Mrs. Clinton Wants to Tax Health

The ‘rats have an unlimited greed for taxes, and Mrs. Clinton in particular.  .

Slate makes it perfectly clear how Mrs. Clinton proposes to pay for her universal healthcare proposal.  Mrs. Clinton want to tax health.  As I wrote earlier the only power the federal government has to mandate anything of citizens is the income tax, and that required the Sixteenth Amendment

But the real problem, as Paul Krugman explains in his brickbat of a column today, isn’t lower income Americans. It’s that young, well-off Americans who are generally healthy and therefore don’t have to buy insurance will drive up costs for everyone else. Hillary and John Edwards both have ways of enforcing their mandates—requiring proof of enrollment on tax forms, say, or anytime someone seeks medical treatment. Obama’s plan, on the other hand, would allow them to remain outside the system.

Mrs. Clinton is proposing what amounts to a unconstitutional federal tax on health.  The sickos at Slate, Mr. Krugman, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards seem to think that taxing health is somehow a good idea.

Mrs. Clinton does not see good health as a blessing to be enjoyed but rather as a commodity to be taxed.  Taxing any commodity means less of it, providing citizens with less incentive to stay healthy.

Imagine what your auto insurance premiums would be like if the state mandated that all drivers paid the same premiums.  You might as well speed, drive drunk and get into accidents..  There would be no penalty for doing so, and no incentive to do otherwise.

And some say that Mrs. Clinton is smart.

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

AllahPundit over at Hot Air is reporting Murtha is finally admitting the surge is working.

The question is will ever apoligize to the troops he slandered?

More Memorandum

Update and Bump: (Bit)

CNN is saying that Murtha has taken the unusual step of clarifying his remaks, through a spokesman in Johnstown:

The surge, he said in a statement, “has created a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government,” but so far the Iraqi government has “failed to capitalize on the political and diplomatic steps that the surge was designed to provide.”

“The fact remains that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily, and that we must begin an orderly redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as practicable,” said the chair of the House Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee.

So, clearly, Nancy Pelosi got to him. I’ve always wondered what she looks like with falme in her eyes and steam rising from her ears…

But here again, we come to something that I said about a week ago... Because the federal government there is tied up in knots, they assume nothing can be done to deal with the problems Iraqis fast as a country.

With all the progress that’s been happening in Iraq of late, the last refuge of the left is to complain that the Iraqi federal government there doesn’t have it’s act together.

While that’s true in large degree, it’s also beside the point. Change… real change… particularly the positive kind… cannot be imposed from above, it has to come from the people themselves. That’s exactly what is happening currently in Iraq.

There’s an interesting parallel, here between the Left’s view of the relationship between the Iraqi federal and provincial governments, and their American equivalents.

When Katrina was an issue, the left complained the federal government didn’t respond as they would have liked, but made no mention as to the actions of the state and local governments. . Invariably, they pointed at Louisiana as their example. Yet, they ignored similarly hard hit Mississippi’s recovery, which was driven at the state level.

As with Katrina, the left under-estimates and underplays the role of the local governments… those levels of government not federal in nature. In both cases… Iraq and Mississippi, what needs to be done is largely being dealt with at the provincial/state level. The provincial governments are agreeing on what the federal government could not, and things are getting done. This is an outcome that the left didn’t have on it’s radar simply because it doesn’t match their worldview of a huge centralized, all powerful government.

There’s a lesson there.

That’s precisely the kind of duck and cover maneuver that Jack Murtha is involved with, with this “clarification”. He refuses to recognize that the very reason that our military is winning this thing is because of the locals getting their act together… Irrespective of what the Federal government is doing.  Indeed , this list of recent successes is happening, not despite the absence of the Federal government, there, but BECAUSE of it.
That, of course, it is something that the Democrats dare not say.

Allah Pundit, Hot Air, provides smoking gun proof in Mike Huckabee’s own words, that Huckabee is a flaming liberal.   Huckabee believes that the taxpayers should be forced to spend their money in order to statisfy his conscience.  See the video.

