Obama Continues Bush’s Stem Cell Policy
Much was made last Monday of President Obama signing an executive order which lifted President Bush’s ban on federal funds being provided for the creation of new lines of embryonic stem cell research.
But then on Wednesday, behind closed doors, President Obama signed the omnibus spending bill, which was loaded with almost 9,000 earmarks, into law. On page 280 of this bill was the Dickey-Wicker amendment which bans the use of federal funds to open up new lines of embryonic stem cells. Thus President Obama effectively reversed his own executive order just two days after signing it.
The Dickey-Wicker amendment prohibits the use of federal funds for research that creates or destroys an embryo, this is the same position that President Bush held, and was held in contempt for.
President Bush never banned stem cell research, the way it was portrayed in the media, he banned the use of federal funds to create new lines of stem cells. Now President Obama has done the same, where is the outrage? Where is the contempt? President Obama is continuing President Bush’s stem cell policies.
This is what President Obama excels at, public relations. He holds a very public signing of the executive order that lifted President Bush’s so-called ban on stem cell research to the adoration of everyone around. Finally we will be able to cure every disease because of this great man because he rescinded the evil Bush’s policies.
But just two days later the president signs a bill that effectively puts the same policies that President Bush had back in place. This signing was done behind closed doors and was vaguely reported and there has been barely a mention of the stem cell research implications that have been incurred because of this bill.
President Obama has masterfully played the media and the American people. He publicly rescinds a Bush policy while privately reaffirming it and most people are aware of the former but in total ignorance of the latter. And that is just the way President Obama had hoped it would play out.
Larry Summers: Americans Need to be More Greedy
After weeks of being told that corporate greed was a massive part of the economic downturn we are now being told by Larry Summers, (the president’s economic adviser), that greed is good and we need more of it to save the economy.
In the past few years, we’ve seen too much greed and too little fear; too much spending and not enough saving; too much borrowing and not enough worrying,” Summers said Friday in a speech to the Brookings Institution. “Today, however, our problem is exactly the opposite
Let me sum up that statement, if Bush is president, greed is bad; if Obama is president, greed is good.
Now I get it.
President Obama May Tax Health-care Benefits
During the campaign, when the issue of health-care came up, President Obama claimed that John McCain was going to tax health-care benefits. President Obama vigorously opposed that idea calling it “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.” He claimed that he had a plan and it was better that John McCain’s plan.
Meet the new plan, same as the old plan. In what this article calls a shift, I prefer flip-flop, President Obama is now willing to support taxing health-care benefits. Evidently it is Obama who wanted to be the one who would create the largest middle class tax hike in history.
The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits
The president has said that he will not propose the idea that would tax our health-care benefits, but if congress approved it and the bill made it to his desk he would sign it.
several advisers say that while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so.
He is trying to have it both ways again, this man is incredible. He won’t propose the idea but he will support it. Isn’t the fact that he has now openly amitted that he won’t oppose the legislation a backdoor proposal of the legislation? By telling congress he won’t oppose it he is opening the door for congress to walk in and tax us on our health-care. His now public willingness to sign this type of legislation is a signal to congress that the idea should be proposed, and now it will be. He will still be able to claim it wasn’t his idea, but he will be the man that signs it.
Republicans seem open to this idea, (after all it was John McCain’s stupid idea), while the house Democrats may pose a problem for this plan. We can only hope that there is enough opposition to this plan if it is introduced or once again the middle class will take it on the chin.
Here we have a case of the president promising two things during the campaign: one; he would only raise taxes on people making over $250,000, and two; that 95% of Americans would get a tax break. He will be breaking both of those promises if he signs the taxation of health-care benefits into law.
President Obama will not only be breaking his promises to the middle class, he will own what he himself called the largest tax hike on the middle class in history. Congratulations will be in order for the president, he will be making history again, this time for the largest screwing of the middle class in history.
Candidate Obama and President Obama are two different people.
New Hampshire is the Freest State in the Country
I saw a post on Political Vindication the other day that linked to a study that was done by the Mercatus Center, this study ranked the states by their personal freedom index.
