Obama presents his 11 page verison of Health care reform and Palin speaks out on his lack luster performance and plan.

The President has wrestled control of the health care debate away from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid by finally introducing his own plan.

Unfortunately, the White House’s proposal includes everything we found untenable about the old Senate bill – only this one is even more expensive!

This is what you might call putting “perfume on a pig.”

VIDEO: An 18 second demonstration of Obama digging in at the Health Care Summit.

You know, he could have turned his head or used a a handkerchief or something other than going prime time with this. We have a problem when we have a leader who can't even get this kind of decision right. A big deal? Of course not. But the symbolism is profound -- yet another moment of a leader, out of touch with the American populace, digging in without regard for public opinion as to his actions. One shutters to think of what might be his next faux pas.


VIDEO: Its "Ryan Time" at Midkjhnight Review. The first is Ryan at the Summit discussing true cost. The second is Ryan debating MSNBC last August.

We give you the C-SPAN video of Paul Ryan's explanation concerning the "cost curve" and the phony claims of Mr Obama and his Democrat Buds. C-SPAN's sound track is damage in a couple of places BUT this is well worth the time.

And there you have it - Ryan giving an indepth critic of Obama's fantasy numbers. While Obama's comments following Ryan's are not included, he had no specific rebuttal to the Congressman's presentation. Before this "Summit" was over, it was clear that the Liberals have planned to cram health care through Congress "no matter what" while the Republicans were/are willing to join the Democrats in incremental legislation against certain inequities of the current health care circumstance. In other words, the GOP is ready to work in a bipartisan manner to solve problems while the Democrat Liberals will only accept amendments to a plan they have already worked out in their 2400 paged Senate bill.

VIDEO: Paul Ryan debates the "news commentators" at MSNBC.

This discussion has current value because it is a debated between those who are so-called "news reporters" and Congressman Paul Ryan. The female contestant thinks it is "unAmerican" to oppose government controlled health care while Paul Ryan believes in "doing the right thing" which includes reading the bill and creating solutions that do not add to the national debt. This video takes just under 6 minutes and gives us a preview of the practical nature of the Republicans concern.


How did America grade Obama at the Summit? It did not like what it saw.It is becoming obvious that in Obama, we do not have a national leader.

What we have, here, is the first day of reporting with regard to the "enthusiasm" index for and against Mr. Obama's job performance. Currently, the single factor effecting his performance numbers is the Summit, of course. On the day of the Summit (Thursday the 25th), this Index stood at a -16. The following day, before any polling results, his Index numbers came in at a -15.

And then came today - the first day results could be reported - his "passion index" fell to a record -21.

What does this mean?

What we have, here (if this reporting represents a "trend" - one day of reporting is not a trend ) , is a first response to Obama's performance during the Health Care Summit - he stunk up the place.

We saw a GOP leadership that was well prepared, well spoken, respectful, persistent and -- at the right times -- effectively critical. CNN's David Gergen, an Obama supporter, told that network's viewers the GOP "had its best day in years."

An incomplete "minute count" gave 233 minutes to the Dems including 120 minutes for Obama versus 114 minutes allowed to the Republicans -- a pathetic performance if one grades simply on the basis of fairness and bipartisan participation. Understand that Obama controlled the flow of this Summit.

The Nation saw an Obama not prepared with the facts, corrected on several occasions by both GOP participants and members of his own staff. They say nearly 7 hours of an angry chairman, dismissive of his opposition, a man who failed in his stated effort of bring all views together.

Obama's position? "Here is our (2400 page) proposal. We will let you amend it but we will not allow you criticize it -- take it or leave it."

The Republican position? "Let's pass legislation on which we agree and here are a few areas upon which we might find consensus. "

While some observers argue that both sides lost ground in this meeting, Midknight Review emphatically disagrees. Beginning with Lamar Alexander's opening comments, the GOP put Obama on the defensive, something from which he could not recover.

Conclusion: for the first time during the 12 month course of this debate, the GOP was given a national platform to present their views and they did an excellent job in making their case. Secondly, the Nation saw an Obama who not only demagogued GOP time, he put his own party members on the shelf, taking more time to talk than either the Dems or the GOP. His justification? "I'm the president. I don't count my time." Maybe so - but the rest of the Nation did count his time. Finally, the Nation had not heard the GOP plan. That was "new" but the arguments of Obama and the Democrat was not. How many times have we heard Obama's argument? "Too many" is the correct answer --- jds.

FRIDAY THE 26 EDITION: This edition is all about Obama and the Summit but first - a little economic [bad] news.

Yesterday, Fed Chairman Bernanke spoke to a House panel as the Commerce Department reported new-home sales sank 11.2% to an annualized 309,000, the lowest since records began in 1963. Analysts expected a small gain to 354,000. That stepped up fears that the housing and broader economic revival could stall as the government and Fed end support ( a conclusion from Investors Daily).

Add to this the 493,000 new unemployment applications for the week, and you have a picture of an economy in free fall.

Too bad we do not have anyone at the helm who has a clue on how to deal with this. Understand, the American economy is a free-market economy. That is not simply a political statement, rather, it describes the principles upon which our economy works and progresses and grows and [even] fails. If we were a Communist country, maybe Obama's Marxist economics might work BUT to force an European style socialist approach to a free-market competitive system with a 200 year history is just plain stupid.
. .

