So it was heartening to see this video.  A kid like this….he has a chance.  My impression is that he just got wrapped up with being cool (to the extent anti-establishment is cool).  It just so happens that this form of anti-establishment is communism.

Anyway, watch this video – it’s a captivating 15 minutes…

But that’s not what this post is about, per se.  Rather, today I want to talk about fairness.

We hear Obama talking about how he wants “…millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share.”  Never mind that the top 10% of income earners pay in the neighborhood of 70% of all federal income taxes.

The “fair share” argument is absurd on its face.

Still, Obama and his leftist minions persist.

Well, here’s a real story about fairness.

Today, I’m going to open the kimono a little, with a real life example…

My wife and I did everything right.  When we got married, we both owned our own homes.  I had a condo and she had a small town house.  The year we married, we both sold our respective homes so that we would have enough to buy our new “family” home together.

When we bought our house – the house I am writing from today – we made a 30% down payment.

Still, we took a big loan – we got a 30 year fixed rate at 6 3/8%.

The mortgage lender gave us various options for us to get a lower payment.

We declined.

We figured that 6 3/8% is great historically and we’ll be set for as long as we need.   Our payment will never get bigger.

Our monthly payment is $3,000.00.

Fast forward 7 years.  Today, we are one of the few people with equity in our home.  We’re on top by about $55,000.00, according to area comps, and various market estimates.

Here’s the problem:  Both my wife and I are self employed.  Although we have always paid our mortgage on time, we don’t show the income necessary to get a new mortgage.

I went online to look at new houses recently.  I found a beautiful four bedroom house in a golf community.  This house is right on the golf course  - long a dream of mine.  The house is listed for $500,000.00.

If I sold my house and had $55,000.00 in cash, I could put a 10% down payment on the new house.  At today’s interest rates, my payment would be around $2,200.00 – $800.00 LESS than my current payment on my 30 year fixed loan.

You’d think any bank would jump at the chance to secure a new loan with an old customer, secure 30 new years of a loan that would be less risky, in terms of the amount we’re responsible for each month.

Guess what?

No chance in hell.

First, because we’re self-employed, we show a much smaller income due to various write-offs and expenses.  Second, with only 10% down, banks won’t even talk to us.

Forget about the new house on the golf course.  How about just refinancing the $359,000.00 left on our existing mortgage?

Nope.

Again, self-employed, not enough bottom line take home.  It’s as if the banks are oblivious to how self-eployment actually works, but I digress.

We did everything right…

• We got a 30 year fixed rate, when we could have saved $1,000 a month with some gimmick
• We put down the maximum down payment of over 30%
• I opted to start my own business in the face of a layoff back in 2009

The result?

A big F*#k You from the banks.

I don’t even fault the banks.  I fault the government.  If they had not stepped in with their absurd plot to put low income deadbeats into homes they couldn’t afford, none of the housing problems would have happened in the first place, save for ordinary market cycles.

And all those people who sold short, defaulted on payments, used government programs to refinance…all those assholes are sitting pretty.  We did it right and played by the rules, and we’re stuck with an interest rate twice what it should be.

I suppose we’re okay.  Since we make good decisions and work hard, we’ll always be alright.

But you know what?  This shit ain’t fair.

We all know we’re getting hammered at the pump.  But now we have to listen to Obama chief at the Department of Energy tell us – with a straight face – that he deserves an “A” on keeping gas prices down.  Something about it being Bush’s fault, or there is nothing he can do about it.