It is not your money, Mike.  If you think scholarships for illegals is such a good ideas, then you pay for it out your pocket.

COALITION FORCES TARGET AL-QAEDA SENIOR LEADERS, TWO TERRORISTS KILLED

Posted: 27 Nov 2007 11:14 AM CST

COALITION FORCES TARGET AL-QAEDA SENIOR LEADERS, TWO TERRORISTS KILLED

PRECISION AIR STRIKE TARGETS TALIBAN LEADER IN NURISTAN

Posted: 28 Nov 2007 11:33 AM CST

PRECISION AIR STRIKE TARGETS TALIBAN LEADER IN NURISTAN

TWELVE DETAINED AS COALITION FORCES TARGET AL-QAEDA TERRORIST OPERATIONS

Posted: 28 Nov 2007 10:48 AM CST

TWELVE DETAINED AS COALITION FORCES TARGET AL-QAEDA TERRORIST OPERATIONS

I’ve had some rather stout disagreements with Melissa McEwan in the past.  But she seems to me to be on the verge of recognizing something here, somehting I’m willing to bet that a lot of liberals wished she wouldn’t. Matter of fact I think she won’t admit it to herself for the same reason.

She points to the same story I pointed to last night:

Giuliani’s Mistress Used N.Y. Police as Taxi Service
November 29, 2007 3:18 PM

Richard Esposito Reports:

Well before it was publicly known he was seeing her, then-married New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani provided a police driver and city car for his mistress Judith Nathan, former senior city officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

“She used the PD as her personal taxi service,” said one former city official who worked for Giuliani.

Says McEwan:

His then-mistress, now-wife. Which isn’t explained until paragraph three—otherwise known as about two paragraphs after people stop reading—itself tucked after a video link insert.

Subtext: Rudy’s wife is a slut! Hee hee hee!
It’s not like I think Rudy’s relationship history isn’t fair game; certainly it is, because he’s got no basis at all for not supporting same-sex marriage when his marital history is a total shambles, and his marriage mantra appears to be, approximately, “Sanctity schmanctity!”

But something about the sneering, sanctimonious luxuriating in the reminder, in the course of a story about allegedly defrauding taxpayers, that Judith Nathan was his mistress, that they were having a tawdry affair, that he is a lech and a philanderer, just irks the f*** out of me.

That point she notes should be the first indication, that what you’re dealing with is a hit piece.  It sad that she can’t manage to get to the next level of the analysis, but I suppose we have to take these things one step at a time.

What is that next level of analysis?

Usually, people waving that kind of judgment around in front of the voters, are people who don’t really give a damn about someone else’s personal relationships.  All they really care about is whether not that history can be used to gather political power to themselves.

And what New York democrat currently running for the White House, ostensibly against Rudy Giuliani, meets that description?

More discussion at Memeorandum

And to think this idiot thinks for some strange reason he is qualified to be president.  Adam Leech, Seacoastonline:

“The President has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran and if he does, as foreign relations committee chairman, I will move to impeach,” said Biden, which was followed by a raucous applause.

Just imagine any republican getting raucous applause for fundamental ignorance of the Constitution of the United States.

After Joe Biden removes his foot from his mouth, he should take time to actually read the Constitution.

One, the President is designated the Commander-in-Chief.  As such the President has the authority to to attack any country as he sees fit.  This power neither new nor unused by various Presidents, such as Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, and B.J. Clinton, here here and here.

This is not to say that all unilateral past uses of force were wise.  They however were quite constitutional.

Two, Biden has utterly no power to iimpeach anybody.  The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment.  Given, Biden’s support for the past presidents, waging war without congressional approval hardly seems to be an issue for Biden, provided the President is but a democrat.

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

The Grapevine at Fox last night…(Hume on vacation:)

A new Harvard University study says nearly two-thirds of Americans do not trust campaign coverage by the news media — and more than 60 percent believe it is politically biased.

