Continued from: IS SHE HIGH?

This incredible statement was in response to a question about the conflict between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration over a provision of Obama Care that is set to take effect on Aug. 1, requiring all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilization, prescription contraceptives and miscellaneous other items in the same prescriptive genre (morning-after pill, abortion pill).  In complying with the Obama care mandate, religious institutions, who are also employers, find that this acts against their conscience and in direct opposition to the teachings of their faith.  Religious individuals, who are also required under the program to purchase insurance, take umbrage at having to pay for coverage that includes reproductive services that they cannot or do not want.   In short, Catholics feel that this provision of the President's health care mandate violates their first amendment rights.

Old Nan went on to further the question of just, "How high is she?" by offering the following:  “Whatever my personal beliefs or my personal upbringing are on this subject everyone has their own responsibility in terms of the size and the rest of their family. So, I think this should be removed from the debate, it’s inflammatory--misrepresentations are made.”   Yes - I know, that looks like English but it is hard to translate into something understandable; it's the weed talking.

For the record:  All 181 Catholic bishops in the United States oppose and have publicly denounced the regulation issued by the Obama administration.  The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops referred to it as, "an unprecedented attack on religious freedom."  It definitely sounds just like a tacit approval of the program to me.  All sarcasm aside, why do her words make absolutely no sense, when taken in context of the issue?  Where does she get her data, facts & figures and who is she trying to kid?  It sounds like she's "winging it" - shooting from the hip and working off of a blank teleprompter. 

She offers the following as an inside look as to the justification for supporting the trampling of an entire segment of our society's rights:  "I wanna say this.... and, you know, maybe overstating this and I can't speak for everyone... But there's a Sisterhood.. uh - there's a sisters under the skin understanding on this issue, among women."  Then she rambles on for a bit and finishes strong with, "How can we say that the federal government, or, private insurance companies should enforce something that the church itself has not been able to enforce?" 

What is really so funny about this is two-fold:

1) No one is asking the federal government or the insurance companies to regulate or enforce anything.  It is as if Nancy has forgotten the subject that she was speaking about and started down the road of her previous speeches on abortion.

2) At best, this is a prime example of the President's minions working their witchcraft; restating the question and muddying the waters around the debate.

Here is a reminder to Nancy and the liberals out there running wild in the streets about this subject:  Obama is the one mandating that insurance companies and employers provide this care.  This care that some of them feel run counter to their religious beliefs.  This is a matter of Obama taking charge of women's reproductive rights - NOT THE CONSERVATIVES! 


Here is the link to the whole propaganda session hosted at Texas A&M.  You will most likely get a charge out of much of the dialog as 100% of her data/facts & figures are turned 45-90˚ from the truth.  She isn't nearly as savvy as many others in Obama's team at distorting the facts, but you have to give her points for consistency!


Continued from: I GOT 5 More...

Obama continues to further dig himself into a full-on, liar-liar-pants-on-fire scenario by adding, "In fact, their leading candidate said he would veto even the Dream Act, much less comprehensive immigration reform."  Oh please - Mr.. president, you should let your minions do the lying for you - you stink at it.  Let me help el presidente out.  Since I do not know if he was referring to Rick or Mitt, I'll do both:

RICK SANTORUM'S Immigration Policy

MITT ROMNEY'S Immigration Policy

The Dream Act is amnesty and even his own party doesn't like it - so I can only assume that B.O. was pooh-pooing the two fellas on "comprehensive immigration reform".  It's a guess on my part because he's lied twice in this article already and I feel like I'm shooting at a moving target with this guy.  At any rate - both front-runners support immigration, legal immigration that is and also support comprehensive immigration reform.  Ok - back to the "I got 5 more..."

So he was pressed on the broken promise of immigration reform and he was really quick to point out that, "I would have only broken my promise if I hadn't tried [to get an immigration reform bill through]."  Uhhh....  What's that?  We're playing that game?  The one where it doesn't matter if we win or lose - just that we played and had fun?  I don't think the Hispanic community is going to give him a pass on that one since he never actually "tried" either.  His definition of the word "try" apparently means that he went on the record saying that he supports the introduction of the DREAM act of 2011 in the Senate and the House.  He didn't introduce it or direct that it be introduced.

