Archive for Politics

U.S. senator slams ‘parasitic’ Canada over drug prices

{ October 1, 2009 @ 10:56 am } · { Politics }
{ Tags: , , , } · { Comments (6) }

*Not to worry, Canada. This man is insane.*

An American legislator called Canada “parasitic” on Wednesday for siphoning U.S. dollars to Canada with low prescription drug prices while his country does “all the innovation.”

Canada benefits financially from America’s role as a world leader in medical advances, Republican Senator Bob Corker charged in an exchange with a Liberal MP as she testified before a U.S. Senate committee.

“One of the things that has troubled me greatly about our system is the fact that we pay more for pharmaceuticals and devices than other countries, and yet it’s not really our country so much that’s the problem, it’s the parasitic relationship that Canada and France and other countries have towards us,” the Tennessee lawmaker told Carolyn Bennett.

“Meaning that you set prices and unfortunately all the innovation, all the technological breakthroughs, just about, take place in our country .… You benefit from us, and we pay for that, and I resent that.”

Bennett, a family doctor and one-time minister of state for public health, was one of five people testifying before the Senate special committee on aging. The panel, chaired by Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl and including newly minted Sen. Al Franken, was examining how successful health-care systems keep their costs low while maintaining quality care.

She seemed puzzled by Corker’s remarks, reminding him that drug pricing was a global concern, not part of a plot by Canada.

“It’s the drug companies, sir, and they’re multinational — it’s nothing about the United States of America,” she told him.

Their debate comes as U.S. Democratic senator Byron Dorgan from North Dakota is preparing to make a legislative push in the days to come that would legally allow Americans to buy cheaper Canadian drugs.

Dorgan will introduce an amendment to the health-care reform legislation currently before the Senate finance committee that would legalize so-called re-importation. Under current U.S. law, only pharmaceutical companies are allowed to import prescription drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration into the United States.

Drug companies import more than US $40 billion in drugs into the United States, while drug wholesalers and consumers are shut out of the global marketplace. Consequently, Dorgan has long maintained, Americans pay higher prices for prescription drugs than anywhere else in the world.

News of the pending amendment, to be introduced when the health-care reform bill makes it to the Senate floor, has alarmed some Canadian observers who fear re-importation could lead to shortage of drugs in Canada.

Bennett herself raised that concern in her testimony on Wednesday.

“Please don’t think that you can import cheap drugs from Canada … it will last us about 36 days,” she told Corker.

He replied: “That’s a silly way of dealing with it.”

“My goal over time is for us not to pay more than you, because you set prices and cause us to pay more when we’re doing all the innovation,” Corker added.

“In essence, the Canadian government and its citizens are taking advantage of our citizens by virtue of setting prices that are lower than competitive prices.”

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/01/parasitic-canada-drugs.html?ref=rss#socialcomments

Spread the word: Congress to fine you $3800 unless you buy insurance from private insurers

{ September 9, 2009 @ 12:12 pm } · { Politics }
{ Tags: , , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

*I have pretty much had it with politics.*

Need more proof that the health insurance lobby wrote the health carereform proposals with an assist from a compliant Obama White House and a completely corrupt and indifferent Congress?

The voluntary, optional government insurance plan is off the table due to the Obama administration’s craptacular messaging on the issue.

Such a plan would compete with predatory private insurance companies – also known as leeches.

It would keep them from price gouging, harming consumers, and effectively killing Americans with their crminal stewardship of health care.

You will not get that competitive option, however, because Obama is a too cool for school weakling who does not know how to fight and who does not inspire fear in Congressional Democrats, who have entered full meltdown mode.

On the table though, thanks to the fact that Obama has outsourced leadership on health care to over-the-hill Montana Democrat Max Baucus, is a $3,800 per family fine to be levied on families above the poverty line if they do not want to purchase insurance from the private insurance leeches.

For families below the poverty line sans families, the government will mercifully lower the fine – to $1,500. For individuals below the poverty line, that fine is $750.