After a full year of health care reform failure, Obama makes yet another threat !! And thus we have the end game of his Presidency.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

If you don't get this cartoon, the two walking away are the GOP and Ronald Reagan.

CNN reports Americans see the Feds as their enemy. Duh !!!!!

Is this where the enemy lives? A CNN poll suggests that most American's see the Feberal Government as their enemy. Read the following from CNN and remind yourself that these are the words of those reporters who once defended the Obama Administration -- jds

Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.

According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken - though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 12-15, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall survey.

A little comic relief from NewsBusters as if yesterday's Summit wasn't enough !!

A little humor from News Buster. org Some comic relief in the aftermath of a gathering in which the President of the United States of America ended yesterday's Summit by reminding us all that he won the election and to hell with all you people.

Just before Obama's Sham Summit - he gets a grade of C - . Who says polsters aren't fair minded ?

In sharp contrast to his self-assessment of a solid B+, Americans give President Obama a C grade for his overall performance for the first year of his term. However, he consistently gets lower grades on policy issues.

The president also fares poorly on domestic issues as compared to foreign affairs, showing particular weakness in economy-related issues.

These are the key findings from the latest IBD/TIPP poll of 923 Americans completed Jan. 9. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

What are the implications?

First, Democratic politicians misinterpreted Obama's victory in 2008 as a broad mandate for sweeping liberal policy, not realizing that expectations of Americans were far different. This puts Democrats seeking re-election this year in peril. Look no further than the generational races in New Jersey and Virginia and the close race fought in Massachusetts.

Second, due to the president's fading cache with the voters, Democratic politicians will have to stand on their own and cannot expect Obama to secure their re-election.

Third, his weakness in policy issues sets a downward trajectory of overall approval, and a significant reversal is not imminent especially on economy-related issues in a wobbly economy.


CNN reports only 25% of the people in their poll, taken yesterday, want the Dems version of health care. . . . . . . . 25% . Is no one listening ??

CNN Poll: Only 25% want Dems to pass their health bills....


We give you a 45 second video of a woman with no clue talking about a jobs market she does not believe in --- she's anti-capitalist, you know.

Pelosi corrects one made up number for another made up number - all of which has no basis in reality.

Indeed, if the health care reform bill from this Miarxist bunch of leaders passes, jobs will be created - thousands of tax collectors will be needed for the four years of tax collection that will be put into existence as a result of this bill . We used to call this taxation without representation.

Midknight Review gives you media's opinion on Mr. Obama's summit. Anybody still think he's a great leader of men ??

From MSNBC, a member of Obama's radical base:
"Are we on seven-second delay?"--Mark Halperin on Morning Joe, prefacing his criticism of Pres. Obama's performance at the health-care summit.

The Summit is in recess for an hour - here is Midknight Review's take on the morning session.

In spite of the truth of these headline,

'I don't count my time because I'm the President' -- Obama on why Dems have controlled more speaking time...
CLOCK... Democrats: 74 minutes; Republicans: 37 minutes... ,

things seem to be going well, especially for the GOP. Our Republican representatives have come to the meeting well prepared. As we listen, one wonders why this sort of thing was not scheduled last February (2008).

The discussion seems to have centered around the debate between solving all related problems at once, in a single bill, while the GOP is willing to move forward with anecdotal or incremental solutions, solving specific problems rather than ramming through a "comprehensive" bill that has failed over the course of the last 12 months.

Midknight Review is very pleased with the GOP response, believing that despite the difference in the time issue for each side, the GOP has made its points and held its own.

What is noteworthy from our point of view is this, the "debate" element of the discussion is Obama versus several members of the GOP contingent. It is obvious that Obama thinks he is the best qualified to defend the Democrat point of view - we would agree.

McCain offered criticism of the special deals. Obama responded with an insult, refusing to join McCain in this criticism. Obviously, Obama is fine with the notion of special deals and the purchase of votes. See you later.

Why the Health Care Summit? Why, it is all about winning and losing.

Last month, Obama was invited to the GOP Caucus Conference and took the opportunity, on camera, to insult, lecture and otherwise demagog his Republican opponents. He got a four day "bump" out of the ordeal and [slightly] energized his base. Apparently they [the base] like the tough talk of this Community Organizer in Chief. Obama's problem is this, his base is less than 19% of the population and he is not the only organizer in the game.

Midknight Review expects this mornings meeting to have a similar result as that of his GOP Conference appearance. Obama will get a "bump" out of this effort but nothing more.

He has made a fatal error, however. What will be "new" in this health care debate - as seen by the American voter - is the Republican Plan. If it is substantial and well presented, the GOP will come out the "winner." The talk has been, "The Republicans have no plan" in spite of the fact that a plan has been in existence since May/June of last year. After today, that criticism will have been effectively countered.

What he has missed in his strategy to gain the upper hand is the fact that he has given the GOP the national platform that has been denied them from the beginning of this health care ordeal.

As we have said, Obama is not the only organizer in the house. Think "Tea Party," "Conservative Grassroots Movement," 912 Project, GOP, Rush Limbaugh and his 20 million listeners, right wing Christian organizations, The Libertarian Party, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck with their 13 million listeners each, hundreds of bloggsters such as this editor and the huge network of conservative editorial pundits who publish each and everyday, most without pay.