Does this piss you off as much as it does me?  These people are delusional.  Watch for yourself…

“Commodus was an ancient figure I was doing research on and was astounded to find your post. Since I couldn’t take the time to read what was written at that moment, I decided to come back to the site and read what you had to say, since you were comparing Obama to Commodus. I have to say, after reading your simpleton blather, I have no hope left that you far right extremists will grow a brain.
Not only do you blame Obama for the abysmal mess Dubya left this country in, you try to distort his accomplishments, diminshing them to less than nothing. I find it interesting (to say the least) that he’s proven himself as a very competent and successful Commander in Chief (Duby certainly was anything but) and even though Bush lied America into going to war with Iraq, alledging WMD, all that has resulted in a war-torn state, trillions of dollars in debt (thanks to Dubya), and tens of thousands of Iraq civilians slaughtered. 600,000 jobs were lost under Bush and 200 plus jobs are being created monthly with Obama. For the first time since 1996, factory jobs are being created and the economy is improving. Dubya defrauded the American people with two corrupted elections with the help of Jeb in 2000 and with Diebold voting machines and Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio in 2004. You far radical right Republicans are creatures of the dark and you will repeatedly lie, with the hope you will somehow be believed. You are nothing short absurd and may you reap what you dish out. I believe in Karmic law!”

Kathleen,

The article wasn’t intended to be a strict representation of facts. It was intended as an opinion piece that draws parallels between Commodus and Obama that I found interesting. With that said, at least I provided examples that illustrate my points which is far more than you did in your comment.

However, since you attempted to provide – and failed miserably at an intelligent rebuttal, I will respond accordingly.
First, with the exception of your subjective “Commander-in-Chief” statement, you provide no counter arguments at all with the actual content in my post. My four main points were:

1. Lack of Military Training
2. Currency Devaluation
3. Narcissism & Elitism
4. Tipping the Balance of Power (In His Favor)

Instead, you posted a series of rants, inaccuracies and opinions without a single supporting data source. It seems to me that your response is a better example of “simpleton blather”. Here is how I respond it.

“Not only do you blame Obama for the abysmal mess Dubya left this country in, you try to distort his accomplishments, diminshing them to less than nothing.”

Where did I do that in my post? Give me a specific example.

“I find it interesting (to say the least) that he’s proven himself as a very competent and successful Commander in Chief (Duby certainly was anything but) and even though Bush lied America into going to war with Iraq, alledging WMD, all that has resulted in a war-torn state, trillions of dollars in debt (thanks to Dubya), and tens of thousands of Iraq civilians slaughtered.”

Wow! A mixed bag of opinions and inaccuracies – subjective and unsupported. First, how do you measure “competency” and “success”? Those are subjective descriptions. As it is subjective, it ultimately boils down to your opinion versus mine. As I have 19 years of naval service, unless you can meet or exceed that, I’d say that I’m more qualified to make that judgment than you are.

Second, where is your proof that Bush “lied”? That fact that WMDs were not found is NOT proof that he lied. An accurate statement would have been to suggest that he made a poor decision to go to war based on less that reliable intelligence. I would have agreed with you had you done that.

“600,000 jobs were lost under Bush and 200 plus jobs are being created monthly with Obama.”

You must have taken this sound bite directly from MSNBC. Again, no supporting evidence whatsoever. Unfortunately, your assertion has absolutely no basis in fact. Here is that actual unemployment data that I queried directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You can run the query yourself at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls.

In comparing Bush’s numbers (2002-2009) and Obama’s (2009-20120, you can clearly see, that unemployment rose dramatically that year Obama took office and has remained so.

However, you did make reference to one point concerning the “trillions of dollars in debt (thanks to Dubya)”. Here is one point where I can meet you half way. Bush did in fact add trillions of dollars to the national debt and he supported the bailouts. However, there are two key points I’d like to make here:

1. Unsustainable government spending is not a conservative principle. In your comments, you make several references to “you Republicans”. Nowhere in my post do I claim to be a Republican. This is not a Republican website – it is a conservative website. I criticize unsustainable government spending as a matter of policy – regardless of the political party that initiates it.
2. In terms of scale, Obama’s spending pales in comparison to Bush’s by a large margin. Bush came into office in 2000 with a $5.6T deficit and left office in 2008 with about $10T in deficits. That works out to $4.4T over the course of an 8-year term. Obama came into office with a $10T in deficits in 2008 and the national debt currently stands at $15.3T. That works out to $5.3T in spending in less than 3-1/2 years.

Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

“Dubya defrauded the American people with two corrupted elections with the help of Jeb in 2000 and with Diebold voting machines and Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio in 2004.”

Again, where is your proof? Furthermore, it’s one thing to suggest that there were voting irregularities in the 2000 and 2004 elections (provided you have supporting evidence). However, suggesting that George and/or Jeb Bush were directly responsible for it is another matter altogether. With that said there are plenty of purported examples of voter fraud to go around (on both sides of the isle) in the 2000, 2004 and 2008 elections. Interestingly, the ACLU (not exactly a right-wing organization) claims “there is almost no voter fraud in America”:

Source: http://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/there-almost-no-voter-fraud-america

“You far radical right Republicans are creatures of the dark and you will repeatedly lie, with the hope you will somehow be believed. You are nothing short absurd and may you reap what you dish out. I believe in Karmic law!”

1. Again, I don’t claim to be a Republican and this is not a Republican website.
2. Show me a specific example of where I lied.
3. If an example of “Karmic law” is the 2010 Congressional election, I agree with you. I may agree with you again in November.

To close, I’d like to thank Kathleen for responding to my post. Like many others before her, she has yet again proven the inability of the folks with left-leaning ideologies to provide reasonable, supported arguments for their positions. And as always, when reason fails, they resort to the same feeble tactics:

1. Not addressing the actual arguments; instead, diverting the conversation to irrelevant threads of discussion.
2. Not bothering to provide actual supporting data.
3. Finally, resorting to ranting and name-calling.

In Buffalo, New York union members are provided with no-cost, no-deductible plastic surgery procedures originally designed to cover the costs of reconstructive surgery from serious accidents and burns. Despite its original intent, the benefit, known as a “cosmetic rider” is being widely used to cover 100% of the costs of non-essential procedures including:

• Liposuction
• Tummy tucks
• Botox injections
• Breast enhancements
• Other non-essential plastic surgery

This costs taxpayers of that state between $5.9 and $9 million annually.

A single doctor alone billed the district $4 million last year.

If that wasn’t bad enough, this indignity is occurring among a tough economic climate that has resulted in over 7000 teacher layoffs and a projected $42 million budget deficit. The President of the union claims that he would be willing to get rid of the benefit if the school district would simply “come to the negotiating table.”

However, I find his claim to be highly dubious at best.

That’s because the cosmetic rider is only the beginning of this really “sweet deal”. The benefit is part of a union contract that expired back in 2004. However, due to a 1982 state law known as the Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law, when a public employee’s contract expires, they are allowed to continue working under its terms of the old contract until a new contract is in place while keeping all their benefits under the old contract – including annual 2.5% pay increases. Suffice it to say that under these conditions, the union has exactly ZERO motivation to renew their expired contract.

With all these great benefits, one who think that the union teachers in Buffalo must be doing a wonderful job.

Not so.

In fact, the high school graduation rate in Buffalo actually declined last year with only a dismal 47.4% high school graduation rate. Can anyone be honestly surprised by the fact that according to the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment, 15-year-olds in the U.S. ranked merely 25th among peers from 34 countries on math and only managed an average score in science and reading? How pathetic! Not surprisingly, China ranked #1 across the board so if you are not into Moo shu pork and you don’t speak Cantonese, I suggest you start learning.

You can watch a video this story here.

Abortion proponents claim that a fetus does not qualify as a “person” which, in their mind, justifies abortion according their own moral views.

Some even take this view one step further in justifying “partial-birth” abortions where the life of a fetus is terminated while at least partially out of the mother’s womb.

Up to now, I believed that partial birth abortion was the most extreme case of legal justification of murder.

I was wrong.