New Hampshire finished in a three way tie for first place as the freest state to live in.
We find that the freest states in the country are New Hampshire, Colorado, and South Dakota, which together achieve a virtual tie for first place. All three states feature low taxes and government spending and middling levels of regulation and paternalism.
New Hampshire finished second on their economic freedom ranking and thirteenth on their personal freedom ranking. It is the personal freedom ranking that I would like to look at.
According to the study, they took into account government regulation and paternalism. I prefer to call these Nanny State issues, and on this New Hampshire finished about where I would have expected, although I would have thought maybe we could have finished a little higher, at thirteenth.
I believe that New Hampshire would have finished higher on personal freedoms as little as one to two years ago, I believe that New Hampshire is on a downturn on this issue and is continuing to trend downward. Just one year ago I believe that New Hampshire would have stood alone as the freest state in the country on the overall rankings, but that has changed. And it is because of the Nanny State politicians and the regulations that they have just recently began to impose.
Just in the last year smoking was banned in bars and restaurants by the government even though 75% of these private businesses had banned smoking willingly on their own, there is talk of mandatory helmets on the ski slopes, a one drink an hour; four drink per sitting law, the mandatory seat-belt legislation is back and the list goes on and on. And then there are all of the new taxes designed to regulate the people.
New Hampshire’s freedom ranking is under assault by the Nanny State politicians who run the state and the attack has been amplified in just the last couple of years.
New Hamsphirites consider themselves free thinking, independent people who take pride in small government and person freedom but that is under attack. We need to preserve our freedoms while we still can. We must stop the Nanny State politicians from regulating every day behavior.
New Hampshire is still ranked number one but for how long? Next year will we still be tied at the top, or will we continue to slide? Where will we be ranked next year?
Market Makes Gains For the Fourth Day in a Row, is There Still Time to Stop the Stimulus?
Today the stock market closed up for the fourth straight day. Is the market beginning a natural correction on it’s own, the way that is always has? Or is this just one of those little blips that our dear leader was talking about? That remains to be seen.
All of the economic news that came out this week was better than the so-called experts expected. Even President Obama, after weeks of talking down the economy had to admit “the economy isn’t as bad as we thought.”
And all of this has happened before the president’s stimulus package has been implemented. So the question that needs to be asked is this: if the market continues to trend upward and the economic indicators continue to exceed expectations do we still need to implement Obama’s stimulus package?
And a second question would be: should we at least hold off on implementing the stimulus plan until we see what happens in the market? If everything continues to trend upwards I don’t see why the stimulus package still needs to be implemented. We could save our grandchildren trillions of dollars by holding off on implementing this irresponsible spending bill.
The bill of course will not be put on hold because the stimulus doesn’t have anything to do with the economy. The stimulus bill is designed to grow the government and increase the number of people who are collecting a check from the government and the upturn in the stock market will not affect the ultimate goal of the stimulus bill. The stimulus bill will roll on, it is much too late to stop it now, but wouldn’t it be great to have it stopped dead in it’s tracks because the market corrected itself on it’s own?
The free market always rebounds, and it will this time, if we give it time. But Obama is not interested in letting the market play itself out because he sees a crisis as an opportunity and he doesn’t want to let a good crisis go to waste. In this case Obama is using the economic crisis as an excuse to push a far left agenda, he isn’t interested in letting the market correct itself. What the market does is secondary to Obama’s ultimate goal and the stimulus provides him with a means to accomplish that goal.
So while the stock market shows signs of improving Obama will move forward with the stimulus bill. Is there time to stop the stimulus? No, because the goal of the stimulus, to grow government dependency, is so close that Obama can taste it.
One of the things that I have noticed, and this article goes into it, is the way that the media reports on certain polls that come out about the president. For example, when leading economists give the president a failing grade on his economic efforts and it is reported on the media always seems to mention that this is in contrast to the people’s high approval rating of the president. See here. I have seen this several times as I scour the internet, but is it true that the presidents ratings are very high?
