About Me

Name: Laura L. Hollis,...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

More ineptitude from "Cash for Clunkers"

OK, so as a former pickup owner, I will not complain about people buying Ford F-150s.  But let's stop saying that "Cash for Clunkers" improved the environment, or whatever other nonsense the Obama administration has peddled about the program, which was a fiscal disaster as well.

What's next?  Complaining that Edmunds.com is preaching "right-wing hate" and is "not really a car information source"?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What is the "big tent" position?

The Nov. 3rd elections proved a lot of points.  (More about that later.)  But here's one:

1.  Limited government is a BIG tent position.

On Mark Levin's show last night, he mentioned a number of others (I have to paraphrase, not having the transcript in front of me):  The Constitution is a Big Tent.  The Rule of Law is a Big Tent.  Private Property is a Big Tent.  Liberty is a Big Tent.  Belief in the time-tested founding principles of this country is a Big Tent!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Yes, we should know how much they cost

Interesting bill from Virginia Foxx, discussed here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

So, Obama's intentions were obvious to someone else, as well

Nice to hear Emmett Tyrrell of The American Spectator say so.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fraud, waste, and abuse

Oh, sure.  Government can run health care.  Why doesn't someone point out that the government taking over health care will not eliminate waste, fraud and abuse, because it is the existence of the government as a payor that creates the system that fosters waste, fraud and abuse?  From the Weekly Standard's blog today:
 
Annual Medicare Fraud: $60 Billion; Annual Profits of Top Ten Insurance Companies: $8 billion

As 60 Minutes reported last week, Medicare fraud is rampant and has now replaced the cocaine (ahem) business as the major criminal activity in South Florida. Both 60 Minutes and the Washington Post report that Medicare fraud now costs American taxpayers roughly $60 billion a year. That may sound like a lot of money, but surely it pales next to the extraordinary profits of private insurance companies, right?

Well, let's see.... Last year, the profits of the ten largest insurance companies in America were just over $8 billion -- combined. No single insurance company made even five percent of what Medicare reportedly loses in fraud.

While we're making comparisons, in its real first ten years (2014-23), the Senate Finance Committee bill would cost $1.7 trillion. At the rate of last year's profits, the combined ten-year profits of America's ten largest insurance companies would be $83 billion -- five percent of the costs of the Senate Finance Committee bill. Eighty-three billion dollars may not buy you much in comparison with BaucusCare, but -- on the bright side -- that ten-year tally is somewhat more than what Medicare loses each year in fraud.

So, the next time someone alleges that government-run health care is cheaper because of "lower administrative costs" -- a truly preposterous claim on its surface -- these numbers would be good ones to have at the ready: $60 billion in annual Medicare fraud, $8 billion in combined annual profits for America's ten largest insurance companies.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My predictions...

Christie over Corzine.  In this political climate, "experience" is synonymous with "corrupt" and "same old same old" means bankruptcy.  In a close contest, I think the Christie voters will turn out, and those whose support for Corzine was marginal will decide that it's time for something different in New Jersey.  I also think the fact that Corzine has praised Christie as a prosecutor will help Christie, as will Corzine's tin-eared play-on-words regarding Christie's weight.
 
McDonnell over Deeds.  No big crystal ball needed there.
 
Hoffman over Owens.  Here, I think there are enough people who will be galvanized by Scozzafava's endorsement of Owens.  NEWS-FRICKIN'- FLASH, DEDE:  the people who would have voted for you would vote for Owens anyway.  But those who were on the fence about whether or not you are a RINO will be persuaded, and motivated to go cast a vote for Hoffman.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NJ race is all about turnout

Now, disgruntled conservative voters: are you going to turn out and vote, or stay home and b.i.t.c.h?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Scozzafava reveals what we already knew

by endorsing the Democrat candidate in the NY-23 race.  Go, Doug Hoffman, go.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More on the White House's "enemies list"

More disturbing practices, outlined by Mark Hyman in The American Spectator.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Government intervention and the dissolution of marriage.

Mona Charen writes critically here on Maria Shriver's new book.  Sorry, but the answer to disintegrating families is not more government intervention.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More communist aspirations

For those who thought this week's column on Townhall.com was "over the top," check out this editorial from National Review Online which discusses Obama's pay czar Kenneth Feinberg, and the Left's desire for control over executive pay:
"If this were simply a case of politicians’ grandstanding upon the misfortunes of seven deeply troubled firms, that would be one thing. If the ruins of General Motors are the rooftop from which you wish to shout your critique of capitalism, the very best of Motor City luck to you. But the Democrats wish to see these czarish pretentions extended over most of the American economy. Senator Schumer, the New York grandee renowned for his ability to squeeze campaign money out of Wall Street, wishes to see Mr. Feinberg’s pay restrictions extended to every publicly traded company in America: not every financial company, mind you, not every TARP recipient, not every bailout basketcase, but every single American company with shares trading on an exchange. Those aspirations are authoritarian, and remarkably so."
 