Earlier this year, a paper was submitted to a peer reviewed medical journal ironically called the “Journal of Medical Ethics.” The abstract of the paper “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” reads as follows:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. [1]

[1] Ref: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.abstract

Words cannot describe the rush of emotions that I felt as I read the abstract.

I simply could not believe what I was reading.

The fact that a human being was actually attempting to justify the killing newborn baby was astonishing. I was flabbergasted. As incredulous as I may have felt just then, what happened next was even more striking.

Whenever I read, browse the web or write code, I like to kick off a playlist on my music player to help me “get in the mood” so to speak. As I’m reading this vile text, I noticed that the song playing in the background was “Remembrances” by John Williams (theme song to the movie “Schindler’s List”). In a moment of near-epiphany, it suddenly occurred to me the last time I recalled reading a similarly malevolent justification of murder under the pretext that the subject was a “non-human”.

It was back in my collage days when I was writing a sociology paper about the Third Reich.

For the Nazis, this ideology formed the basis of their own justification for the extermination of “undesirables” – non-Aryans, especially Jews, gypsies and Slavic people who were racially grouped into what they referred to as “Untermensch” meaning “sub-humans” which, as we know, ultimately lead to the state-sponsored murder of over 6 million Jews.

Now that I have had a chance to compose myself, it really isn’t that surprising to me that liberal academics would reach this conclusion. They use the same cold logic to justify abortion. In the grand scheme of things, say for the legal distinctions, is it really different than what is legally practiced today? We live in a sick world!

On the watch list were two of my favorites:  “Patton” and “Gladiator.”

Normally, one would not draw parallels between the two, however, as quirky as my mind is – I did.  In the movie “Patton”, General Patton insists that he is the reincarnated image of famous historical figures.  In thinking about it more deeply (and having previously watched “Gladiator”), I started to wonder.  While I know full well that Hollywood’s portrayal of historical events are hardly accurate, I was intrigued by the story of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus who were actually were real-life historical figures in the Roman era.

So, I decided to do some reading on the subject and what I found was rather intriguing.  As I read the historical artifacts about Commodus, I was stunned at the parallelism between Commodus and what I would call a “modern day Caesar” – Barrack Obama.

Is Barrack Obama the reincarnation of Commodus?  Let’s look at some examples.

1.) Lack of Military Training

According to a historical biography of Commodus by author Terry Long:

“Commodus received an extensive education under the direction of what his father called, “an abundance of good masters.” Commodus’s education seems to have been mainly intellectual and as a result he received little or no military training.”

Barack Obama’s lack of military experience is often a political liability that Republicans, in particular, easily capitalize on.  Rick Perry, the former Republican candidate for the 2012 Presidential election, who served in the Air Force from 1972 to 1977, said that he believed that the men and women in the armed forces would have more respect for a president who had served in the military than one who had not. He pointedly notes Obama’s lack of military service.

“The president had the opportunity to serve his country I’m sure, at some time, and he made the decision that that wasn’t what he wanted to do.”

2.) Currency Devaluation
Upon his accession Commodus devalued the Roman currency.  In the view of Dio Cassius, a contemporary observer, Commodus’ accession to power marked the descent “from a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron” – an infamous comment which has led some historians, notably Edward Gibbon, to take Commodus’ reign as the beginning of the decline of the Roman Empire.

In his “Business Insider” article “Dollar Devaluation, Stagflation, and How You’re Getting Screwed”, author Larry Doyle provides strong arguments against currency devaluation and makes a case for his assertion about Obama’s economic plans concerning the US dollar:

“Going back to the G20 in London last Spring, the Obama administration has attempted to curry political favor with emerging economies, especially the BRIC nations, by ceding dollar sovereigncy as the preeminent international reserve currency in return for support of global economic stimulus programs.”