The interviews with 1,200adults were done in September.

Forty percent of those surveyed think election coverage carries a liberal bias. Twenty-one percent think it is too conservative — and 30 percent think it is balanced.

Eighty-eight percent think campaign coverage focuses on trivial issues. Sixty-one percent believe the media do not provide enough coverage of policy plans. And 43 percent say there is not enough coverage of candidates’ personal values and ethics.

Personally, I’d be interested in seeing them take that same test again, after the events of the CNN “debate” the other night.  I will guarantee you those numbers show higher, after that event.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 —(New York Times)- Marking the 14th anniversary of legislation that allowed gay men and lesbians to serve in the military but only if they kept their orientation secret, 28 retired generals and admirals plan to release a letter on Friday urging Congress to repeal the law.

Well let’s examine this, just a little.  Actually all this needs is a little cursory examination.  Nothing deep about it.

When was the last time that “don’t ask, don’t tell ” was a “major issue”?  Presidential elections.  The last two, in fact.  Who is into creating the policy?  Democrats.  Bill Clinton, specifically, and the then- Democrat Congress.

This whole thing is by definition a manufactured controversy.   The Democrats create the problem, and then come along and use the controversy as an electoral wedge, for the next several cycles. It becomes one of those issues that gets hauled out like Christmas decorations, only they do every four years, not every year.  Once the elections are dealt with, the issue gets stuffed into the storage area up in the rafters, and isn’t heard from again, until such time as the Democrats need the voter support of homosexuals, and a club to beat up Republicans with.

It’s not really a surprise to me that they managed to drag this issue out of them off walls again this cycle, but it is a bit of a surprise to me that they drag it out as early as they did.  The timing involved tells me that the democrats really have nothing new to offer, this time around.  It also tells me that they are in some of the serious trouble in terms of getting elected, and they know it.

Michelle has the vid.

Dan Riehl says:

Good grief, it doesn’t end.

Ace says:

Bringing the total number of questioners with undisclosed affiliations to anti-Republican parties and organizations to NINE.

[UPDATE – PA]
I think we need to start a pool on the final shill count for this debate. I’m going to go with a somewhat conservative number — one dozen.

I think it’s best if we start approaching the problem from the aspect of what is there any people there who were legitimate Republicans? Based on what we’ve seen thus far, I’m willing to bet there wasn’t.

 Addendum:(Bit)

On this subject, Red State is saying Heads need to roll. 

They are quite right, of course, but you know as well as I do that is not happening.   Personally, I think some jail time needs to be involved.  Last I knew, throwing an election, or trying to, was a Federal crime.  But there again, we both know that isn’t happening, either.

Bit and I had a disagreement of the CNN debate debacle.  Bit argued that CNN’s screening process was faulty.  I argued that the only thing a whore screen is the money.

Gaius, Blue Crab Boulevard, shows that CNN’s plants were no accident, but rather a design.

With steaming heaps of all-natural, bovine end-product, piled high and deep. The folks at CNN are lashing out at bloggers and others who dare to question them on their packing the CNN/YouTube debate with questions from Democratic party operatives, sympathizers or activists.

Sadly for CNN, defending the questioners themselves for asking good question fails, because the questions themselves were lame.  Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard:

But it was chiefly the questions and who asked them that made the debate so appalling. By my recollection, there were no questions on health care, the economy, trade, the S-chip children’s health care issue, the “surge” in Iraq, the spending showdown between President Bush and Congress, terrorist surveillance, or the performance of the Democratic Congress.

Instead there were questions – ones moderator Anderson Cooper kept insisting had required a lot of time and effort by the questioners – on the Confederate flag, Mars, Giuliani’s rooting for the Boston Red Sox in the World Series, whether Ron Paul might run as an independent for president, and the Bible. The best response to these questions was Romney’s refusal to discuss what the Confederate flag represents. Fred Thompson discussed it.