As a point of fact, the "Dream Act" has been around in one form or another since 2001 and has been sponsored (in it's various forms) by democrats and republicans alike.  The Dems hold no superiority on this issue as many of the biggest Pro-Immigration hawks are Conservative!  In late November 2010, when it was shot down for the 11th time, B.O. and the boys vowed to bring it up again and force it through with the lingering House and Senate majorities they still had (for the moment).  It passed the House, but members of the democratic party  switched sides to  filibuster it - stalling it's introduction to the Senate floor.  They did it because they feared the actions of their desperate president to do harm during the lame-duck session following the pasting he and his people took during the 2010 election cycle.  It was the first time the legislators listened to their constituency since 2008 and only because they got the 2010 message- LOUD & CLEAR.

Senor O goes on to say in the Univision Radio interview, "But, ultimately, I'm one man - You know, we live in a democracy. We don't live in a monarchy. I'm not the king. I'm the president. And so, I can only implement those laws that are passed through Congress." Wow, this line of rhetoric sounds vaguely familiar...  Where have I heard that before?  Oh - that's right - every time he speaks.  This is the tried and true play from the administration's playbook: Take no blame, blame someone else, convince your detractors that it is they who have let you down by being impatient and expecting too much.

He acts like a petulant child.  One born of a generation trained to shirk responsibility while demanding attention and frankly, used to never having to "measure up" to be rewarded for "trying".    Success is not what it used to be - not when you have the Progressives incrementally changing the dimensions of the measuring stick and moving the goal posts.

Deny him 4 more years - show him that the American public is paying attention to what he says and does and we're measuring him by his actions - NOT HIS WORDS.  George Washington's words in the Thought for the Day section cut both ways.



Wow - what a weekend...  Where to begin?

How about we start with some reader's comments:

"Merlin, in practically every post you have, you keep talking about the vast liberal conspiracy within the media.  You do it to such a degree and with such frequency that it seems like its existence is a matter of fact in the public record.  To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever proven that such a thing exists!  We all know that there are outlets out there that lean in one direction or another, but there is no concerted or orchestrated effort within the media that rises to the level of 'conspiracy', a legal term.  You are starting to sound paranoid, a medical term."  - Mythbuster 2/14/2012

"Merlin - the liberal press is no more involved in a spooky conspiracy than the White House in is league with them.  I used to love reading your editorials, but lately, you're starting to sound like a nut."  - Allergic to Nuts 2/13/2012

"He who sees conspiracy everywhere sees conspiracy nowhere..." - Carl, Toronto 2/13/2012

I could go on and on with these types of quotes, dating back months, but I think a small sample is plenty to make my point.  It is times like these that I wish I had time to work out my blog.  Had I done so, I could have had a long and infamous record of setting these people straight prior to all of the proof landing in one fell swoop.  Enter the Daily Caller and their expose of Media Matters For America (MMFA).  It's all there, all of the proof - the lies, the deceit, the connections.  The Daily Caller did a wonderful job.  Now, be sure to follow the full investigative series on MMFA.  I think you will all see quite a few names of people and organizations pop up that you've heard of here - FIRST.  Follow the money trail and watch just how quickly the control of our mass media flows back to the likes of:  George Soros, the Tides Foundation, the Schumann Fund, the Sandler Foundation (Herb and Marion Sandler of ACORN fame,, Barbra Streisand, Bren Simon (Husband owns Simon Property Group), the Lear Foundation (People for the American Way), Peter Lewis (Progressive Auto Insurance) and the Joyce Foundation (Barack O - himself was a board member of this group). 

This is real people - this is what you are contributing to when you go shopping, buy things on the internet and when you rent/lease or purchase housing.  All money flows to the top 1% and these folks are just as representative of it as are the folks that Barack and his minions vilify.  These are the very same uber-rich liberals that believe they are smarter than all of you and this is how they are trying to control you.  For cripe's sake - WAKE UP!