3.) Narcissism & Elitism
Commodus considered himself a deity and the sole source of Roman power modeling himself after Hercules:

“In opposition to the Senate, in his pronouncements and iconography, Commodus had always laid stress on his unique status as a source of god-like power, liberality and physical prowess. Innumerable statues around the empire were set up portraying him in the guise of Hercules, reinforcing the image of him as a demigod, a physical giant, a protector and a battler against beasts and men. Moreover, as Hercules, he could claim to be the son of Jupiter, the representative of the supreme god of the Roman pantheon. These tendencies now increased to megalomaniac proportions. Far from celebrating his descent from Marcus Aurelius, the actual source of his power, he stressed his own personal uniqueness as the bringer of a new order, seeking to re-cast the empire in his own image.”

There have been nearly numerous charges of elitism, even narcissism on the part of Barrack Obama – from the long, taxpayer provided vacations in a poor economy, the seemly endless list of Golf outings to the “too bad, I won the election” persona.

Conservative thinker and best-selling author George Marlin calls Barack Obama is the nation’s “narcissist in chief” due to his deeply ingrained elitist attitude. And Marlin says that ideological view has condemned Obama to failure.

“Mr. Obama is a man who really never had a job until he became president. He had adoring crowds in Hyde Park who would sit there and hang on every word. He basically lectured people and assumed that when he finished talking you were convinced that he was right.”

4.) Tipping the Balance of Power (In His Favor)
Throughout his life, Commodus repressed any and all attempts at senatorial power within the empire.  Unlike his father, Marcus Aurelius, he seems to have had little interest in the day to day affairs of the Empire and tended throughout his reign to leave the practical running of the state to his confidantes:

“He sent out to rule the provinces men who were either his companions in crime or were recommended to him by criminals. He became so detested by the senate that he in his turn was moved with cruel passion for the destruction of that great order, and from having been despised he became bloodthirsty.”

Since his election, Obama has appointed roughly three dozen “Czars”.  These are unelected officials who have a huge influence on national policy yet are largely uncountable  This situation has tipped the balance of power to the Executive branch over the Legislative branch – a scenario that the original framers of the Constitution never intended.

First, some background on what exactly Super Tuesday is…

This is the date, typically in late February or early March, when many States all have their election primaries.  Pardon the rudiments, but I think it might be valuable to layout the process in simple terms:

When a party (Republican or Democrat) picks a nominee to run for President, they do so by a vote, not unlike a national election.  Each State has their own rules for exactly how it works, but the result is the same – each State pledges some number of votes for a candidate.

Some States divide up their votes.  In Michigan, for example, the State grants votes to each candidate based on Congressional district.  So although Mitt Romney won the popular vote, He only gets 16 of the 30 available votes.  Rick Santorum gets the other 14.

In other States, like Arizona, whoever wins the popular vote takes all the votes.

And so it goes…  Each State holds a primary and based on the States rules, awards some number of votes to one candidate or the other.

Then at the national Nominating Convention, all the delegates from each State get together and officially cast the votes that were awarded on Primary Day.

How About Super Tuesday 2012?

Super Tuesday is just a day that has a large number of States holding their primaries on the same day – a Tuesday.  For 2012, there are 437 votes up for grabs on Super Tuesday, so clearly it is a big day for the candidates.  Well, at least for Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.

The States holding primaries on Super Tuesday, and their respective delegate (vote) counts are as follows:

1. Alaska Caucuses - 27 delegates
2. Georgia Primary - 76 delegates
3. Idaho Caucuses – 32 delegates
4. Massachusetts Primary – 41 delegates
5. North Dakota Caucuses – 28 delegates
6. Ohio Primary – 66 delegates
7. Oklahoma Primary – 43 delegates
8. Tennessee Primary – 58 delegates
9. Vermont Primary - 17 delegates
10. Virginia Primary – 49 delegates

It’s noteworthy that Wyoming is having some activity on March 6 as well, but their nominating process is convoluted at best.  Delegates won’t be pledged until mid-April.  They have a non-binding straw poll, then precinct caucuses, then County caucuses, the a State convention, where the delegates are pledged.  Whoever crafted (crafted?) Wyoming’s process was clearly impaired, but I digress.