Eric Earling, Sound Politics, provides the perfect wrap:

It’s easy to see why CNN’s producers liked their questions. It’s because those questions echoed the partisan prejudices of CNN producers.

Amen.

Betsy Newmark passes along:

ABC News has this tidbit up at the Blotter.

Giuliani’s Mistress Used N.Y. Police as Taxi Service
November 29, 2007 3:18 PM

Richard Esposito Reports:

Well before it was publicly known he was seeing her, then-married New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani provided a police driver and city car for his mistress Judith Nathan, former senior city officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

“She used the PD as her personal taxi service,” said one former city official who worked for Giuliani.

New York papers reported in 2000 that the city had provided a security detail for Nathan, who became Giuliani’s third wife after his divorce from Donna Hanover, who also had her own police security detail at the same time.

Right on the heels of yesterday’s Politico story about the weird billing of his security detail, this story will reinforce the image of Giuliani using public expenses to facilitate his love affair. I’d like to hear his explanation of why his lover needed a security detail. This sort of drip drip has to be death to Rudy’s campaign.

Hmmm. Was she wearing a blue dress at the time, I wonder?

You really have to wonder about the people generating this stuff; These supposed city officials; they wouldn’t be Democrats, by chance, would they now?

Talk Left is predictably screaming:

There oughta be a law! Oh wait, there is one.

Is their memory so very short? There was also one when Monica was working on her second set of knee pads. Funny how that subject of legality never came up and from the same people are complaining about Rudy now.  I daresay the security detail in the White House costs a little bit more .  As does the room, come to think of it.

That said, yes, the security detail the seem somewhat excessive for most cities.  However, what the story going to be in New York City may be a different situation, I don’t know.

The Democrats had better watch their step with this nonsense. Its true, they may actually get somebody, with all the nets they are casting currently.  But it seems to me that they are setting impossibly high standards for their own candidates to meet.

Last Monday, I said…

Yes, I got honorable mention at today’s Caption Contest at OTB

I expect I’ll be doing better next week.

Of course I was right… first place, this time 

I’ve spent the last several hours, devouring everything I can get my hands on from the news sites, and the blogs, about the obviously planted questions from the Democrats last night.

….and that’s my conclusion, I don’t think there’s any question that these people were planted, quite intentionally, by the members of the Democrat party, and possibly by the party itself.

The question comes up as to whether or not CNN had a hand in it. In answer, I will state for the record that I’m totally with Joe Scarborough on this one. I don’t think there’s a chance in hell, that CNN didn’t know what was going on.

Perhaps, however, the best way to approach this is to take the dangerous step of taking CNN at their word, and assume that CNN really didn’t know what the story was and these people just magically slipped by whatever screening process was in place, thus defeating their defense. How can we do that? First, by revealing that their lame excuse making doesn’t make them look any better than if they were to admit they were operating under the orders of Howard Dean.

To examine this fully, let’s make the assumption, unlikely as this would be, that CNN took (what was that figure? oh, yeah…) 5000 submitted questions. Let’s assume further, that they spent a good deal of time going over these 5000 submissions, and whittled it down to what we saw on the screen last night.

Ask yourself; what would it have been about the questions or the questioners, that attracted the attention of the workers at CNN, in the process that CNN tells us happened?

Well, consider the quality of the questions involved. Almost universally, they treated the people on the stage last night, as if they were suspect in some way. As we’ve discussed here, many times, the mainstream media has always viewed Republicans in general, and conservatives, in particular, as being somewhere in the neighborhood of sewer rats on the evolutionary scale. In short, they were looking for questions which made the assumption of that point of view.

No surprise, then, that CNN should decide that point of view would be best reflected by people on record as supporting various Democrats.

So, frankly, even if you take CNN at their word, they come out of this looking like the incompetent hacks their ratings say they are.