Yes, thousand dollar health care fines in time of recession, mass unemployment, and wage depression. And for what? The same crappy private health insurance already claiming the lives of Americans on a daily basis.

This final outrage should kill Obamacare.

This should – finally – prove that the Democratic Party leaders have completed their transformation from Truman-style muscle men to wilting tools of the Wall Street-Washington oligarchy and the enemies of working people.

Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee and thus the most important person in Congress when it comes to health care, is working hard on the issue, but like anyone who stays in D.C. too long he cannot help but be corporate hack.

Let’s not mince words: Baucus deserves to be tortured on the breaking wheel for proposing this travesty. This is nothing short of health care terrorism.

Obama, though, is not without blame – for it was his bright idea to farm out health care reform to the corporatists while he went on vacation and held beer summits instead of putting his butt to the grass to make the case for real reform to the American people.

We are not going to get progress on health care reform from the current leaders of the Democratic Party: whether by misguided intentions or rank complicity they are quite simply going to make Americans slaves to private insurance emperors, because they are too wimpy to stand up to the leeches.

Baucus: thank you for trying, but you stink to high heaven as a politician. Retire, and regain what little dignity you still have.

Harry Reid, you are probably a nice guy, but you are as politically worthless as the Republican Party and should go home before embarrassing yourself in next year’s election.

And Obama, poor thing, you stink the most, for letting these fools stink up your Presidency.

You really, really would have done better as Vice-President to Hillary. You could have learned a thing or two about boxing.

A $3,800 fine??? Really, you think the American people will go for this?

Hang it up, fellas. You have ruined health care reform. We tried and we failed miserably. Let’s give it another go in 2032.

http://www.examiner.com/x-19823-PostPartisan-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Spread-the-word-Congress-to-fine-you-3800-unless-you-buy-insurance-from-private-insurers?cid=email-this-article

Politics are boring

{ August 19, 2009 @ 1:59 pm } · { Politics }
{ Tags: , , , , } · { Comments (9) }

I am so sick of whiny, sniveling republicans and democrats.

We will NEVER advance if we are degraded to political ideologies.

Yes, keep on arguing which is better…reps or dems. This should be incredibly helpful in the scheme of things.

I tend to not think of life in these schemes. It just does not work for me.

Bush, Obama…same face, different name and label.

Meh. Tired of it.

Carroll woman’s answer to highly visible Obama: Selling her televisions

{ July 31, 2009 @ 12:20 am } · { Politics }
{ Tags: , , , , } · { Comments (2) }

A 78-year-old Carroll woman says she’s so tired of seeing President Barack Obama on the airwaves that she’s selling her television sets – two of them.

Deloris Nissen, a retired nurses’ aide and former Kmart employee who was raised on a farm near Audubon, placed a classified advertisement with The Daily Times Herald for Friday’s paper.

In the $5.50 ad, Nissen tells readers she has two television sets for sale.

The reason: “Obama on every channel and station.”

In an interview Nissen said she is serious about selling two TVs – and genuine about her disgust with what she believes to be an overexposed president.

“I just got tired of watching him on every channel,” Nissen said. “I thought, my gosh, does he ever stay at the White House?”

Nissen, who voted for U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the 2008 presidential election, said she could live with seeing Obama come on television to make serious announcements. But he seems to be on all the time, Nissen said.

When the president does appear on a channel she happens to be watching, Nissen said, she quickly turns.

“I have the remote real handy,” Nissen said. “I have the batteries. I’m ready for him.”

Nissen’s annoyance with the president as a frequent presence on her television doesn’t mean she’ll abandon the medium altogether.

She’s keeping a bigger flat-screen television and selling an older 20-inch Sony and possibly a 13-inch set.

“It’s too heavy,” Nissen said of the 20-inch TV. “I can’t handle it anymore.”

That said, she doesn’t plan on selling it for less than $100 – even if Obama was just on Tuesday pitching his health-care-reform plans.

Obama’s own advisers and political observers across the ideological spectrum have for months debated whether the now popular president is overexposed.

