year, there was no action.

Liberal groups have been complaining for months about the glacial pace of Obama’s judicial nominations — a predicament they blame not solely on obstructionist Republicans, but on Obama’s own team of incompetent, indecisive foot-draggers who put the issue at the bottom of their priority list. (It’s worth noting that Utah GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch supports Matheson’s candidacy.)

As the National Law Journal pointed out at the beginning of this year, “the Obama administration has been slower than the Bush administration was in sending judicial nominations to the Senate, submitting 12 circuit nominations last year compared with 28 for Bush in 2001. The White House last named a circuit nominee on Nov. 4.”

Now, out of nowhere, comes the announcement of Matheson’s nomination — in the heat of White House vote-grubbing to salvage the Democrats’ government health care designs? To quote Dana Carvey’s old Church Lady character on “Saturday Night Live”: How conveeenient.


Let us consider the possibility, for a brief moment, that this is all merely coincidence. Is the White House so fantastically blind and tone-deaf that it failed to detect the blood-red flags and blaring alarm bells that Scott Matheson’s judicial nomination would raise coming on the very day Obama was wooing his brother? Incorrigibly corrupt or incorrigibly stupid. Take your pick.

The perception of a judgeship-for-Obamacare-vote deal is, of course, horribly unfair to Matheson, who seems more than qualified for the position. But full blame for creating that unmistakable perception lies squarely at the feet of the rank opportunists in the White House, whose timing is worse than a broken metronome.

This debacle comes on the heels of damning disclosures about other possible White House bribery. Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania admitted to veteran Philly newsman Larry Kane that Team Obama dangled a “high-ranking” position in the administration if he dropped out of the Senate race and left incumbent Republican-turned-Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter alone.

In Colorado, the Denver Post reported last fall that Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina “offered specific suggestions” for an Obama administration job to far-left Democrat Andrew Romanoff if he withdrew his challenge to White House-backed incumbent Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet.

And earlier this month, The Washington Times noted that Mary Patrice Brown, the person assigned by the Justice Department to oversee an internal investigation into the shady dismissal of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation cases, is now “the leading candidate for a federal judgeship — for which she is being vetted by some of the same offices she supposedly is investigating.”

So, wherever did we get the impression that pay-for-play is the Obama way? Somewhere, Chicago corruptocrat Rod Blagojevich — who wanted to play, but didn’t get paid — is laughing bitterly.

Nancy Pelosi’s grip on House slips

Politico

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not accustomed to the word she’s been hearing far more frequently in recent days: “no.”

Over the past two weeks, Pelosi has faced a series of subtle but significant challenges to her authority — revolts from Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Blue Dog Coalition and politically vulnerable first- and second-term members.

The dynamic stems from an “every man for himself” attitude developing in the Democratic Caucus rather than a loss of respect for Pelosi, according to a senior Democratic aide. But it’s making Pelosi’s life — and efforts to maintain Democratic unity — harder.

And it’s noteworthy, in part, because Pelosi’s signature strength has been a firmer hand than past Democratic leaders — an aptitude for wielding raw power in a consensus-minded caucus.

But her inability — or unwillingness — to dictate when Rep. Charles Rangel would resign his Ways and Means Committee chairmanship and who would replace him is one sign that she is commanding the caucus with less authority.

Although he would give up his gavel the next day, Rangel defiantly pronounced he was still chairman after leaving a come-to-Jesus meeting last Tuesday night in Pelosi’s ceremonial office next to the House floor. Her first choice to succeed him, Pete Stark of California, was rejected by the Ways and Means Committee members, as was her plan to split power on the committee between Stark and Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan. Pelosi’s backers said that what she really wanted was to avoid a fight for the gavel — and that she succeeded by refusing to apply a heavy hand.

But a veteran Democratic lawmaker told POLITICO the denouement was “an indication that things aren’t all hunky-dory.”

That episode came immediately on the heels of Pelosi’s 180-degree turn on Rangel. After the ethics committee admonished him for breaking House gift rules, Pelosi issued a public message that she would stand by Rangel until the committee completed its look at other allegations against him.

“We’ll just see what happens next and what comes out of the ethics committee,” she said then.

But politically vulnerable Democrats sent a message right back: They would dump him if she didn’t.

Before leaders could gather last Tuesday to plan their week, politically imperiled Democratic lawmakers from around the country were making clear that they would vote with Republicans to strip Rangel of his chairmanship if Pelosi didn’t avert a floor vote by getting him to step down.

Even on legislative matters, Pelosi has been subject to low-grade insurrections. She was unable to send a $15 billion Senate-passed jobs bill directly to the president because members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the conservative Blue Dog Coalition and the Transportation Committee objected to some items that were in the bill and some that were absent.

CBC members said the measure shouldn’t even be called a “jobs bill” because, in their view, it would do little to create jobs.

Obama calls ‘entrepreneurship summit’ with Muslims

Breitbart

The White House on Friday announced a “summit on entrepreneurship” to build economic ties with the Islamic world, part of President Barack Obama’s outreach to Muslims.

The White House said it has invited participants from more than 40 countries over five continents for the April 26-27 conference in Washington.

“The summit will highlight the role entrepreneurship can play in addressing common challenges while building partnerships that will lead to greater opportunity abroad and at home,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Obama first spoke of the entrepreneurship conference in his signature June 4 speech in Cairo to the Islamic world.

In the closely watched address, Obama said the United States was seeking a “new beginning” with the Islamic world to rebuild relations that had sharply deteriorated over the past decade.

Obama promised at the time that he would convene a “presidential summit on entrepreneurship” by the end of 2009.

He said that the meeting would “identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

Source:

Obama conspiracy – It’s no longer just a theory

The Betrayal

by By Linda Bentley

A man who fails to register with SS before turning 26 may find that some doors are permanently closed

ARLINGTON, Va. – On Sept. 7, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama appeared on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” and stated, “I had to sign up for Selective Service (SS) when I graduated from high school … And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honorable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren’t engaged in active military conflict at that point. And so, it’s not an option that I ever decided to pursue.”

Some people did keep in mind that he graduated in 1979 and noted the registration requirement was suspended in April 1975 by President Gerald Ford and wasn’t reinstituted until 1980 by President Jimmy Carter in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The Military Selective Service Act required men born in the calendar year 1961 to register on any of the six days beginning Monday, July 28, 1980.

On Oct. 13, 2008, J. Stephen Coffman, a retired federal agent, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the SS for a copy of Obama’s SS registration form.

His FOIA request was processed on Oct. 29, 2008, two days after the SS claimed it was received.

Coffman received a copy of Obama’s registration form along with a copy of the computer inquiry screen, which showed an access date of Sept. 9, 2008, several weeks prior to Coffman’s request.

It was accompanied by a letter from Richard S. Flahavan, associate director for public affairs and intergovernmental affairs, who stated, “Also, the enclosed computer inquiry screen indicates that his registration number is 61-1125539-1, as previously provided to you.”

The computer printout shows a transaction date of Sept. 4, 1980 (the date Obama’s July 29, 1980 registration was entered into the system) with a last action date of Sept. 4, 1980, signifying nothing else had been received or entered since the original Sept. 4, 1980 registration form.

Coffman found it peculiar his request, according to the computer printout date, was processed on Sept. 9, 2008, several weeks prior to submitting his request.

Complete Story: