Fox News and Obama as the Muslim Manchurian Candidate

Fox News and Obama as the Muslim Manchurian Candidate

June 08, 2009 12:28 pm ET by Eric Boehlert 

Just in case folks missed this Fox News clip from yesterday, it’s quite extraordinary and deserves a view, especially the part where Jim Pinkerton basically suggests that if Obama wins re-election, he’ll finally out himself as a Muslim.

I kid you not. That’s the premise Pinkerton is pushing on national television; that Obama kept his Muslim roots hidden during the campaign, but that signs of it are starting to show now, and when he’s safely elected he’ll finally feel comfortable practicing Islam out the open.

Behold the ‘mainstream’ conservative movement in America!

See the video

BTW, also in the clip, Cal Thomas declares that he’s embarrassed to say he’s a journalist because the press won’t question anything Obama does. Funny, we never thought of Thomas as a journalist in the first place; more like a human GOP talking point. And if Thomas can post all the columns he wrote between 2000 and 2008 that questioned anything Bush did, we’d sure like to give them a look.

Islam is the enemy of Western life as we know it.

Islam is the enemy of Western life as we know it.

Submitted by Matt Thomas (United States), May 15, 2004 at 05:44

Listen less to the media, but to what Israelis have to say about the conflict. They’re at the heart of it, their citizens are getting blown up in bus bombs, their sons and daughters rammed by “Palestinian” drivers, their families targeted and ambushed in their cars. Just look at Israel on a world map, it’s at the center of the globe.

If we modernists/westerners are honest with ourselves, we have to realize that this is a battle verses western democracy and Islamic theocracy. The Israelis are on the front lines of this battle, they know the enemy more than us.. so it’s wise to listen to what they have to say. We would be in the same situation if we were living there, simply because of our democratic way of life – which is completely contradictory to the tenets of Islam.

I have to say that a great majority of the millions of Muslims living in Europe especially are cause for great concern. European birthrate averages are 1.5 offspring per couple. Muslims, on the other hand usually have 3-5 children per couple. It will not take long before all of these immigrants (lax immigration!) displace the population and Muslims start taking positions in government. Fundamentalust Islam will begin to show it’s ugly influence over your children and grandchildren’s lives at that point, and it will be too late. Within another 20 years that given country will be fully Islamic. My prediction is that France will be the first to go down, followed by Belgium, then Denmark, Holland, Britain, etc.

They are using the freedoms of our western countries in a plot of what they call Umma, or “World of Islam”. It is their duty as Muslims, and Mohammed, said that the work is not complete until the world is converted and Muslim. Just look all of the Arab countries. Look at Somalia. Look at Sudan. That’s the result of Islamism. We do not want that.

Listen to our few Indian brothers on this forum who mentioned Kashmir. Where there is resistance to Islam, there is war. Islamic history is nothing but conquest and war! We cannot be duped and try to appease and be politically correct. Negotiation and legitimizing only seeks to embolden and strengthen the cause of these supposed “holy” warriors.

Modernity and Islam are simply not compatible, that is why this poses such a great threat. Muslims in great numbers, like another poster said, will not do anything when Militant Muslims in their communities start exercising force and coersion over non-Muslims. The ideal of Muslim brotherhood is very strong among Muslims, so therefore – even if Christians are getting their throats slit, the majority “moderates” will sit back and do nothing, not even offering condemnation of obvious crime.

I want this conflict to escalate, there’s no doubt that it will. Shouting peace and love will accomplish nothing. The wicked spirit of Islamism has a will and desire to subjugate all people’s under it. It is using both material from Judaism, Christianity and ancient myth. Remember – this “Muhammed” claimed to be a prophet. Prophets make prophecies about the future. Look in the Quran and try to find even 5. You won’t.. God wishes a fruitful, peaceful, and abundant life for all of us contrary to what Islam has shown itself to do to the parts of the world that follow it.

Their religion calls for them to be separated from what they call “kufar”, or unbelievers of Islam. Most of these people cannot even integrate with us as I’ve experienced myself. So why have we let them in by the millions?

Please educate yourself on all the interesting (and true!) facts about Islam, Muslims, “Palestine”, and otherwise. It’s a great resource for the average Joe wanting to realize just how much of a war is raging on.

Obama the impotent

Obama the impotent

The disappointment with Barack Obama is tangible – on climate change and financial reform Europe leads while the US lags

Besides the ongoing battle over healthcare, this week sees two showdowns between Europe and the US that will reveal further slippage in American global leadership. The first showdown comes today at a UN special session on climate change in New York City; the second will come at the end of the week at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, where America and Europe will butt heads over financial system reforms designed to ensure that the AIGs of the world can never again cause an economic collapse.

Europe has been increasingly critical of America’s failures to live up to its global responsibilities. The US is not only the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases but is by far the largest per capita emitter of carbon and other pollutants. China comes close to the US in terms of total carbon emissions, but it has four times more people, who each belch far less individually. Europe, while having much the same high living standard, has an “ecological footprint” that is only half of America’s, since Europe has taken leadership in implementing renewable technologies and conservation practices.

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama promised to reverse the Bush administration’s terrible ecological record. Yet so far the world has seen more symbolic gestures from the Obama administration than accomplishments. Its biggest achievement so far has been an example of disappointment. President Obama signed an executive order to increase US motor vehicle mileage standards – but only to a level that will push fuel efficiency by 2020 to a level that European and Japanese cars reached several years ago, and even China has already achieved.

Europe has announced donations of $2bn to $15bn a year for the next decade to help developing nations cope with climate warming, yet the Obama administration has not offered anything close to that amount. Europe also wants binding, near-term targets for developed nations, proposing a 20% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020, or 30% if everyone agrees. The Bush administration of course rejected such targets – but now it looks like the Obama administration is not willing to go any further. It has said such targets should be voluntary but verifiable.

With the US Senate is bogged down in the fight over reforming healthcare, American leaders have said that the senators might not move on climate legislation until 2010, well after the global climate change conference in Copenhagen in December. That drew a sharp response from John Bruton, head of the European Union delegation: “The United States is just one of the 190 countries coming to this conference,” Bruton said, “but the United States emits 25% of all the greenhouse gases that the conference is trying to reduce. I submit that asking an international conference to sit around looking out the window for months, while one chamber of the legislature of one country deals with its other business, is simply not a realistic political position.”

Even Europe’s conservative politicians, such as Connie Hedegaard, Denmark’s minister of climate and energy, are expressing impatience: “It’s rather crucial that the US can show a credible pathway,” Hedegaard said, pointing out that the US emits twice as much carbon dioxide per capita as Denmark, without gaining anything in improving its quality of life.

That’s the start of President Obama’s week. At the end of it, President Obama will appear at a meeting in Pittsburgh of the G20, a bloc of both developed and developing nations, representing 85% of the world’s economic output and most of its population. On the table will be what reforms to help avoiding a repetition of the financial panic and global economic collapse that is perceived as having originated on Wall Street. Despite immense, taxpayer-financed rescue packages needed to overcome the crisis, the financial sector in the US is rapidly returning to business as usual. Indeed, three US banks – Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan – which received some $45bn of bailout aid, each paid billions of dollars more in bonuses in 2009 than they earned in 2008.

Here again, Europe is leading, while the Obama administration is dragging its feet. Europe has proposed far-reaching reforms designed to impose new rules on executive pay and bonuses, requiring that banks link pay to long-term rather than short-term performance, and that they “claw back” any bonuses received in the face of losses. Europe wants a financial police force that has powers to slash payments where investments prove to have failed, and to force boardrooms to control levels of speculation. Europe also wants to block the exercising of stock options for set periods and expose top bank directors to penalties, following huge payouts to failed bank chiefs.

The Obama administration’s approach has been much more tepid, to say the least. The US financial industry, as expected, is fighting these reforms, but what do we make of a recent quote by President Obama questioning the need for supporting Europe’s proposals. “Why is it,” he asked during a recent interview, “that we’re going to cap executive compensation for Wall Street bankers but not Silicon Valley entrepreneurs or [American] football players?”

Besides the fact that President Obama was wrong – the National Football League does have salary restrictions for its players – Silicon Valley businesses and NFL quarterbacks don’t cause an economic collapse when they screw up. It’s very sobering that, if David Letterman read that quote on his TV show and asked his audience: “Who made this clueless statement, former President Bush or President Obama?” we know what the response would be. Or would have been.

In response to American foot-dragging, European leader Jean-Claude Juncker said Europe should act on the bonus issue “whether the Americans are with us or not.” He said that a Europe-only charge “will take on such force over time that the Americans will not be able to sit on the sidelines.”

Many leaders and supporters are beginning to wonder what is causing this growing gap between the Barack Obama that many people saw on the campaign trail, and the Obama they see in the White House? Beyond Obama’s oratorical skills, which excited not only American voters but people all over the world, he is mostly untested as a politician. His previous experience was only a few years in the US Senate and a few years more as a state senator. A sinking feeling is arising among many that President Obama may not be up to the task, that he may not possess the artful skills needed to accomplish even his own goals.

But it must be recognised that it’s not just Obama’s shortcomings that are causing the problem. The very structure of the American political system is at the heart of these failures. For example, thwarting Obama on a regular basis is an unrepresentative senate where “minority rule” prevails and undermines what a majority of the country may want. With two senators elected per state, regardless of population, California with more than 35 million people has the same number of senators as Wyoming with just half a million residents. This constitutional arrangement greatly favours low population states, many of which tend to be conservative, producing what one political analyst has called “a weighted vote for small-town whites in pickup trucks with gun racks.”

In addition, the senate’s use of that arcane rule known as the “filibuster” means you need 60 out of 100 votes to stop unlimited debate on a bill and move to a vote. A mere 41 senators, representing as little as 20% of the nation’s population, can stymie the other 80%. Given a vastly unrepresentative senate wielding its anti-majoritarian filibuster, it is hardly surprising that minority rule in the senate consistently undermines majority rule, whether on healthcare, financial industry reform, environmental legislation and many other policies.

Pile on to that an uncompetitive, winner-take-all electoral system, marinated in money and special interest influence, and the sclerotic US political scene is deeply troubling. None of these anti-democratic structural features are going away any time soon. Unless Barack Obama is able to demonstrate a better level of political skill than he has shown so far, everyone needs to fasten their seatbelts. The world is about to enter a challenging phase where the US – the undisputed leader of the free world for the past 60 years – is going to rapidly cede its place at the head of the line.

It appears that the wheels may be coming off the world’s post-war leader, and not even Barack Obama can stop it happening.



What It Will Do to Seniors

For more information, please visit:

Fact Sheet #31 June 15, 2009





Seniors Pay for It

• Cuts Medicare to Pay for New Public Plan: Some of the projected savings for financing Obama’s health agenda,

including the creation of a new public plan, would come by squeezing savings out of Medicare. At a time when

Medicare is dangerously close to bankruptcy, it is shortsighted to funnel funds into the creation of another

government-run program instead of shoring up Medicare.

• Undercuts Private Plan Options in Medicare: Another key element of Obama’s Medicare agenda is to chip

away at current government payments to highly popular Medicare Advantage plans. The program is popular

among seniors, especially those on a fixed income, because it offers an integrated benefit package that gives

better benefits and better value.

• Price Controls on Prescription Drugs: Under the guise of “negotiated prices,”

the Obama agenda also includes the imposition of a price-control regime on

the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The government doesn’t “negotiate”

prices; it fixes them. Ironically, this part of the Medicare program is the only

one that has shown budget savings over the past two years.

Seniors Lose Choice and Access

• Jeopardizes Access to Doctors: Medicare savings would largely result from a

ratcheting down of existing payment formulas and lowering reimbursements

to doctors and hospitals. Cutting reimbursements often encourages medical

professionals to increase their volume of services, resulting in higher program

costs, undermining the objectives of the original cuts. Cuts in reimbursement

also discourage doctors from seeing new Medicare patients.

• Millions of Seniors Could Lose Their Coverage: Today, one in five seniors is

enrolled in a Medicare Advantage private plan, including 40% of black seniors

and over 50% of Hispanic seniors. In spite of their growing popularity, key

congressional leaders oppose these private health plans and want to cut them.

• Limits Access and Choice to Prescription Drugs: Many supporters of government direct purchasing of

prescription drugs highlight Veterans Affairs (VA) as a model. As a matter of fact, one-third of veterans who had

been in the VA system actually paid to join Medicare Part D to get better access to needed prescription drugs.

Alternatives That Improve Medicare for Seniors

• First, Do No Harm: Congress should preserve the competitive private drug delivery system in Medicare Part D.

It should resist any efforts to undercut this competitive pricing for drugs that has yielded big savings for both

seniors and taxpayers. Moreover, they should not impose a price-controlled regime for prescription drug

coverage that limits access to a broad range of drugs available today.

• Increase Private Plan Options: While Medicare Advantage may need adjustment, it should be the base for a

truly competitive model, where government payment is tied to real market prices, not poorly targeted formulas.

• Establish a Premium Assistance Option: The first wave of 77 million baby boomers is about to hit the

Medicare program in three years. Instead of forcing these Americans to give up the coverage they have when

they turn 65, Congress should allow individuals to take their private coverage into retirement or choose a better

plan and offset the cost of their coverage with direct premium assistance.

The Truth about the Public Option–It’s a Trojan horse — just look at student loans.

September 22, 2009, 4:00 a.m.

The Truth about the Public Option
It’s a Trojan horse — just look at student loans.

By Stephen Spruiell

When will the press notice President Obama’s hypocrisy when it comes to the “public option”?

Speaking at a community college in Troy, N.Y., on Monday, Obama slammed the banking industry for opposing his education bill, which passed the House last week. The bill would change the way the government subsidizes student loans. Under current law, the federal government insures banks against losses on the fixed-rate student loans known as Stafford loans. The government also pays banks a subsidy on these loans to offset their capital costs. In addition, the government offers a “public option,” under which students can borrow directly from the government at the same rates.

This option has been available since 1993, but students and universities overwhelmingly prefer the banks: The government’s share of new federally backed loan originations peaked at 30 percent right after the direct-lending program was created and has fallen steadily to 20 percent since then.

Obama wants to change that by making the government the sole provider — the “single payer,” if you will — of all federally subsidized student loans. He couches this policy change as cutting off an “unwarranted subsidy for the big banks.” So far, however, the press has failed to make the connection between this rhetoric and Obama’s pitch for health-care reform. The changes he wants in health care would make the market for health insurance look a lot like the market for student loans.

If Obamacare were to become law, everyone would be required to purchase a health plan. Those who couldn’t afford one would get a subsidy. Obama also wants to create a government-run public option so that people could purchase health insurance directly from the government. He says this would promote competition and keep the private insurers honest — which is exactly how Democrats defended the public option in student loans when it was created.

So let’s compare: Obama’s health-care plan would create a subsidy for private health-insurance companies akin to the subsidy for banks that he now calls “unwarranted” — the only difference is that the health-insurance subsidy would be delivered indirectly, by requiring people to purchase care and then paying for those who can’t afford it. Obama’s health-care plan would also let employers and individuals choose between private insurance and a public option, akin to the one the Democrats set up for student loans in 1993.

Here’s the question the press should be asking: If Obama thinks this arrangement is such a wasteful and inefficient way to subsidize student loans, why does he want to make it the way we subsidize health insurance? First, Obama is right to point out that subsidizing student loans costs the government a lot of money. But cutting out the banks merely allows the government to use accounting gimmicks to hide the costs.

Meanwhile, the subsidies are captured by the universities in the form of ever-rising tuition. Whether the government insures banks against default or, as Obama’s bill would do, directly assumes that risk, students who might not be good candidates for college are nevertheless approved for large amounts of financing. The resulting increase in demand has driven the cost of higher education skyward; worse, it has encouraged students to take on enormous debt loads that, depending on their aptitudes, they might not be able to repay. This is one lesson we can draw from the world of student loans and apply to Obama’s health-care plan: Government subsidies drive costs up, not down.

Another, even more important lesson to be drawn is this: “Public options” are Trojan horses for nationalization. Obama’s position on the public option for student loans and his position on the public option for health insurance are directly at odds. Why won’t anyone in the press call him on it?

Stephen Spruiell is an NRO staff reporter.

National Review Online –

EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda

EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda

September 22nd, 2009

by Patrick Courrielche, Big Hollywood

President Obama with the NEA’s Yosi Sergant

Should the National Endowment for the Arts encourage artists to create art on issues being vehemently debated nationally?

That is the question that I set out to discuss a little over three weeks ago when I wrote an article on Big Hollywood entitled The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion?”

The question still requires debate but the facts do not.

The NEA and the White House did encourage a handpicked, pro-Obama arts group to address politically controversial issues under contentious national debate. That fact is irrefutable.

But some have claimed that the invite and passages, pulled from the conference call that inspired the article, were taken out of context. Context is what I intend to establish here.

Read More and listen to the audio tapes:

The Joker Working To Dictate Governorships, Senate Seats, Congressional Seats

The Joker Working To Dictate Governorships, Senate Seats, Congressional Seats

September 22nd, 2009 Posted By Pat Dollard.


New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The White House’s intervention in the race for New York governor is the latest evidence of how President Obama and his top advisers are taking an increasingly direct role in contests across the country, but their assertiveness has bruised some Democrats who suggest it could undercut Mr. Obama’s appeal with voters tired of partisan politics.

The overt involvement of Mr. Obama’s team in New York, where they have tried to ease Gov. David A. Paterson out of the race, has made clear that this is a White House willing to use its clout to help clear the field for favored Democratic candidates and to direct money and other resources in the way it thinks will most benefit the administration and help preserve the Democrats’ majority in Congress.

The president’s top strategists have recruited candidates — and nudged others to step aside — in races in Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. They said they intended to continue this practice heading into the 2010 midterm elections, as well as with an eye to the redistricting fights that will go on within states early in the next decade.

The intense involvement reflects the tactics and style of the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who helped Democrats win the House three years ago as chairman of the Congressional campaign committee.

While some party officials applaud the White House for its efforts — there is widespread concern among Democrats that the party could suffer if Mr. Paterson runs — the actions are drawing alarm from some Democrats who believe they cross a line and run contrary to Mr. Obama’s often-stated pledge to rise above partisan battles.

“The Democratic Party under Barack Obama did not come into office because of political calculation; it got there because of audacity,” said Representative Joe Sestak, a Pennsylvania Democrat who ignored White House efforts to urge him to stay out of a primary race against Senator Arlen Specter. “To be seen like you are selecting winners and losers in a party-boss way will breed some resentment, and in a longer term it won’t bode well.”

As Mr. Obama flew to New York on Monday, where he appeared briefly with Mr. Paterson, the White House played down any risks in becoming embroiled in state politics. “The hazards of the job,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary.

Karl Rove, the chief political adviser to President George W. Bush, also actively intervened in state races to make sure Republicans were fielding strong candidates. But Mr. Rove faulted this White House for what he described as its clumsy handling of the situation in New York.

“This was particularly ham-handed,” Mr. Rove said. “They shouldn’t have tried this unless they can make it happen. Even then, they should have acted in a way that was subtle, not messy and ugly.”

Democratic leaders in Congress described this White House as far more assertive than most in trying to shape the political field. “They are very engaged,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “They help with candidate recruitment. I talk to Rahm all the time.”

Administration officials denied that, saying they were being selective in which contests to become involved in, choosing races where Democrats were endangered, as in New York, or where they could help advance the president’s legislative agenda.

“The goal is not to be more involved or less involved,” Mr. Emanuel said Monday. “It is to produce a specific objective in specific situations.”

The president’s team intervenes for different reasons.

In Massachusetts, the White House is trying to ensure that the state legislature works quickly to resolve whether Gov. Deval Patrick will be given the power to appoint a replacement for Senator Edward M. Kennedy. That vote could be vital to passing a health plan in the Senate.

In Colorado, Mr. Obama has endorsed Senator Michael Bennet, a Democrat who was appointed to fill a vacancy. Mr. Bennet faces a primary challenger, Andrew Romanoff, a former speaker of the Colorado House, who many Democrats think could be the strongest candidate. But Mr. Bennet was assured that the White House would support him should he face a primary.

Mr. Romanoff said he was not deterred by the endorsement. “I haven’t met a single person who said: ‘Gosh that’s it. I’m going to give up my independent judgment and give my decision to the White House, ” he said.

In Pennsylvania, the White House has rallied behind Mr. Specter, a Republican-turned-Democrat, as he faces off in a Democratic primary against Mr. Sestak. The support from the president reflects a promise Democrats made to Mr. Specter earlier this year in persuading him to switch parties.

“An endorsement by the president is a tremendous boost,” Mr. Specter said. “He’s the captain of the team.”

More than anything, though, the interventions reflect a controlling style of this White House and of Mr. Emanuel, who employed similar hard-ball tactics to recruit candidates when he was running the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In addition to Mr. Emanuel, the White House political director, Patrick Gaspard, and deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, keep close watch on all political races.

Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said he thought the White House was acting correctly in trying to shape the outcome of races. But he suggested that Mr. Paterson could recover if the White House gave him time, and said the Obama team had not handled this case well.

“The president is the head of the party, and he has a right to express his opinion,” Mr. Rendell said. “The only thing I would have done differently is not let it become known. This can’t be helpful to the governor.”

The White House’s interest in trying to assure the election of Democrats to Congress reflects its own legislative agenda. But in going after governors, Mr. Rove argued, the concern is more about the president himself. In New York, for example, Democrats are concerned that should Mr. Paterson remain in the race, he would invite a challenge from Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York who ran for president in 2008 and might again.

“The only reason they are doing this in New York,” Mr. Rove said, “is to try to strangle a potential opponent in 2012.”

Yet Democratic governors can be more helpful for a White House than Democrats in Congress. Governors have control over state government and party organizations and tend to build up a network of contributors and supporters. And with redistricting under way across the country next year, the control of statehouses is more critical.

“President Obama is not only president of the country, but head of the Democratic Party,” said Doug Sosnik, who worked as a White House political director for President Bill Clinton. “The outcome of governor’s races in 2010 will have a huge impact on political power in the country for the next decade.”

Another Obama program caught in undercover sting– Take time to read this

Another Obama program caught in undercover sting

Obama’s Elusive Auto Insurance Analogy

Obama’s Elusive Auto Insurance Analogy

By C. Edmund Wright

Team Obama and the media continue to flail away at an auto insurance analogy in an attempt to sell Obama Care.  It is almost funny how they seem not to understand even the most basic concept of insurance.  Really guys, it’s so easy even a caveman can do it.

Perhaps we should show some compassion and give them a break on this.  After all, as good liberal elites they might live the limousine / Gulfstream life or the Seinfeld big city walk everywhere life.  Who needs auto insurance?  Hell, who needs autos?  As Senator Kennedy demonstrated, those things can only get you in trouble.


Somewhere along the line though, the D.C.-Manhattan liberal elites were told that the personal auto Neanderthal set in fly-over country is forced by law to have auto insuranceAhah!  A precedent for government mandated insurance.  Let’s run with it.


And they have tried to run with it.  Instead, they have come across as smug yet hopelessly out of touch with reality as they clumsily trotted out the idea that it’s not so bad or unusual for the nanny state to mandate insurance. Hey, we make you carry auto insurance. What’s the big deal?


Let’s start with the premise that government mandates auto insurance in the first place.


Government mandates only a portion of auto insurance.  The only auto insurance that is mandated is liability. You do not have to cover yourself or your stuff.   You simply have to cover everyone else against damages you and your vehicle might do to them or their stuff.


Now in this debt ridden society, this might come as a shock to many.  It has been drummed into us that we have to carry  “comprehensive and collision” insurance on our car when we buy, and many assume it is demanded by government.


Not so — but the discussion opens up some valid comparisons to health care.


Comp/collision is mandated by the owner of your vehicle, likely a bank or leasing company.  When you drive your 65 thousand dollar BMW off the lot after putting down your “first and last payment” of about 2 grand, someone else is on the hook for the other 63 K.


And that someone – bank or leasing company  — is who demands that you protect their collateral.  This is not a government mandate. It is part of your lease or loan agreement with the bank which is simply a contract made in what we used to call the “free enterprise system.”


After all, if you were to total that car two miles down the road, you are not the one to take the big financial hit. 


Thus if you own your vehicle free and clear, it is not mandated by any entity that you carry comp/collision.  You only have to carry the liability.


So relative to Obama’s case, only one portion of auto insurance is mandated by law and it is not the half that has anything to do with protecting the policy owner.  (Where is Roe v. Wade privacy when you need it?)


So half of Team Obama’s brilliant metaphor caves in right there.


And the other half — the liability half — does not apply to health insurance.  This analogy would only work if health insurance applied to us injuring or causing others to get sick.  Clearly that is not what health insurance does, thus wiping out the other half of the Obama analogy.


This does open up some valid and teachable correlations between auto and health however.  They just don’t work in favor of Obama Care.




With regard to your own vehicle: if you own it outright and it still has a lot of value, you likely will still choose to insure their vehicle.  The reason? It is good risk management and financial planning to pay a few hundred dollars to insure an asset that is worth tens of thousands, because to lose it would be devastating financially.  If the vehicle is not worth much — like say a clunker — it is not good risk management to insure it. 


What? You mean auto insurance is simply a kind of financial planning? I do.  Ditto health insurance. This is what all insurance is – financial planning by way of risk management.  It is not a right or a moral obligationIt is simply a way to infuse predictability into your cash flow equation.  OMG! I thought it was about compassion and children and working families and evil corporations and rights and hope and change and so on.


Nope.  Just cold analytical financial planning.  And if we would analyze our current debate through that prism, it becomes much easier to grasp — and the auto metaphor does indeed inform.


As a financial planning maneuver, it makes a lot of sense for you insure yourself against a dread disease that will wipe you out  (the way you insure an owned car that is worth a lot of money.)  We used to call this “major medical.” If you need the 6 or 7 figure heart or cancer treatment, the major medical kicks in and handles it.


Conversely, it is not good financial planning to burden your employer, insurance company, doctors, pharmacy and so on with so much paperwork that your 20 dollar prescription costs 150 dollars — most of which is to pay for that paperwork so you can get it for 10 dollars on your co-pay.  Yet we have come to believe that this is how health insurance should work.  Talk about voodoo economics!


It is also instructive to work the analogy backwards. Auto insurance would be totally screwed up if we did it the way we do health insurance.  That would make every oil change and tire rotation much more expensive and thus your auto insurance would be much more expensive too for the coverage you really need.


So the applicable analogy is this:  health insurance should work like auto insurance in that the coverage should only involve the major medical portion.  This is the portion where you might have some “liability” to others such that if you are rushed to the ER and get a few hundred thousand dollars worth of care — the costs will be shared by others who do pay for insurance or by the providers themselves.


Since we are already paying for that now, Team Obama could easily sell a practical plan to mandate that everyone carry some type of catastrophic coverage or prove that they can pay for any care they need themselves.   When you take out all the routine expenses, this coverage would not cost very much.


That is not what the pushers of Obama Care want, however.  They want us all to carry coverage that pays for routine visits and runny noses and stubbed toes and so on such that we are all subjects to a huge government bureaucracy and our freedoms are suffocated with paperwork.  And they are trying to sell it with the auto analogy.  It does not fly.