Like a friend of mine used to say “Looks ain’t deceivin'”

Addendum: (David L)

Brian Maloney, Radio Equalizier, shows why there good ones and then there is the Great One.  The good ones discuss the Clinton News Network bias after the fact.  The Great One, Rush Limbaugh, discussed the bias on 20 July of this year:

RUSH: They are not trying to avoid talking to you. By the way, they’re going to try to reschedule this thing for December, is what I’m hearing. I never said the Republicans shouldn’t do it because of bias. We all know there’s bias in the Drive-By Media. We all know that CNN’s going to choose questions based on their agenda, based on what they get submitted to them. We know there’s going to be bias.

And how.  Score one for Rush.

Hat Tip: Hot Air.

Addendum ][:

Powerline has yet more Democrat plants.

It’s starting to look like there was nobody on the air last night that wasn’t a plant.

Come on, Digby…. Even YOU can’t be this stupid.

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. It’s “out there”:

Foes Use Obama’s Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him

In his speeches and often on the Internet, the part of Sen. Barack Obama’s biography that gets the most attention is not his race but his connections to the Muslim world.

Since declaring his candidacy for president in February, Obama, a member of a congregation of the United Church of Christ in Chicago, has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim or that he had received training in Islam in Indonesia, where he lived from ages 6 to 10. While his father was an atheist and his mother did not practice religion, Obama’s stepfather did occasionally attend services at a mosque there.

Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a “Muslim plant” in a conspiracy against America, and that, if elected president, he would take the oath of office using a Koran, rather than a Bible, as did Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the only Muslim in Congress, when he was sworn in earlier this year.

No, those aren’t the opening paragraphs of a Townhall hit piece.  That’s the Washington Post recycling anonymous wingnut email trash and calling it “rumors.”

Doubtful it’s right-wing anything, Digby.

First off, the concept of the Washington Post being attached to right wing anything is so very bizzare, there would have to be a willing suspension of disbelief for you to even contemplate saying it, much less posting it on your site. (Oh, sorry, that phrase has been taken, huh?)

Secondly, the documented lies coming from the left of late is enough to fill this blog.  You guys complaining about ‘false rumors’ now….. I tell ya.. I’m dyin’ out here.

.
And finally, and more importantly, the Republicans, or anybody on the right for that matter, finding anything gainful in spreading such rumors, at this stage of the election cycle, is also laughable in the extreme.

So, let’s consider the question of who would benefit from such rumors being spread, shall we?  That can be most easily answered by looking at who he’s causing the most trouble at the moment, and who has the most to lose to the man.

The name Hillary Clinton roars to mind.  After all, she’s the one with the most to lose to Obama, just now, out there in corn country….  She also has the history of these kind of dirty tricks.  And, worse, of course.  (Something about the names Vince and Marcy… I can’t quite remember it all)

I recognize that your so-called mindset wants to blame everything on Republicans.  But at this stage of the game, I think you’d better start looking at your own side of the fence, assuming you’re smart enough and have the courage… both of which I doubt.

More at Memeorandum

PS: Hey, Chuckie…. the same answer for YOU.

WASHINGTON —FOX- Former Illinois Republican Rep. Henry Hyde, a strong foreign policy and anti-abortion voice in Congress and a leader of House impeachment proceedings in 1998, died Thursday. He was 83.

Hyde served in the House of Representatives for 32 years and was a key foreign relations leader there, chairing the House International Relations Committee for six years. He was well-known for his sponsorship of the amendment passed by Congress banning federal funding for abortion, which became known as the Hyde amendment.

In addition to helping shape U.S. policy in the War on Terror, Hyde in 2003 oversaw passage of a $15 billion bill to fight the international AIDS epidemic. “Left unchecked, this plague will further rip the fabric of developing societies, pushing fragile governments and economies to the point of collapse,” he said. “So to those who suggest that the United States has no stake in this pandemic, let me observe that the specter of failed states across the world certainly is our business.”

I had my disagreements with the man, but one thing which can be said… you always knew where you stood with him… a rare thing in political circles, today.