Note: For the purposes of this article, we have just described "all of the above." Keep that in mind and keep reading.

This editor is 64 years old and is a part of a generation that has turned to Marxism for their answers. What is almost funny is this: this national battle has been brewing since our [the Baby Boomer's] college days, but has not come to a "head" until now -- when most of the working class of the Baby Boom Generation is retired and free to join in the conflict. While the Woodstock Druggies have long ago sobered up and moved into government leadership - something they use to hate - the other half of the Boomer Generation has retired and the war is on ---- the sober Woodstock Druggies versus the hard working taxpaying, freedom fighting Normal People.

News flash - it is beginning to look like the Normals are winning.

Whatever"bump" Obama gets out of this ridiculous Summit will be completely reversed by the concerted efforts of "all of the above. "

The GOP Conference episode was initially seen as a "win" for Obama. But this opinion was reversed within 6 days by "all of the above." Expect that to happen again and again, until Obama is gone from the American political scene. He is leaving the scene, not the Normal People. Believe it !!!!! ----- jds.

This morning's health care summit is nothing short of a monumental debate and nothing more. What is the truth of the Obama agenda? We have the video

From the mouth of the socialist leadership - their preference for a single-payer public option is made clear with this video docmentation of their agenda. Understand that "single-payer public option" is government control of the insurance/health care industry.

Midknight Review asks: Is Obama the man in charge of a concerted effort at transforming this country into a One World Player. Something IS wrong !!

Even before we throw in the Pepsi logo ( a huge contributor to the Obama campaign), one sees a rather alarming confluence of purpose in the three trademarks pictured in this post. The new logo for the Missile Defense Agency, which is part of the Defense Department, is on the left; ACORN's tie to Obama is clearly seen in their newly designed logo (minus the "Obamacorn" wording, of course ) and the official Obama logo on the right, when added to the first two trademarks, presents a picture that is of concern to this editor.

Our question is this: is the inlaying color scheme in many of the various trademarks and logo's coming onto the scene just an indication of a populace preference or is there more to what we see?

Midknight Review thinks the latter and here is why. Obama's talk of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America" is the single most unusual threat made by any elected Washington leader in modern times. Add to this, Obama's push for a civilian army (go to Organization for America to see what is happening in this regard) birthed from this quote taken from a July 2, 2008 speech:

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." (video of the speech is here and, as memory serves this editor, is located around the 16 minute mark). Read that comment a few times and come up with an innocuous meaning that is not "conspiratorial" to some degree ---- go ahead and make the effort.

Add to the above, Midknight Review's article documenting Obama's confiscation of 100 million tax dollars for the purpose of funding his youth army (read this article) and Michelle Obama's statement:

"Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation,"

and what do we have if not a very deliberate threat to Traditional America. Obama's ascension to power more than a year go, is nothing short of a soft coup and he is more the ideologue in this effort than many people suppose ---- jds.

Let's slow down on our condemnation of Scott Brown, shall we ?? Here's why:

GOP's Brown branded turncoat for jobs bill vote

That was the headline yesterday and Midknight Review thinks it is ridiculous. The man has cast three votes, one for the jobs bill and suddenly, he is a Progessive turncoat. Idiocy. Indeed, Brown may wind up being as liberal a Senator as Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe, but we know nothing of his voting trend with three votes - one of which conservatives disapprove. Even Rush Limbaugh argued for caution in making sweeping decisions about Scott Brown based upon this single vote. Understand that only 30 of the 41 Republican Senators voted against the bill. And the bill was a paltry $15 billion. Midknight Review does not support any spending as a result of new legislation. Six Republicans voted for the bill and 5 were nowhere to be found. And ALL Senators have taken advantage of earmark legislation . . . . . all. That being true, we could condemn any number of Republican Senators. So let's stop with the witch hunt and get on with the business of the conservative agenda allowing for differences of opinion along the way -- an angry jds.

Update: this morning, the Senate voted 70 to 28 to pass the so-called "jobs bill." 13 Republicans voted for the final version after the vote yesterday, to cut off debate and bring the bill to the floor for a final vote before the bill goes the House and then into the conference report process. In other words, the bill is a long way from passage into law. Brown has reserved the option to vote against this bill if it comes back from the House ladened with pork.

You must know that the press is busy trying to accentuate any and all divides within the GOP. If Scott Brown can be convinced that the GOP hates him, the media thinks he just might vote for Health Care. Make no mistake, this is part of the unfolding drama surrounding Scott Brown. Conservatives should not play that game.

Obama's Iran strategy is now being used in the Health Care Wars



Nearly 2 billion dollars so far is being spent to build two new embassies - Hey ! You voted for the guy, not us.

Obama is spending nearly $ 800 million for an Embassy in Pakistan and, now, another billion dollars for this Embassy in England.


Investors.com: Obama uses 100 billion in taxpayer dollars to fund the training of youth in his civilian army

Phyllis Schlafly writes for Investors.com

The following written by Schlafly

President Obama's budget has added more than $100 billion in federal taxpayers' money to what is called "education," so that means it will be spent by alumni of the Saul Alinsky school of radical community organizing and/or the Chicago Democratic machine. We're indebted to Pamela Geller of AtlasShrugs.com for exposing the shocking use of some of these funds.