For her part, Nissen said she expects to take some flack for the advertisement in her local paper. After all, Obama did win Iowa and Carroll County in the 2008 election.

But she’s not worried about any criticism.

“I’m an old lady, and I don’t care,” Nissen said.

http://carrollspaper.1upsoftware.com/print.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=8449

Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez

{ July 15, 2009 @ 12:18 am } · { News, Politics }
{ Tags: , , , , , } · { Comments (1) }

A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after he argued that he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his legitimacy for office.

His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

“We won! We won before we even arrived,” she said with excitement. “It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!”

She continued, “They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked.”

A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, was scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m.

“As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a ‘natural-born citizen,’ he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief,” he told WND only hours after the case was filed.

“[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections,” he said.

The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order would be held Thursday.

Cook said without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of the U.S. military in overseas actions could be determined to be “war criminals and subject to prosecution.”

He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him that “something is amiss.”

“That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White House has not been entirely truthful with anybody,” he said. “Every time anyone has made an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation.

“You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form document, certificate of live birth,” he said.

He said he was scheduled to report for duty tomorrow, on July 15, to deploy to Afghanistan as part of President Obama’s plan to increase pressure of insurgent forces there.

He told WND he would be prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order.

Named as defendants in the case are Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, described as “de facto president of the United States.

According to the court filing, Cook affirmed when he joined the military, he took the following oath: “I, Stefan Frederick Cook, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

According to the claim, “Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial, because he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general.“

The military courts offer no option for raising the question, so he turned to civilian courts to consider “a question of paramount constitutional and legal importance: the validity of the chain of command under a president whose election, eligibility, and constitutional status appear open to serious question.”

“Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the ‘long-form’ birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961,” explains the complaint.

Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because more members of the military have joined the cause.

“We are going to be asking for release of Obama’s records because now this completely undermines the military. It revoked this order, but it can come up with another order tomorrow. It can come up with orders for other people,” she said. “Am I going to be flying around the country 1,000 times and paying the fees every time they issue an order?”

Taitz said the issue “must be resolved immediately,” and she will continue working to ensure Obama proves he is eligible for office.

“We’re going to be asking the judge to issue an order for Obama to provide his vital records to show he is legitimately president,” she said. “We’re going to say, we have orders every day, and we’ll have revocations every day. This issue has to be decided.”

She said there cannot be any harm to the president if he is legitimately holding office.

“If he is legitimate, then his vital records will prove it,” Taitz said. “If he is illegitimate, then he should not have been there in the first place.”

Asked what this decision means for every other serviceman who objects to deployment under a president who has not proven he is eligible for office, Taitz responded:

“Now, we can have each and every member of the military – each and every enlistee and officer – file something similar saying ‘I will not take orders until Obama is legitimately vetted.’”

Multiple questions have been raised about what that would mean to the 2008 election, to the orders and laws Obama has signed and other issues, including whether he then is a valid commander-in-chief of the military.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

Helen Thomas: Not Even Nixon Tried to Control the Media Like Obama

{ July 3, 2009 @ 11:34 am } · { Politics }
{ Tags: , , , , } · { Comments (5) }

Following a testy exchange during Wednesday’s briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.

“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.

“When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you,” Thomas said.

“I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well–for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”

During today’s briefing, Thomas interrupted a back-and-forth between Gibbs and Chip Reid, the White House correspondent for CBS News, when Reid was questioning Gibbs about who was going to decide what questions would be asked of President Obama in a townhall meeting that was scheduled to take place in Annandale, Va., today.

Gibbs then had an exchange involving Reid and Thomas that went as follows:

Gibbs: “… But, again, let’s–How about we do this?  I promise we will interrupt the AP’s tradition of asking the first question.  I will let you [Chip Reid] ask me a question tomorrow as to whether you thought the questions at the town hall meeting that the President conducted in Annandale—“

Chip Reid: “I’m perfectly happy to—”

Helen Thomas: “That’s not his point.  The point is the control–”

Reid: “Exactly.”