The government mandated portion of auto insurance does not cover tire changes and wiper fluid replacement and new floor mats – but you can bet that any mandated health care coverage will include just these type of routine issues.  


This should be turned around on Team Obama.  You want to use the auto example? Fine.  Just stick to the major medical expenses.  We refuse to pay for your new hubcaps and the paperwork to process the co pay.


This is so easy even a liberal can do it, no offense to cave men.  I can’t wait til they try the Homeowners insurance analogy.

Page Printed from: at September 22, 2009 – 09:46:42 AM EDT

U.S. ( Obama ) to push for new economic world order at G20

U.S. to push for new economic world order at G20

Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:19pm EDT

By Alister Bull

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States will urge world leaders this week to launch a new push in November to rebalance the world economy, but there are doubts national governments will bow to external advice.

A document outlining the U.S. position ahead of the September 24-25 Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh said exporters, which include China, Germany and Japan, should consume more, while debtors like the United States ought to boost savings.

“The world will face anemic growth if adjustments in one part of the global economy are not matched by offsetting adjustments in other parts,” said the document, which was obtained by Reuters on Monday.

The framework drafted by U.S. policy makers foresaw analysis of G20 members’ economic policies by the International Monetary Fund to figure out if they were consistent with better balanced growth.

“We call on our finance ministers to launch the new framework by November,” the document said, signaling a determined effort to maintain momentum for change created by last year’s global financial crisis.

The United States envisages the IMF playing a central role in a process of “mutual assessment” by making policy recommendations to the G20 every six months.

Finance ministers and central bankers from the G20 countries are due to meet November 7-8 in Scotland.

European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet said persuading Europe, the United States and China to accept IMF advice on economic policy may be difficult. In the past, many countries have ignored suggestions the IMF dished out in regular reviews.

Trichet told French newspaper Le Monde the G20 had made progress on reforms to make the financial system more stable after the crisis.

“The most difficult question is still open: Europe, America, China, are they ready to modify their macroeconomic policies in the future — by following the advice of the IMF and under pressure from their peers, for the common good, and world economic stability?” he said in the piece on Monday.

G7 sources told Reuters there was a renewed determination to cooperate because the crisis had driven home the interconnected nature of the global system. That said, governments would not allow themselves to be told what to do.

“We can’t get to a situation where any country is giving up its own decision-making,” said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Germany, a major exporter to the United States, was singled out on Sunday by U.S. President Barack Obama as a country that, like China, exports a lot but does not buy much back.

But a top European Union official said that the euro zone, where 16 countries share a common currency, had to act as a collective.

“It is difficult to think about one country without taking into consideration what is the impact in the euro area,” European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso told reporters in New York.

Taxpayer money to the tune of $5 trillion has been pumped into the world economy to keep it from seizing up since the beginning of the crisis last September.

G20 leaders will maintain that pace of stimulus while acknowledging that at some point it will have to be wound down, the document said.

But, mindful of how a disorderly rush to raise interest rates could roil world markets again, they will also ask finance ministers to thrash out a “transparent and credible” exit strategy.

There were no details of how to achieve this in practice, but the document echoed the caution of G20 finance ministers at their meeting in London earlier this month acknowledging the pace of change would vary by country.

Simon Johnson, a former chief economist at the IMF, warned there was a risk the Pittsburgh summit would be an empty public relations exercise.

“The point of the meetings is to try to reassure themselves and everyone else that they’re broadly on track and have a round of applause and some back patting,” he said.

But John Bruton, the EU ambassador to Washington, said it was important not to ignore the summit’s symbolic power.

“I think we’re seeing the beginning of a conversation between world leaders,” he told Reuters in an interview.

(Additional reporting by Anna Willard in Paris, Sumeet Desai in London, Leslie Wroughton and Emily Kaiser in Washington, Caren Bohan in Troy, Walter Brandimarte in New York and Darren Ennis in Brussels; Editing by Andrew Hay)