Obama is using the public schools to recruit a private army of high-schoolers to "build on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda." We now know Obama's "agenda" is to move the U.S. into European-style socialism.

Obama's Internet outreach during his campaign, Obama for America, has been renamed Organizing for America (OFA) in order to recruit students to join a cult of Obama and become activists for his goals.

Geller discovered that the teacher of an 11th-grade government class in Massillon, Ohio, passed out the sign-up sheet, headed with Obama's "O" logo, asking students to become interns for Organizing for America.

These interns will get an intensive nine-week training course using comprehensive lesson plans. Assigned readings include Saul Alinsky's notorious "Rules for Radicals," "Stir It Up: Lessons From Community Organizing and Advocacy" by left-wing activist Rinku Sen, and parts of "Dreams From My Father" dealing with Obama's days as a Chicago community organizer.

Republican students will be filtered out of the intern program by requiring applicants to answer questions that reveal their politics. One example: "What one issue facing our country is important to you and why?"

Geller said the purpose of this training to become Alinsky-style community organizers is, "of course, to elect more Democrats." The program is specifically geared to get the kids working in the 2010 elections.

The sign-up sheet for Organizing for America starts with this instruction: "Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America, is building on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda of change."

The application explains that this national internship program is "working to make the change we fought so hard for in 2008 a reality in 2010 and beyond."

This is not the first time Obama has tried to enlist schoolchildren into an Obama cult.

Last fall, the instructions mailed to every school by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan added a very political dimension to Obama's speech that was broadcast to public school children on Sept. 8.


Here's the skinny on the use of "reconciliation"

Click on cartoon to enlarge
Here is a list of the 19 times "reconciliation" has been used since its inception in 1980. Major legislation passes through the Senate with a "cloture" vote of 60 Senators. Eventually the Senate and House versions go into "conference committee" and are synthesized into a single piece of legislation. The conference report must be voted on, again with 60 votes in the Senate and a simple majority in the House -- 218 votes. On occasion, a bill passes through Congress and becomes law without all the details concerning the financing of the law. The process called "reconciliation" is used to add in or subtract from an existing law or program with regard to financial considerations and requires only 51 votes for passage. Issues that are passed under "reconciliation" are always attached to an existing bill or program and are always related to finances. If the 51 vote procedure were to be used, Health Care Reform would need to be attached to an existing bill - maybe the February Stimulus. By our count, there are only three of the 19 items on this list that should have received a "cloture" vote instead of "reconciliation" : Clinton's Balanced Budget Act, Clinton's Taxpayer Relief Act and Bush's College Cost Reduction Act.

By definition, "omnibus bills" amend existing legislation. On the chart below, we have 9 omnibus bills passing through Congress using reconciliation - 9 of the 19 times reconciliation has been used. Tax bills have received reconciliation passage because it can be said that they amend previous tax law. Nothing of the magnitude of the Health Care Reform bill has ever worked its way through Congress under reconciliation, Harry Reid's phony claims not withstanding.

Keep in mind that the Health Care Reform bill is a trillion dollar item. Nothing on our list is even remotely close to this sum. Further, nothing on this chart represents a take-over of a portion of the National economy and nothing on the chart grows government as does the Health Care bill . . . all reasons why the current Health Care Bill is not a candidate for reconciliation. Talk of reconciliation will remain nothing but talk. There is a reason why Reid has threatened the use of reconciliation four times over the course of the past 12 months but has not followed through on those threats -- because it is as wrong headed as it can possibly be -- jds.

Budget Reconciliation Bills Signed Into Law Since 1980. [Note: FoxNews reports 23 reconciliation votes since 1980]


Major Purposes

Change in Revenue

Change in Outlays

Net Effect on Deficit

Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980

First use of reconciliation process.

$29.2 billion

-$50.38 billion

-$79.58 billion; 1981-1985

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981

Made significant cuts to discretionary programs, including welfare and food stamps.

-$130 billion

-$130 billion; 1981-1984

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982

Reauthorized and made changes to food stamp program. Made changes to federal employee pay formula and to the farm support program.

-$13.3 billion

-$13.3 billion; 1983-1985

Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA)

Rescinded some provisions of the previous year's Kemp-Roth tax cuts.

$98.3 billion

-$17.5 billion

-$115.8 billion; 1983-1985

Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1983

Made changes to federal employee pay and retirement formulas.

-$8.2 billion

-$8.2 billion; 1984-1987

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985

Mandated an insurance program giving some employees the ability to continue health insurance coverage after leaving employment (COBRA) and amended the Internal Revenue Code to deny income tax deductions to employers for contributions to a group health plan unless such plan meets certain continuing coverage requirements.

$9 billion

-$15.9 billion

-$24.9 billion; 1986-1989

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986

Ordered the sale of Conrail. Made minor changes to Medicare hospital provisions.

$10.5 billion

-$6.5 billion

-$17.0 billion; 1987-1989

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987

Created federal standards for nursing homes under Medicare and expanded Medicaid eligibility

$23.2 billion

-$16.4 billion

-$39.6 billion; 1988-1989

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989

Made approximately $10 billion in spending cuts

$15.4 billion

-$23.77 billion

-$39.2 billion; 1990-1992

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990

Established Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) rules for the first time and implemented a range of tax increases

$137 billion

-$184 billion

-$236 billion; 1991-1995

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993

Created two new personal income tax rates and a new tax rate for corporations. The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed, and gas taxes were raised. The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was increased. The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended, and the earned income tax credit was expanded.