Thomas: “We have never had that in the White House.  And we have had some, but not– This White House.”

Gibbs: “Yes, I was going to say, I’ll let you amend her question.”

Thomas: “I’m amazed.  I’m amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and—”

Gibbs: “Helen, you haven’t even heard the questions.”

Reid: “It doesn’t matter.  It’s the process.”

Thomas: “You have left open—”

Reid: “Even if there’s a tough question, it’s a question coming from somebody who was invited or was screened, or the question was screened.”

Thomas: “It’s shocking.  It’s really shocking.”

Gibbs: “Chip, let’s have this discussion at the conclusion of the town hall meeting.  How about that?”

Reid: “Okay.”

Gibbs: “I think—“

Thomas: “No, no, no, we’re having it now–”

Gibbs: “Well, I’d be happy to have it now.”

Thomas: “It’s a pattern.”

Gibbs: “Which question did you object to at the town hall meeting, Helen?”

Thomas: “It’s a pattern.  It isn’t the question—”

Gibbs: “What’s a pattern?”

Thomas: “It’s a pattern of controlling the press.”

Gibbs: “How so?  Is there any evidence currently going on that I’m controlling the press–poorly, I might add.”

Thomas: “Your formal engagements are pre-packaged.”

Gibbs: “How so?”

Reid: “Well, and controlling the public—”

Thomas: “How so?  By calling reporters the night before to tell them they’re going to be called on.  That is shocking.”

Gibbs: “We had this discussion ad nauseam and—”

Thomas: “Of course you would, because you don’t have any answers.”

Gibbs: “Well, because I didn’t know you were going to ask a question, Helen.
Go ahead.”

Thomas: “Well, you should have.”

Reporter: Thank you for your support.

Gibbs: “That’s good.  Have you e-mailed your question today?”

Thomas: “I don’t have to e-mail it.  I can tell you right now what I want to ask.”

Gibbs: “I don’t doubt that at all, Helen.  I don’t doubt that at all.”

Thomas, 89, has covered the White House during every presidency since John F. Kennedy’s.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50445

Canada can’t muzzle me

{ March 23, 2009 @ 9:05 am } · { Politics }
{ Tags: , , , } · { Comments (1) }

The Canadian immigration minister Jason Kenney gazetted in the Sun yesterday morning that I was to be excluded from his country because of my views on Afghanistan. That’s the way the rightwing, last-ditch dead-enders of Bushism in Ottawa conduct their business.

Kenney is quite a card. A quick trawl establishes he’s a gay-baiter, gung-ho armchair warrior, with an odd habit of exceeding his immigration brief. Three years ago he attacked the pro-western Lebanese prime minister, Fuad Siniora, for being ungrateful to Canada for its support of Israeli bombardment of his country. Most curiously of all, in 2006 he addressed a rally of the so-called People’s Mujahideen of Iran, a Waco-style cult, banned in the European Union as a terrorist organisation. On one level being banned by such a man is like being told to sit up straight by the hunchback of Notre Dame or being lectured on due diligence by Conrad Black. On another, for a Scotsman to be excluded from Canada is like being turned away from the family home.

But what are my views on Afghanistan which the Canadian government does not want its people to hear? I’ve never been to Afghanistan, nor have I ever met a Taliban, but my first impression into the parliamentary vellum on the subject was more than two decades ago. At the time the fathers of the Taliban were “freedom fighters”, paraded at US Republican and British Tory conferences. Who knows, maybe even the Canadian right extolled these god-fearing opponents of communism. I did not, however.

On the eve of their storming of Kabul I told Margaret Thatcher that she “had opened the gates to the barbarians” and that “a long, dark night would now descend upon the people of Afghanistan”. With the same conviction, I say to the Canadian and other Nato governments today that your policy is equally a profound mistake. From time to time and with increased regularity it is a crime. Like the bombardment of wedding parties and even funerals or the presiding over a record opium crop, which under our noses finds its way coursing through the veins of young people from Nova Scotia to Newcastle upon Tyne. But it is worse than a crime, as Tallyrand said, it’s a blunder.