Yes he still enjoys an average 60% approval rating, with Rasmussen having him at 56%, but it has fallen drastically in the seven short weeks that he has been president. His approval rating after 50 days in office is about average historically and it is actually below President Bush’s approval rating after 50 days. This is significant considering the manner in which President Bush came into office after one of the closest elections in American history. (See the election of 1800 for an interesting and close presidential election.) The fact that Obama’s approval rating is lower after 50 days than the approval rating that Bush had shows me that people are not sold on Obama.
I am not saying that his approval rating is not high, it is, but it is not as historically high as the media is portraying it. It isn’t even has high as the last president’s was during the same time period. Yet the media cannot report a negative poll without reminding Obama’s loyal subjects that the president’s overall approval rating is high. The media is doing their best to keep Obama propped up but the truth is that his numbers are coming down. The media may not like it and the media is doing their best to slow down the falling numbers but the truth is that Obama’s approval rating is falling.
Vice President Joe Biden appointed Don Stapley to a task force that will help to implement the stimulus bill. He was supposed to fly to a stimulus meeting in Washington next week.
But first he needs to seek the permission of a judge. He is not allowed out of state because he has been indicted on 118 charges, some of them felonies, for financial disclosure violations.
A man the Obama administration has appointed to help oversee the largest spending bill in the history of the world has been indicted 118 times for financial crimes.
You can’t make this stuff up!
Obama Reverses his Executive Order on Stem Cell Research
Earlier this week our president issued an executive order to lift President Bush’s ban on using federal funds to fund embryonic stem cell research. This was a promise that he made during the campaign and earlier this week he fulfilled his promise.
But then on Wednesday he proceeded to break that very same promise as he signed a ban of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research into law. When President Obama signed the omnibus bill, the bill that contains over 8,000 earmarks, he broke more that just his promise to veto any bill that contained earmarks, he also broke his promise to use federal funds for stem cell research.
The order went on to say: “The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law.”
Thanks to the Dickey-Wicker language in Section 509 of the omnibus bill, the “extent permitted by law” will continue to forbid federal funding of research that even puts embryos at risk.
On page 280 of the omnibus spending bill lies the ban on federally funding embryonic stem cell research. Why then did the president sign this bill if it contained a ban on the very practice that he legalized just two days earlier?
Perhaps he did not read the bill, we know that nobody read the stimulus bill before it was voted on so it is quite possible that he didn’t know what he was signing. It is absolutely believable that the president had no idea that this ban was in the bill because he didn’t read it.
Or maybe he knew about the ban and signed it anyway. When dear leader signed the executive order Monday lifting the ban it was a highly publicized event. There was a crowd gathered to watch the signing, it was a big deal. But notice the last phrase in the quote I posted above, “to the extent permitted by law.” Did he know that he would shortly be signing a bill that would ban the funding? Is that why he couched his statement with that last remark?
When the president signed the omnibus bill he did it in a not so public manner, the opposite of the manner in which he signed the executive order. He signed it behind closed doors. Was this because he was breaking his no earmark promise or was this because he knew that he was breaking the promise that he just delivered on two days earlier?
President Obama once again has publicly said one thing while privately doing the opposite, the examples of this duplicity are beginning to add up. President Obama knew that his lifting of the ban would gain him great publicity in the media, he made it a big event, but then when he reversed his executive order he did it while in hiding, and if he knew what he was signing, he knew that his willing accomplices in the media would not report it. He knew that people wouldn’t hear about this major flip-flop and so he was free to contradict his own executive order.
It is either that or he really didn’t have any idea what he was signing. You be the judge, either way the end result is the same. President Obama is either trying to please opposing sides of the same issue, or he was just ignorant of the facts.
When a president talks about taxing the rich and taxing businesses there is a price to be paid and this is an example of what begins to happen when you go too far. Oil and energy companies are beginning to make plans to move….. to Switzerland, and the reason is they want to avoid President Obama’s assault on their companies.
“One trend that we see is that particularly Bermuda-based companies are now moving to Switzerland,” said Martin Frey, a partner at law company Baker & McKenzie. “That may only partly be obviously for tax reasons, but also for security reasons and the fact that the Obama administration may go after them.”