$250.1 billion

-$254.7 billion

-$504.8 billion; 1994-1998

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (1996)

Clinton's welfare reform bill

$1.9 billion

-$52.2 billion

-$54.1 billion; 1997-2002

Balanced Budget Act of 1997

Contained first portion of Clinton's plan to balance the federal budget by FY 2002. Created the Children's Health Insurance Program. Made changes to Medicare hospital payment policy.

$8.6 billion

-$118.6 billion

-$127.2 billion; 1998-2002

Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997

Clinton's tax cut package

-$88.9 billion

$11.5 billion

$100.4 billion; 1997-2002

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001

First Bush 43 tax cuts

-$512 billion

$40 billion

$552 billion; 2001-2006

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

Second Bush 43 tax cuts

-$314 billion

$29.5 billion

$342.9 billion; 2003-2008

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

Reduced Medicare and Medicaid spending, changed student loan formulas, and reauthorized the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.


-$39 billion

-$39 billion; 2006-2010

Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005

Extended several of the earlier Bush tax cuts, including the reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends and the alternative minimum tax (AMT) tax reduction.

-$70.0 billion


$70.0 billion; 2006-2010

College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007

$20 billion student aid reform package. Included grant increases, loan rate reductions, and created public service loan forgiveness program.


-$752 million

-$752 million; 2007-201


Here is a review of the Obama Health Care bill - nothing new and the public option IS in this ridiculous piece of legislation !!

We give our review and commentary of the Obama Health Care proposal. It is obvious that Obama is devoid of the ability to think originally - that all of the points below can be found in either the House or Senate proposals - that none of this represents a consensus opinion of either the Dems or the Republicans!!! In fact, there is no evidence to indicate that the GOP was even allowed to express an opinion.

Understand this: the claim that there are dozens of features in the health care bill that are supported by the GOP IS NOT EVIDENCE OF BIPARTISANSHIP. It just happens that the Dems are not totally wrong. You must know that the ideas in this bill supported by the GOP are not in the bill because of bipartisanship - heck, the GOP has been locked out of every draft meeting for this bill. At no time has the GOP been a part of the writing of the current proposition in either the House or the Senate. One would expect agreement in a bill that is 2074 long - that agreement does not make the bill "bipartisan." Get that through your head.

Look, if I am a tyrannical husband but let my wife go to the grocery store once in a while, something she thinks is necessary, does that liberty counter the claim that I am a tyrant ? Of course not. Obama is about to bring a bill to the table on February the 25th, lay it on the table and say, "Here is the bill. This is what I have decided needs to be done. I will not tolerate further delay. What do you want to add to this bill -- because we are going to run this through Congress whether you or your constituency want this bill or not. The time for action is now." Anyone think this sounds like "bipartisanship?"

And what is in this thing that is new and original with Obama? You decide for yourself.

1. 31 million will be insured leaving 18 uninsured.
2. Americans would pay a penalty if they refuse coverage.
3. Obama would give the Feds the power to reject insurance company rate hikes without regard to the reasonableness of the proposed increase, roll back premium prices (!) and force insurance companies to give rebates to consumers --- the notion that the public option is not in this bill is a lie. This feature, alone, gives the Federal Government the authority to control insurance companies .
4. Like the Senate bill, Obama would expand Medicaid for the poor. After 2017, this expansion would be covered primarily by the individual States. [which State is ready for that !!!?].
5. The Cadillac Tax (40% of the annual premiums of policies with eye and dental) remains in the bill but is moved to 2017 before the tax goes into effect. On a premium of $1000 (monthly) this would add another $400 to the monthly premium - anyone ready for that ?? Also, this particular tax is NOT assessed on auto and public works union folks. You, Mr Joe America, get to pay their "Cadillac" tax and why not ? You already pay their salary via confiscatory taxation and Obama is growing their numbers as fast as he can.
6. He would assess an initial $10 billion tax on drug companies - something they will counter with increased charges for their drug supplies and the consumer will pay all of this over-charge.
7. Obama will charge businesses that refuse to participate, companies of 50 or more employees, a penalty of $2000 per employee - up from the $750 penalty in the current Senate proposal.
8. Small businesses and the self-employed would choose their insurance coverage from purchasing pools called "exchanges," predetermined and assigned by the Federal Government - more of the public option that is "not" in this bill !!
9. The pro-abortion language of the Senate bill, rejected by 47 House Democrat members, remains in this bill.

So there you have it. This bill, the Obama bill, demonstrates Obama's thorough inability to be a leader of a people. Guaranteed - this will anger both Democrats and Republicans. Get ready for another 8 months of bickering and in-fighting. And Obama is to blame.

Review and commentary by editor of Midknight Review.

From the Conservative network that is the fellowship of friends of Midknight Reveiw - Abortion exposed !

Below is a brief taken from Conservative Firestorm (see our blog roll at top of page). Click on the headline below. It will take you to a letter written in protest to this disgusting approach to the defense of the killing of the defenseless unborn.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Pro-Abortion Group Claims, “We Believe That An Abortion Can Be An Act of Love” on New Web site Aimed to Glorify Abortion

Not a sermon, just an observation.