And here's my rebuttal to Mythbuster, Allergic to Nuts and Carl from Toronto: 

I did not need to see the IRS records of these groups to know that they were involved (in bed) with MMFA; their agenda and reporting told the story.  I did not need inside scoop from loose-lipped reporters across the map to know that MMFA coordinated with the likes of the NY Times, SF Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Huffington Hope Float and others - they told you with their coordinated reporting (attacks).  I also did not need "insiders" to tell me that MMFA worked closely with, supported and took orders from the White House - That too was as obvious as the overall conspiracy.  You see Ladies and Gentlemen, the patterns are there and they never lie.  The only patterns that are inaccurate are faked/fabricated ones and even they tell a tale of their own. 




On to more Reader's Comments:

"Merlin, you have a wife and four daughters, do you really mean to tell me that you haven't noticed that the cost of medical care and insurance has gone through the roof?  Either you are a tenured professor with medical coverage for life - or you are rich if you haven't noticed.  The President is just trying to do what England, France, Canada and others have done:  Control Medical costs and increase access for those who haven't got it."  - Almost broke Daphne, Oregon 2/15/2012

I am neither rich, nor tenured.  I pay for medical insurance the same way you do.  In fact, I pay for it as an individual, as I do for all my dependents.  I am not employed in the classical sense; I am an "independent contractor", so, in addition to worrying about the cost of medical expenses and insurance - I have the added worry of just making ends meet while hoping money keeps coming through the door.  I suspect that I share that with many of you.  I will take on the rest of your commentary in a bit, when I reveal the truth to you and the rest of the nay-sayers simultaneously.

"Mr. Wizard - you seem to think that absolutely nothing good can come of the Affordable Healthcare Plan and you use the term 'Obamacare' as if it is a dirty word.  If it is so bad, why does the NHS in the UK/France & Canada work so well?"  -  Brad, Wisconsin 2/14/2012

Does it?  People there die of things we survive every day.  France is at the bleeding-edge of pharma-tech and they aren't any better.  Cancer mortality rates are higher in all three countries than here and trauma survivability rates for the U.S. make those three countries look like Ghana.  Canadians and Brits come here for non-emergent but life-threatening illnesses in droves because of the waiting lines...  Keep reading - you're about to get a giggle.

"Merlin, I think you are wrong.  Dead wrong.  The President, though he may have gone too far too fast, is not making ill-informed, ill-conceived and ill-applied decisions.  He has surrounded himself with the best and the brightest and the time was right for his brand of change.  The American public voted for it and they overwhelmingly put him and his likeminded associates into power.  Obamacare is the best he could get in the furious climate that grew up overnight.  It's not as good as the EU NHS system but it will be a good start here until we can nationalize it.  Isn't it better to have a decent system where everyone gets the best care than a bad one where only the rich get it?  Even you must have a heart."  Name withheld by request, 2/15/2012

So many possible points to start with came flooding to my mind making it almost impossible to begin this rebuttal.  First and foremost, he has not surrounded himself with those you claim.  He has surrounded himself with Academics, inexperienced bit-players, failed business people and half-wits - all of which have his agenda in common' they too are socialist or marxist-leaning.  Read all of my previous work, the evidence is there - as are the citations if you question the veracity of my research.  Second - the American public did no such thing.  They had no idea that he was going to try and turn a capitalist society into a bigger version of Venezuela.  How could they?  The press never vetted him, his views or his previous actions!  They never reported the totality of his speeches (only sound bites) and he never gave any detail of his plans.  The left-wing that was ushered into power with him simply rode his coattails. I'll get to your point about the NHS below, I would like to get to the last of your nonsensical assertions next.  You insinuate that only the rich get "American healthcare" - I invite you to take a look at Medicare/Medicaid and Children's insurance programs that every state has for uninsured children (CHIP).  The poor, in the words of Mitt Romney, "have a safety net."  It is the middle class that is struggling with medical care and insurance - NOT THE POOR!  MY GOD would you liberals wake up.  I am so sick of hearing about the poor, the minorities, the under-class, the inner-city, the etc., etc..  EVERYONE is hurting - we do not need to name them, class them or associate them with urban centers.  No one is "targeted" by high medical or insurance costs - not the minorities, not the poor, not even the redneck hicks living in the sticks; no one is.  We need something to make the insurance companies not fear insuring people, medicines, procedures, doctors and hospitals.  We need insurance companies, physicians and hospitals alike to be able to do their job, make money and not fear for their solvency.  Tort reform is the only solution.  Keep reading below.