The Afghans have never succumbed to foreign occupation, heaven knows the British empire tried, tried and failed again. Not even Alexander the Great succeeded, and whoever else he is, minister Kenney is no Alexander the Great. Young Canadian soldiers are dying in significant numbers on Afghanistan’s plains. Their families are entitled to know how many of us believe this adventure to be similarly doomed and that genuine support for troops – British, Canadian and other – means bringing them home and changing course.

To ban a five-times elected British MP from addressing public events or keeping appointments with television and radio programmes is a serious matter. Kenney’s “spokesman” told the Sun, “Galloway’s not coming in … end of story.” Alas for him, it’s not. Canada remains a free country governed by law and my friends are even now seeking a judicial review. And there are other ways I can address those Canadians who wish to hear me.

More than half a century ago Paul Robeson, one of the greatest men who ever lived, was forbidden to enter Canada not by Ottawa but by Washington, which had taken away his passport. But he was still able to transfix a vast crowd of Vancouver’s mill hands and miners with a 17-minute telephone concert, culminating in a rendition of the Ballad of Joe Hill. Technology has moved on since then. And so from coast to coast, minister Kenney notwithstanding, I will be heard – one way or another.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/21/george-galloway-canada

Byrd: Obama in power grab

{ February 25, 2009 @ 12:36 pm } · { Politics }
{ Tags: , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

*BOW TO YOUR FEARLESS LEADER!!!!!!!!! NOW!!!!!!!!*

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

While it’s rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House. Byrd no longer holds the powerful Appropriations chairmanship, so his criticism does not carry as much weight these days. Byrd repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration over executive power, and it appears that he’s not limiting his criticism to Republican administrations/.

Byrd also wants Obama to limit claims of executive privilege while also ensuring that thes White House czars don’t have authority over Cabinet officers confirmed by the Senate.

“As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”

The West Virginia Democrat on Wednesday asked Obama to “consider the following: that assertions of executive privilege will be made only by the president, or with the president’s specific approval; that senior White House personnel will be limited from exercising authority over any person, any program, and any funding within the statutory responsibility of a Senate-confirmed department or agency head; that the President will be responsible for resolving any disagreement between a Senate-confirmed agency or department head and White House staff; and that the lines of authority and responsibility in the Administration will be transparent and open to the American public.”

Obama faces a decision as early as next week on whether to support a claim of executive privilege made by former President Bush in refusing to allow Karl Rove, the former deputy White House chief of staff, to be deposed by the House Judiciary Committee on the White House’s role in the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

Bush claimed “absolute immunity” for top advisors in resisting such subpoenas, by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, filed a lawsuit over the issue. The case is on appeal, and the Obama administration is scheduled to file a motion next week laying out its stance on the issue.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html

This post removed due to Cook County government intimidation

{ February 25, 2009 @ 1:42 am } · { Politics }
{ Tags: , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

*Just a TAD bit freaky, eh?*

This is the URL given for a story entitled “Why doesn’t Rahm Emanuel pay property taxes?” which includes the following comments.

According to the Cook County Assessor’s website, the Chicago home of four-term Democrat Congressman and new White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, doesn’t exist. While the address of 4228 North Hermitage is listed as Emanuel’s residence on the Illinois State Board of Elections’ website, there seems to be no public record of Emanuel ever paying property taxes on this home.

The Cook County Assessor’s and Cook County Treasurer’s online records indicate Emanuel’s Chicago neighbors pay between $3,500 and $7,000 annually. However, Illinois Review has been unable to locate any evidence that the former Clinton advisor and investment banker is paying his fair share of Cook County’s notoriously high tax burden.

One can understand why pressure may have been brought to bear to yank this story at the original source.

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/11/why-doesnt-rahm.html

DOES THIS SCARE YOU???

{ February 17, 2009 @ 8:15 pm } · { Politics }
{ Tags: , , , , , } · { Comments (3) }

It should.

021609pod1

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/21473/

« Previous entries