President Obama’s tax and spend, cap and trade policies are going to help the economy after all. The only problem is that his policies are going to help the Swiss economy.
Remember during the campaign when Barack Obama said that he would bankrupt the coal industry? I do, and here is the link. Comments like that have real consequences and it appears as though some energy companies haven’t forgotten what he said.
This isn’t sitting well with the United States or with the EU (of which Switzerland in not a member) who want Switzerland to end it’s tax policies which invite the businesses to the country in the first place.
I have a better suggestion: stop taxing these companies to the point where they have to look at leaving the country. Just a thought…..
When Michael Steele became the chairman of the GOP there was optimism all around. We had a person who was supposed to be a voice, a leader of the conservative movement. But so far he has been a disappointment. Is it time for him to resign?
Last week while on Face The Nation Michael Steele called Rush Limbaugh “ugly” and “incendiary.” Later that week, when Rush Limbaugh predictably attacked him, Michael Steele apologized to Rush, claiming that he didn’t articulate his point properly.
This made Michael Steele look two faced and weak. While on one show he said one thing but then when the pressure mounted he claimed he was misunderstood. It makes him look as though he will say whatever he thinks the particular audience wants to hear.
More recently he claimed that he believes that abortion is an individual choice. He made this claim while doing an interview with GQ magazine. These latest comments have really drawn the ire of social conservatives in the party and once again Michael Steele was forced to backtrack. Again he was misunderstood. He later reversed his position on this issue, once again he looks two faced and weak.
Here are just a few of the comments that pro-life Republicans are now making about Michael Steele:
Comments attributed to Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele are very troubling, and despite his clarification today the party stands to lose many of its members and a great deal of its support in the trenches of grass-roots politics,” former Gov. Mike Huckabee
For Chairman Steele to even infer that taking a life is totally left up to the individual is not only a reversal of Republican policy and principle, but it’s a violation of the most basic of human rights — the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Chairman Steele needs to reread the Bible, the U.S. Constitution and the 2008 GOP Platform,” said Blackwell. “He then needs to get to work or get out of the way
But the list of complaints goes on and on, those are but a few. The Republican party has been split for about two years I would say. As President Bush became more unpopular the party began to drift, Republicans were trying to separate themselves from the president and they lost their way. But then along came the new president with his outrageous spending and the Republicans had an issue they could rally around and come together on.
Just when it seemed that Republicans were uniting against President Obama’s spending and making headway with the American people, Michael Steele had to open his mouth and put an end to it.
Because of his comments about Rush Limbaugh we now have every Republican being asked whether they agree with Rush Limbaugh, as if that should be a vital topic. We now have Republicans splitting apart once again as some of them come to Steele’s aide while others distance themselves from him.
Republicans need to get a message, a united message, and they need to sell it to the American people. If Michael Steele cannot unite the party than he needs to step aside before it is too late.
It doesn’t matter whether Michael Steele was taken out of context or whether he thought that he could say one thing to one audience and another to a different audience. The end result is the same. Michael Steele so far has hurt the Republican party. He has split the party when they need to be, and seemed to be about to, unite.
Republicans need to make their choice soon. Do they stick with Michael Steele and hope that he gets the Republican message out there and properly articulated or do they cut their ties now before it is too late. If they are going to make a change it needs to be done immediately, to delay would only bring embarrassment down the line. Sure making a change now would also be embarrassing but at least there will be time to repair the damage.
The decision needs to be made right now,it must be done swiftly. Let us just hope that whatever they do it is the right decision.
The Republican party needs a strong, articulate leader who is unwavering in his, and the party’s, beliefs. The Republican party needs a leader who will stand strong no matter what attacks are made against him, a man who will remain firm in the beliefs of the party regardless of what might be said about him or the party. If Michael Steele is not that man than he needs to step down now. If he is that man, and I hope that he is, he needs to start acting more like a leader and less like a man who will say whatever he feels the audience wants to hear. We already have one of those in the White House.