No kidding.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It isn't "Chicago politics"

As I have said before, Victor Davis Hanson is one of the best political commentators out there.  His column this week in National Review Online reveals what so many traditional political pundits are saying: "Gee, whiz, Obama's poll numbers are sinking." "What's he gonna do?" "He's going to have to move to the center if he wants to govern effectively."
 
I've got news for you folks.  Obama is never, EVER going to do that.  If you think that, you don't know the way his kind operates.  Bill Clinton needed to be loved.  It isn't about popularity with Obama, or gaining votes, or public support.  This is his moment.  This is his chance.  It will be about ramming as much of his leftist agenda down the country's throat as fast as possible, before the 2010 elections.  Universal health care.  Cap and trade.  A treaty on "climate change."  All of which will be intended for the federal government to get their hands on massive amounts of private wealth to redistribute it to the ones they want to give it to.  Anyone who gets in the way must be demonized, marginalized, discredited, destroyed. 
 
Hanson speculates that this may be Obama's intentions.  Only Congress can stop him, and this depends entirely on the (historically) limp-wristed Republicans holding fast and the Blue Dog Democrats realizing that this isn't just about a few more welfare checks or a little stronger "safety net."
 
Everyone is calling this "Chicago [i.e., hardball] politics."  I don't think so.  Rod Blagojevich was "Chicago politics" and that's about bribery and deal-making.  Everyone is for sale in the Chicago model.  Obama is not for sale.  He is a purist.  And that is far more dangerous than a mere Chicago politician.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Kim Strassel, on the other hand, gets it.

And some fun lines from The Untouchables, to boot.  Strassel has become one of my favorite writers.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Close, but no cigar for Peggy Noonan

Peggy Noonan, slowly but surely, is beginning to understand what those of us who were not hornswoggled by "hope and change" saw way back in the fall of 2008.
 
Of course, she treats it like a recent phenomenon.  It isn't.  Obama is long on leftist ideology, and woefully lacking ANY experience that would have taught him how dumb and destructive so many of his ideas are.
 
I'm sorry it's taking Peggy so long to figure it out.  Better late than never.  Maybe.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They're ALL Communists

This week's article, but with links.

Back when people were tippy-toeing around the “s” word (“socialist”), and before he was elected,
I called out Obama’s basic political inclinations for what they are - communist. 

Though plenty pooh-poohed this, and called it extreme or unsubstantiated, there was ample proof in Obama’s own writings, his interviews, and the political leanings of his mentors (Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshall Davis), his pastor (Jeremiah Wright) and his friends. It’s absurd to hear people say now that Obama is governing differently than he campaigned. If you think that, you weren’t listening.

But those who still harbor any doubts need only look at his team of “advisors.”

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn is the most recent Obamirror. In the address so many have been airing recently, she offered Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong as an inspiration to students who might need to “figure out how to do things that have never been done before.” Well, golly - a man who “figured out” how to murder 70 million Chinese certainly gets points for novelty.

Before Dunn, it was ousted “green jobs czar” Van Jones, a self-admitted communist.

“Science czar” John Holdren has written of the possible need (and constitutionality) of mandatory sterilization and forced abortions to forestall whatever crisis du jour he and his colleagues Paul and Anne Ehrlich were predicting back in the 1970s (The coming ice age! Catastrophic food shortages! Death to billions!)

“Regulatory czar” Cass Sunstein has argued in favor of government regulations banning hunting and eating meat, humans representing animals in court to protect their “rights,” government intervention to ensure that the “constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals,” (whatever those are) and “libertarian paternalism,” whereby government controls the choices you make. (Late comedian George Carlin would have had a field day with that oxymoronic suggestion.)

And none of this even mentions the laundry list of tax cheats.

These appointments are routinely characterized as amateurish leadership; examples of poor vetting. This would be laughable were it not so obviously false. How many of Obama’s advisors have to be exposed as communists and Marxists before some of the duller-witted among us admit not only that there is a pattern here, but that it is deliberate, and reflects the leanings of the White House?

Connect the dots, people. It’s not that Jones, Dunn, Sunstein et al were not properly vetted; it’s that they were. It’s not that Obama wasn’t familiar enough with their viewpoints; it’s that he was. These people were not chosen despite their views; they were chosen precisely because their views coincide with Obama’s own. If it walks like a communist, talks like a communist, and espouses state control in the name of “the people” like a communist, it’s a communist.

In February of this year, Newsweek giddily proclaimed, “We are all socialists now!” But Obama is no mere socialist. A socialist just wants your money; a communist wants complete control of your life. Some questioned the tone of my October 2008 column when I wrote it; how temperate it looks now in light of the first nine months of the Obama administration. 