Bryan Kemper, President of Stand True Ministries, sent this to me via email, and I wanted to post it here for better exposure. There is a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. This letter shows you the horror of the latter.

Contact Bryan and let him know your thoughts! He's a solid guy, doing what no one else can do the way he does it.

Midknight Review believes the DOJ and Obama's Eric Holder are hopelessly conflicted as to radical Islam.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-I) recently questioned Eric Holder about an alarming conflict of interest circumstance that exists within the Department of Justice (DOJ). It turns out that Holder came to the DOJ from a firm (Covington and Burling) that specialized in the defense of a number of terrorists. Holder was involved in Clinton's decision to reduce the criminal sentences of 16 members of an organization that has been identified [by the FBI] as a terrorist organization [you might reference the Boricua Popular Army on this one]. He recently broke ranks with the FBI [once again] in giving an address to CAIR, a radicalized Muslim organization that is on a red flag list of our national intelligence organization. He called for and secured the end of prosecution for 3 convicted Black Muslims, charged and convicted in a voting precinct violence case last spring.

In addition to Holder's own "conflict of interest" issues as noted above, 9 other members of the DOJ have defended terrorists and were members of the Covington & Burling law firm. In fact, Holder has said there are "at least" nine such individuals, indicating, of course, there could be more. One would think 10 [counting Holder] would be enough.

Most disturbing in this story is the fact that the count of conflicted attorneys is the only bit information Holder was willing to give to Senator Grassley. Holder refused to

1) give the names of the nine he admitted were in the DOJ;

2) refused to offer information as to which terrorists were defended by these men;

3) refused to answer questions as to what these lawyers were currently doing as they continued their duties [whatever those are] within our Department of Justice.

One would think the Department of Justice belonged to the People, that we have a right to know the answer to these questions - apparently the People are way off based on this issue. Make no mistake, Holder is under the direct oversight of Mr. Obama - it is Obama's policy that is under the gun in this commentary. Just another reason why these people need to be gone as soon as possible --- jds.
. .

Midknight Review and Romney's endorsement of McCain. Palin did the same but we like one and not the other -- with good reason !!

Here is one of the most revealing headlines of the week (there are so many). Before you read on, understand that Midknight Review does not support "old blood" party leadership with regard to the GOP. The Grand Old Party had degenerated into the Good Old (boys) Party. They (the current GOP leadership) have moved to the Left for fear of losing elections and in the end, they have posted losing campaigns in 2004, 2006 and finally, the election debacle of 2008. We have Obama because no one in the Old Blood leadership of the GOP was listening to conservative membership. . . . . period. In 2006, the conservative majority that is the base of the GOP threatened to stay way from the polls. Some did and the GOP lost ground but remained "in power." And then came 2008. A very liberal John McCain won the GOP nomination and the conservative base stayed away in droves. Some estimate that 6 million conservatives refused to vote. This repentant editor voted for McCain. He will not justify that vote because he believes that it was a mistake. In the end, he has no excuse for not standing on principle. It will never happen again. If the Old Guard of the GOP remains "in charge," if Romney, for example, is the party's candidate, this editor will not vote for a presidential candidate. To do so would be to put off the time of reckoning for the GOP.

And with that, you have our frame of reference as we offer you the following headline and news clip:

Romney endorces McCain !!!!

February 23, 2010 - 12:24 PM | by: Jake Gibson

Mitt Romney has announced his endorsement of Republican Senator John McCain this morning. Sound familiar?

Romney last endorsed the Arizona senator, for commander in chief, in 2008. This after the two fought it out in a bruising GOP presidential primary. Now Senator John McCain is facing a Senatorial GOP primary challenge from conservative radio host and former Arizona congressman J.D. Hayworth.

Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts released a statement today, saying it would be “hard to imagine the United States Senate without John McCain, especially in the critical times we find ourselves in, with double-digit unemployment, a mountain of debt imperiling future generations and a global terrorist threat from jihadists bent on destroying our way of life.”

“Governor Romney is among the brightest and most dynamic leaders in our Party, and I am proud to have his support.” Said McCain. . . . FoxNews


Editor's follow-up: and why has Romney done this? Well, he is collecting support for a run at President. It is just that simple. With his enforcement, he has revealed a willingness to compromise his way to the top. That is no longer acceptable. This editor has joined the chorus of those who are calling for and demanding a sea-change in the course of the national politic. We have waited years for this to happen, to no avail. Now, the time for talk is over and the time for action is here.

Sarah Palin has also endorsed McCain. We give her a pass on this one. Why? Loyalty counts for something and McCain has supported Palin when members of his own staff have not. More than that, Palin was quite open in her disagreement with McCain on a number of issues. She remains herself in making this endorsement. There is no indication that she would be willing to support the Old Guard politic of the GOP. Her absence from the recent CPAC gathering is evidence of the separation that exists between Palin and the Old Guard. No such separation exists between Romney and McCain.


Midknight Reviews takes a look at the big four in conservative talk and bhy Levin does not like Beck.