A candidate needs 1,144 votes to win the party nomination.  So, with almost half the votes up for grabs on March 6, 2012, it is a big day indeed.

What does it mean for conservatives?

Not Republicans, mind you, but conservatives.  The choice is between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul notwithstanding.  And here we have little difference, at least in terms of practical governance.

Both men, if President, will do several things:  Cut taxes, reduce regulation,  repeal Obamacare.

Beyond that, neither will do much.  These three legislative endeavors will prove most taxing, pardon the pun.  The conservative movement wants these three things.  That is really all we want right now.  Sure, we want to see the Department of Education dismantled and the public sacking of Kathleen Sebelius along with a defunding of Health and Human Services.  But in reality these things are as much a pipe dream as the liberal Utopian vision.  No matter how much we’re taxed and how much is redistributed, you can’t legislate poor people rich, you can only legislate rich people poor.

So what does this mean for conservatives?  Not much.

Though it is noteworthy that Ann Coulter had a brilliant piece yesterday in which she said:

“The problem is not Santorum’s conservative positions, it’s that he can’t defend them.”

She’s right.  In that piece she gave example after example of how Santorum has proven inept at arguing for basic conservative positions.   And I’m a Santorum supporter…sort of.  I feel myself slipping into Romney-land.

The only real problem I have with Romney – and it’s a doozy – is RomneyCare.  Though I actually like his federalist argument, that he did it in an attempt to solve a State problem and the he doesn’t believe the Federal government has the authority to do something similar.  First, that argument will not likely be understood by many Americans (how many really understand federalism?) and second, it’s still a big government solution to a problem better handled by market forces.

What Does Super Tuesday Mean For Liberals?

Well, it’s fun to think that liberals want this candidate or that candidate because one may be easier to beat than the other.  But I don’t buy it.  I think either Santorum or Romney can – and will – beat Obama.  Soundly.

We’ll be following Super Tuesday carefully and be posting commentary on the results.  My prediction is that Romney runs away with it.

Well, it’s working.

The way it is working is a twisted web of tyranny.  A web of lies, bribes and payoffs.  Here’s how it works in its simplest form:

1) Confiscate money from 50% of people (the poor are already dependent).

2) Direct that money to public sector unions and a new bureaucracy.

3) Issue regulations through bureaucrats

4) As services suffer, increase taxes to pay for them to expand the cycle

5) Achieve maximum confiscation of wealth and maximum control over all lives.

I’m reminded of the little graphic I made after the Wisconsin liberal temper tantrum:

This is how it works with democrats and public unions.  Add in the entire health care system and the Health and Human Services bureaucracy, and you’ve got a web of evil that will only be destroyed with a whole sale repeal of Obamacare.

Here is an excerpt from Malkin’s piece:

“On Wednesday, the White House trumpeted the release of nearly $700 million in taxpayer-funded low-interest loans for seven CO-OPs in eight states. Administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the fund will pour more money into CO-OP plans nationwide throughout the next year. In 2014, according to Washington bureaucrats, the plans will be offered on the federally approved and federally monitored state health exchange “marketplace.”

Some marketplace. Given how Team Obama has dispensed special Obamacare waivers to scores of campaign donors, it’s a sure bet the CO-OP/exchange mechanism will be brazenly rigged against non-subsidized, for-profit insurers. And against taxpayers. Obama health officials assure us that there will be an “early warning system” in place before loan recipients get into financial trouble. But we know from the half-billion-dollar Solyndra scam that when this administration sees red flags, it’s full speed ahead.

In fact, the Obamacare CO-OP overseers already predict a nearly 40 percent default rate for the loans, according to Kaiser Health. Welcome to the Chicago-on-the-Potomac reverse rule of holes: When you’re in one, keep digging.