Ever wanted to know just how effective the left-wing conspiracy to control the press is?  Here's a good example for you:  Google "UK privatizing health care" 

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Did you notice that there are only two American news organizations reporting on it?  Both are conservative.  Did you notice that it is all over the UK like a firestorm?  Hardly...  It is a big deal in the UK, but Google hardly notices.  How about Yahoo?  Somewhat better, but still, it mostly returns hits to conservative-leaning outlets, the British Telegraph and the Guardian, another UK paper.

So, I went to the Huffington Hope Float and typed the same thing in their search engine:  1 hit on their site - in their "tech" section of the paper. 

LATimes: No Results Found

Chicago Tribune:  No Results Found

San Francisco Chronicle:  No Results Found

The NY Times:  No Results Found.  To be fair, there was one result - A 2010 piece on David Cameron that essentially said that there would be no privatization of the NHS in the UK.  Upon further review of the NY Times, under the heading of Great Britain, there were scores of article regarding the UK, EU issues and even the PM Cameron - but nothing on the biggest deal in UK politics today. 

Of course AP or Reuters will have something on it- right?

NOPE... No results were found.

I have sent each and every one of those news organizations an email, daring them to bust out and be their own news organization.  We'll see. 

Here is the NEWS you are missing:


As Obama pushes new regulations, UK eyes privatizing health care

Health Bill spells "the end of the National Health Service as we know it"

Keep in mind that the Guardian is a Washington Post/Huffington Post style of paper, prone to wild assertions and finding the most dramatic way to get their point across.  Having said that, I would offer that it has become apparent to the Brits, like the Cubans recently learned, Cradle-to-grave welfare & pension is just not possible.  It is a fool's paradise.  The former USSR learned it, the North Koreans are suffering because of it and the Greek are taking their time figuring it out. 

As Obama pushes this thing further and further in our butts, trying his best to change everything that makes us American (Read: copy Europe et al), others are trying to come back our way.  The signs are everywhere that we are following the wrong leader...  When are we going to wake up?


Obama circumvents Congress to make appointments - LA Times

Bucking Senate, Obama Appoints Consumer Chief - NY Times


So, the Campaigner-in-Chief, Barack Obama (BO), has decided to ignore the [LONG STANDING] gentlemen's agreement with the bodies of congress and make recess appointments that he knows would never be approved. 

The congress was using pro-forma sessions all year to block the appointment of the ultra-union-friendly labor board members, particularly in the wake of the Boeing debacle they created by blocking the company's move to add operations in beautiful South Carolina. 

Additionally, Harry Reid was unable to gain the necessary votes earlier this year to break the Republican filibuster on Richard Cordray's appointment to the head position of the new Consumer Protection Agency.  For the record, this is a group the Republicans never wanted in the first place, voted against and did everything in their power to de-fund.  It was another of BO's big government spending sprees that have done nothing to help the economy, but in turn, have managed to further expand the debt & deficit. 

This is truly "Chicago-style" politics, so true-to-form that Old Blogo is proud.  Many presidents have made recess appointments - that's not the issue here.  The issue is that BO did it when the house was in Pro-Forma - meaning they were never gone for more than 3 days.  No president has ever done that before because they realize that they are essentially breaking the law.  The spirit of the law is absolutely being broken, but the meaning is as well.  You can always assume that they know they're being sneaky when they call in White House counsel to find out if something is "Kosher".

McConnell is right, "This is an unprecedented power grab," and an extreme overreach by the executive branch.  But - this isn't the first time he's done this sort of extreme politicking, is it?  Will this one finally be the constitutional challenge that someone has the stones to bring against him?

He has shown us his reelection strategy.  Now - if only we had a Republican that could actually inspire the base and beat his majesty so we can undo all that he's screwed up.