Mark Levin, a Constitutional lawyer and one of the more popular conservative radio hosts, does not care for Glenn Beck ----- does not like his antics, does not care for Beck's relentless attack on the GOP. This editor listens to the radio programs of both men. In fact, we take time during each week to listen to each of the top four Conservative commentators on the radio, namely Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Levin.

Limbaugh and Hannity have stayed away from criticism of Beck. Levin is not so polite about the man. Here are his words on Beck as of Monday, the 22nd.

Note: Mark Levin is not the only conservative sounding an alarm on Beck. Bill Bennett, one of the fathers of the conservative grassroots movement, is also dismayed with some of Beck's rhetoric. Bennett was not happy with Beck's CPAC keynote speech.

Here is our overview of each of these pundits:

Rush Limbaugh: truly, the big dog of conservative talk and (in our opinion) conservative strategic thinking. He is no fan of John McCain and does not feature McCain as a guest. In fact, McCain is THE poster boy for all that is wrong with the GOP, according to Limbaugh. He speaks to 30 million different people during the course of a month, 4 to 5 million a day. Limbaugh has his rants - and they take a good amount of time when he gets on one. But, the fact remains that he covers more news stories than any of the remaining three. Limbaugh does not identify with the Libertarian Party, either for or against that Party. His concern is for the reconstitution of the GOP. Without Limbaugh, we might not have conservative talk, either on the radio or in FoxNews. Limbaugh is the single most important conservative voice in today's American politic.

Sean Hannity: Sean is a the bulldog in the crowd. He features bipartisan debate but the selection of those from the Left appearing on his show is somewhat fixed. If you listen to Hannity on a regular basis, you have heard his lists. They do change from time to time but he will not develop more than 5 or 6 lists in any given year. He is much more a than he admits and is the only of the four men who will host John McCain and give him rhetorical support. Of course he is critical of McCain on a number of issues, but does not share the same degree of angst with McCain as do his compadres. He is all about saving the GOP. He is most definitely not a Libertarian, although the conservative politic of the Libertarian Party is most agreeable to Hannity. He is no fan of Ron Paul. He is the most partisan of the four when it comes to Republican politics.

Mark Levin: on the radio, at least, Levin is the most aggressive of the four. If you do not agree with "Dr. Levin," you do not want to call his show. You will not last 10 seconds. He simply will not entertain liberal opinions on his show, believing that the purpose of liberalism is about the destruction of free market individualism and traditional Constitutional opinion. There are true conservatives and then there is the MSNBC radical. Nearly all liberals are in this last category. He knows more about the Constitution than any of the four and would be the guy standing on the front line of any war against enemies of the state. He is the only conservative radio voice openly critical of Beck. His concern with Beck is that he is fostering division. His radio rankings are not as strong as the remaining three, but strong nonetheless. He does not identify with the Libertarians and is much opposed to Ron Paul (as are Hannity and Limbaugh).

Glenn Beck: the rising star in the crowd. Since leaving the CNN network, his numbers have skyrocketed. Like Hannity, he has a daily one hour show on FoxNews and his own three hour radio show. His radio show is currently the #3 show on national radio and may be stronger than #2 Hannity at this writing. He has tied himself to the Tea Party Movement but is not the "father" of that movement. He is a fan of Ron Paul and is a avid Libertarian. He has no love for McCain and, like Levin and Limbaugh, sees McCain as the poster child of all that is wrong the the GOP. We see Beck as an extremely important conservative voice but our view of a "progressive" politician is not shaped by Beck's opinion. With Beck, if you act like a progressive on any level, you are a progressive. For example, he sees George Bush as an evil progressive because of G.W,'s growth of government. We emphatically disagree. To date, that is our only complaint of the man. Having said that, he is the best of the four at identifying the historicity of Progressivism within this country.

Acorn deserves a death sentence. Is that what just happened ??? Midknight Review does not think so. Obama has clandestine funding plans.

story taken from Big Government.com

ACORN Crime Family Shutting Down Nationwide: Launching Renaming Effort

by Matthew Vadum

ACORN is attempting to perpetrate yet another spectacular fraud on the American people in order to keep tax dollars and foundation grants flowing into its coffers.

With the fallout from the hidden camera videos last fall, congressional funding of ACORN’s election fraud and racketeering business is no longer guaranteed, so ACORN is trying to pass off various state chapters as ”new” groups

As part of the radical group’s fraudulent rebranding scheme, ACORN has renamed its New York chapter New York Communities for Change. Unlike on the West coast where ACORN is at least pretending its renamed California chapter (Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment or ACCE) is not part of the ACORN network, New York Communities for Change shares the same Nevins Street address as ACORN’s Brooklyn office.

A March 4 fundraiser for New York Communities for Change is being hosted by Debra Cooper.

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts branch of ACORN has been renamed New England United for Justice.

More state-level name changes are expected soon while the basic structure of ACORN, which is controlled from the top using interlocking directorates, remains essentially intact.

The ACORN network’s interlocking directorates are deliberately organized to help ACORN escape legal and public scrutiny. “ACORN hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate,” according to a report from the Republican investigators of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Under indictment in Nevada for election law violations, ACORN feels it can do all this in the light of day because the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress have no interest in a real investigation of its criminal activities.