So, who are the lucky winners of the Obamacare slush fund lottery? Freelancers CO-OP of New Jersey, New Mexico Health Connections, Midwest Members Health in Iowa and Nebraska, Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative in Wisconsin, Freelancers CO-OP of Oregon, Montana Health Cooperative, and Freelancers Health Service Corporation in New York.

You won’t be surprised to learn that the Freelancers Union — the largest CO-OP loan beneficiary to date, with a total $341 million subsidy — is a left-wing outfit founded by a self-described “labor entrepreneur” and MacArthur “genius.” Sara Horowitz has already snagged countless grants from the city and state of New York, the liberal Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Horowitz and Obama served together, along with former green jobs czar Van Jones, as advisers for the progressive think tank Demos — which in turn partnered with fraud-ridden community organizers ACORN and Project Vote. She also runs a political action committee called “Working Today” that crusades for an expanded government safety net. Crowing about the CO-OP loan from her fellow progressive warrior, Horowitz exulted: “It’s like venture capital for health care.” Or more accurately, to borrow South Carolina GOP Sen. Jim DeMint’s phrase, venture socialism.

While Horowitz plots to rope in 200,000 new clients, existing customers protested in The New York Times over lousy customer service and abrupt changes that resulted in “higher premiums, higher deductibles and more holes than their current plans.” Horowitz is more preoccupied with ensuring that the “social-purpose company” meets social and environmental justice goals than with customer needs.

Another of the Obamacare slush fund winners, Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative in Wisconsin, scooped up a $56.4 million federal loan. The group describes itself as a “coalition of religious groups and other organizations.” Its pedigree is much more radical than that. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noted, Common Ground “is the Milwaukee affiliate of the Industrial Areas Foundation, founded in 1940 by Saul Alinsky, a famed community organizer and author of ‘Rules for Radicals.’ The organization, based in Chicago, bills itself as the oldest and largest community organizing network.”

The Industrial Areas Foundation was funded largely by the Gamaliel Foundation, which employed Obama in Chicago. As I first reported in 2009, Gamaliel’s Gregory Galluzzo wrote that he “met with Barack on a regular basis,” that Obama “acknowledged publicly that he had been the director of a Gamaliel affiliate,” and that “we are honored and blessed by the connection between Barack and Gamaliel.” No kidding. As Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson put it: “These grants/loans reek of political payola.”

Cronies reap. Taxpayers weep.”

We’ve got to get rid of this abomination.  Actually, we need to get rid of both abominations: Obama and Obamacare.

This saga has been produced and directed by the main stream media and, Newt Gingrich’s thrashing of John King notwithstanding, has been largely effective.

Check out this question:

John King to Ron Paul:  You called Rick Santorum a name.  Want to call him more names?

I swear it – this happened.

Here is the ACTUAL transcript of the question…

“KING: Congressman Paul, you’ve questioned the conservative — fiscal conservative credentials of all these gentlemen but particularly this week Senator Santorum. You have a new television ad that labels him a fake. Why?”

Think about this for a minute…  We have $3.85 gas, real unemployment over 15%, 1% economic growth, record numbers on food stamps, a $15 Trillion debt, and John King wants to know more about how Ron Paul thinks Rick Santorum is a “fake?”

If this doesn’t close the case on liberal bias in the media – or their flat out incompetence – I don’t know what will.

Yesterday, I went on the Chris Plante Show here in Washington DC.  Chris asked the question:  ”What do you need to hear the candidates talk about to make your decision on who to back?”

Here is my reply:  CLICK TO LISTEN TO THE SOUND FILE.

The only candidate to really do this in a meaningful way is Newt Gingrich, and even his comments were dwarfed by all the bickering and back and forth jabbing.

Dumb.

These candidates would do well not to go to any more of these stupid debates.  They serve no purpose other than to provide fodder for the leftist media machine.