Obama has nationalized banks and car companies, fired the chief executive of a major corporation, appointed unaccountable ministers to set salaries for executives in private industry, castigated and threatened secured bondholders and run roughshod over their contract rights in favor of political patronage, spent nearly a trillion dollars in “stimulus” legislation that was loaded with payback and pork, proposed “cap-and-trade” legislation that will confiscate American wealth and transfer it to third world nations, many of whom are run by leftist dictators. And his pièce de résistance would be a government takeover of the entire health care industry in the United States, the crowbar by which government will be forced into every aspect of our lives from birth to death.

All of this has been accomplished by deceit, trumped up indignation, and demonization of private enterprise and business leaders – classic Marxist propaganda. But it is still not enough. Too many Americans still oppose Obama’s attempts to take over the American health care industry (54% according to the latest Rasmussen poll). Over 40% now “strongly disapprove” of Obama’s performance as President. Hundreds of thousands have turned out at “tea parties,” townhalls, and a march on Washington. Resistance is growing.

Obama knows that Americans who favor limited government, personal liberty, free market exchange, and individual responsibility opt to get their news and commentary outside the controlled Pravda press that has cast him as a “god,” and pitches his statist agenda adoringly. Thus, because every good communist knows you must have a stranglehold on the media, he has now launched a full-scale attack on Fox News, and other media that refuse to toe his party line. 

This is right out of the Marxist-Leninist playbook, as is Obama’s methodology. In the style of history’s most talented dictators, Obama remains above the fray, having thugs, well-meaning but ignorant “social justice” Christians, leftist theorists, and political hacks to make his arguments and do his dirty work for him.

Still, there are those who cannot square Obama’s admittedly leftist leanings with his reluctance to vocally support the Iranian protestors, his shunning the Dalai Lama, his obsequious bow to the Saudi king, embrace of Hugo Chavez, and defense of ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya (whose disregard for the constraints of the Honduran constitution was the reason for his ouster). 

Anyone struggling with that perceived inconsistency does not understand the difference between traditional liberalism and communism. The communist – like every other utopian ideologue - is always, at his core, an authoritarian.  Professing to love and do all for “the people” is a transparent cover for loathing of “the people” and complete disdain for their choices, as Obama, his comrades in Congress, and his shills in the media have demonstrated toward Americans over and over again. Representative government is a farce and a façade for these people. It doesn’t matter what you want; we know better than you.

Time was, those accused of communist sympathies would deny it. Today’s Marxists brazenly say, “Yes, we can!” Perhaps too much time has passed since the last leftist barbarian starved, imprisoned, or slaughtered millions of his own people in the fruitless pursuit of utopia. Perhaps Obama & Co. are allowed to get away with this because our Pravda press views Obamunism as a “kinder, gentler” sort of communism than that responsible for the deaths of 100 million people in the past 90 years or so. Or perhaps people cannot believe that a fatherless boy from a difficult background, a man willing to reveal all in heartfelt autobiographies, a gifted speaker inspiring such admiration – could possibly pose a threat to the freest nation in the world.

This is foolhardy. The people Obama has handpicked to advise him share his willful ignorance of human nature and his arrogant sense of moral superiority. Those two traits, more so than any others, power the “ends justify the means” ethos that has been behind some of the bloodiest excesses in human history. And that same history is filled with examples where oppression was accompanied by inspiring tales of hardships overcome, ghost-written autobiographies, soaring rhetoric, and a population willing to enshrine the Leader as a godlikefigure.

And ultimately, it isn’t – or rather, it shouldn’t be – about Barack Obama the individual. He may be the kindest man one could hope to meet. But the drafters of our Constitution understood something fundamental: that the best protection against oppression lies in a government with limits, not the benevolent personality of whoever happens to be in office at the time. Throwing away our liberty hand over fist because Obama seems like a basically decent guy is precisely what the Founding Fathers warned against. (And for the record, I personally place no confidence in a man who views our Constitution as “flawed,” precisely because it limits his power.)

There were few who remarked with astonishment at a President whose inaugural address was themed around “remaking America.” But millions wondered in breathless anticipation what this “remade” America would look like. Just look at Obama’s role models, and the role models of his appointees and political supporters, and you’ll know. Obama’s remade America would look like CubaNorth Korea. The former Soviet Union.  Venezuela.  CambodiaMyanmarChina.

“Communism” is a term that may be outdated. Fine. Whatever you choose to call it – totalitarianism, authoritarianism, liberalism, progressivism, statism, libertarian paternalism – it is the same mindset. Like a virus, the change of name is just a mutation of the same ideas that threaten to destroy the body politic.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456789102021Next »