These improprieties include but are in no way limited to:

*a nearly $1 million embezzlement by the founder’s brother that was covered up for eight years while the brother (Dale Rathke) remained on the ACORN payroll

*misuse of pension funds

*commingling of public funds

*illegal loan from ERISA-covered pension fund

*failure to pay excise tax on illegal loan

*use of public funds on partisan activities

*money laundering

ACORN doesn’t care about the growing mountain of credible allegations against it because ACORN thinks it is politically untouchable.


Editor's notes: understand that Obama was given control or [at least] access to the funds of Fannie and Freddie this past Christmas Eve and ACORN has a "housing" division. This access is for the duration of his term as "president," and is without Congressional oversight. One thing we know about Obama is this, he does not know when he has been defeated. ACORN is critical to him, an arm of his civilian army and will not be allowed to fade away, if Obama has anything to do with the matter. Now that he has funding without oversight, he has what he needs to channel funds to this bunch of losers and loafers. ACORN is going nowhere. It might change its names, but it has a systemic presence on the American Marxist scene, and must be deliberatedly purged from public influence. Until and unless that official purge takes place, it will continue to be used by the Marxist politicians who support and defend it.

News Alert: Obama's $950 billion cost estimate did not come from the CBO - Obama made up the number !!!

What was he thinking ??

News Flash. FoxNews on Cavuto is reporting that the 950 billion dollar cost estimate credited to the Obama version of health care reform is not an official estimate. It is reported that the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has not been given enough information to give Obama's plan a cost factor. In other words, Obama has made up and attached a number to his bill.
This is leadership ?? !!

Our advise is this: stop the nonsense now. Let the States come up with their own plans
or reschedule the reform negotiations for 2011 and get busy solving the jobs problem
with solutions that do not involve giving away more money !!!!

The "new" Obama health care bill is out - it is doubtful that he even has 51 Senate votes for this thing.

Here is the mornings headline:
White House Unveils $950 Billion Health Bill To Bridge Differences …

Within the past half hour, Obama has posted his health care proposal on the Internet. The price tag? Almost 1 trillion dollars. The price tag is not an honest assessment of the costs of this bill, however. It does not include interest on the money that will be borrowed to run the program. It does not include the $1.1 billion hidden in the Stimulus to fund the 15 member medical review panel. Further, it assumes that half a billion dollars in cuts to Medicare will be made - cuts to a program that already under-pays doctors and hospitals. There is nothing new in Obama's bill and for that reason, alone, the Health Care Summit on the 25th will be nothing more than a planned political stunt on the part of a man who has no leadership skills and is devoid of thinking "outside the box."

Specifically, Obama's "new" proposal does not contain the "public option." If if if that is true, that the "public option" is not in this bill to any degree, there are a number of Senator's who have already said they will not support the bill without a strong public option. Just this past week, Obama and Reid had issued statements of support for the public option. It is more than curious that this is not a part of Obama's proposition in view of his recent statements. But, is the public option (read: "government control") really not a part of this bill, buried in requirements that will eventually lead to the control so many have rejected? Read on.

The Cadillac Tax has been put off until 2018 but remains in the bill -- an issue sure to anger the major auto unions.

Insurance rate increases must first received Federal review and approval. It is this very provision that contradicts the claim that the public option has been removed. If the Federal government controls insurance premiums, they control health care, no ??

Understand that the solution to rising costs is not Federal control of insurance premiums. Premiums need a check but not at the Federal level. Why do we have State Government if not for issues such as this? Insurance companies in California, for example, have proposed a 39% rate increase. The State Insurance Commissioner is currently reviewing this obscene proposal, a move in anticipation of Federal restrictions. Why do we need a Federal Review Panel when we have State Government ?

Tort reform is not in the Obama bill while it is estimated that $675 million is spent in medical procedures designed to protect the doctor from law suits.

The ability to freely shop for our own insurance policy across state lines is not in the Obama proposal.

Penalties to business and coverage requirements remain a part of this bill -- a very important reason why businesses are cutting back on job offerings, reducing current employment burdens and the associated taxes that threaten to rob them of their hard earned profits.

18 million Americans will remain uncovered with this version of "universal health care reform." Go figure . . . . . . . . . . again.

It is generally accepted that this is one of the most poorly constructed bills in Congressional history and Obama is back with the same old same old.
. .

Interesting if not critical morning headlines and news clips:

Obama tops Bush at ducking reporters; No formal press conference in 215 days...
Shouldn't "transparency" include questions from the press? Of course it should.

Oil above $80...
Obama has done nothing to prevent crude oil from rising to the $140 per barrel price of days gone by. Obama does not seem to understand that rising oil prices hold the potential of defeating any economic gains that may occur during the meantime, a failure (should it happen) for which he and his administration will bear the blame come November, 2010.

The Dems argue that this procedure has been used before and is perfectly acceptable. Our question is this: if what the Dems say is true, why have they not used the process before? They have certainly threatened to do so several times over the course of the past 12 months. Correct answer? Because they know that the procedure allowing for 51 votes is reserved for financial amendments added to existing law, that they will catch all kinds of heat if they pull this high level trick, that many of their own Party members dislike this bill. In other words, the reason why they will misuse the 51 vote rule is because they cannot get enough members of their own party to come on board. We need health care reform. We do not need back room deals that have totaled more than a billion dollars to date. We do not need pertinent health care legislation hidden in other bills such as the Stimulus bill.