Must Be Nice To Jet Around On Someone Else's Dime **Updated**

That would be Michelle Obama, of course. She and her daughter, Sasha, are currently in Spain. With plenty of their closest friends, enough to fill 60+ rooms at a swanky resort on the Mediterranean Coast.

If only this was her first vacation of the summer, and we weren't footing the damn airfare for Michelle, her daughter, staff, and security. But that is exactly what we are doing as Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun Times wrote in her recent article, "Michelle Obama Could Face 'Appearance' Issue Over Luxury Vacation." Uh, yeah, you could say that:

First lady Michelle Obama may catch some flak for vacationing at an expensive luxury hotel on Spain's Mediterranean coast. By the end of the summer, Mrs. Obama will have taken eight vacation trips -- including her visit to Marbella, staying at the five-star Hotel Villa Padierna with daughter Sasha and some pals. {snip}

Mrs. Obama's U.S. Air Force jet landed at Malaga on Wednesday; she skipped celebrating her husband's 49th birthday with him. (Daughter Malia, 12, is at overnight camp.) Mrs. Obama pays for personal expenses -- as do her friends who arrived on their own -- but that only covers a small part of the expense. Taxpayers pick up the tab for staff and security at the exclusive hotel and most of the expenses for the plane.

First ladies often go on vacations, with and without the president. An issue for Mrs. Obama may be how many: New York in March; Chicago, over Memorial Day; Los Angeles in June; Camp David -- sort of an extension of the White House -- in July; Maine in July, to highlight Acadia National Park, and now Spain. Mrs. Obama is glamorizing Spain's coastal resorts before her Aug. 14 first family weekend visit to Florida's Gulf Coast, to encourage tourists scared away by the oil spill. Starting Aug. 19, the Obamas will spend 10 days in Martha's Vineyard. Click here to read the rest.

Gee, you think she might take just a LITTLE flak for her vacations? Eight this summer (okay, seven if you want to take out Camp David, but still - it's a vacation!)?

Meanwhile, Obama himself jaunted off to Chicago to celebrate his birthday with "friends." Hmm, do you think they let Tony Rezko out to come wish his good buddy Barack a Happy 49th? Who knows, but at least Oprah and Gayle made it for dinner with The One. Isn't that special? Uh huh. And by that, I mean, blech.

So, two of the Obamas are playing in Spain, the other daughter is at Camp, and Barack is hanging out in his old haunts.

Meanwhile, not that it seems to matter to these people, but new Unemployment Claims made a major jump at the end of July, a bit unexpectedly. Yep, they hit a 3 month high of 479,000. And that's not the end of it as Hibah Yousuf reported for CNN Money, "Jobless Claims up 19,000 to 3-Month High":

"The job market is pretty muted," said Doug Roberts, chief investment strategist at Channel Capital Research. "It's not getting much worse, but it's not getting any better either."

Roberts said the monthly employment report will provide a clearer picture of trends in the labor market, but it's clear that a long road still lies ahead of a jobs recovery.

"The government has been driving the improvements we've seen in unemployment so far, so as soon as it stops spending, we'll be back to where we were before," Roberts said.

Well, that doesn't sound promising, does it? Not to me, anyway. And not to those who are being impacted by this economy.

So, by all means, Obamas - keep playing and partying. I am sure all of the people who are losing their jobs and their homes, too, understand the need for 8 - EIGHT - summer vacations and hobnobbing with the rich and famous. And the people on the Gulf who have lost their livelihoods surely understand the need for a break. So have your fun now. Hopefully, you'll only have a couple more years to play on our dime.

UPDATE: Two of them, actually. Since I am in my hometown after having seen my orthopaedist, and have to get something from my mom's house (now my brother's house), I have this on the jobs front. This came in on Friday, to add to the high Unemployment filings for the last week of July. There was a decline of jobs by 131,000 to add to this already disappointing (to put it mildly) news. I don't quite understand how this keeps Unemployment steady at 9.5% since the numbers keep hovering close to half a million, but that's just me.

And then, there is this headline regarding Michelle's European vacation: Spanish Police Close Public Beach For Michelle Obama's (Almost $400,000) Spanish Holiday (sorry - couldn't find the pound sign while my 6 yr old grandnephew is jumping around). Oh, this is some story, with LOTS of photos and details, except how many aides Michelle actually has. Why can no one get that number? There's a ton of security with her, too, as you might imagine, which costs each and everyone of us our taxpaying dollars. Gee - and you wonder why Andrea Tantaros refers to her as a "modern day Marie Antoinette..."

Sigh.

Have a good day, friends!

The Show Me State Says Shove It - Updated -

Claire McCaskill, Senator and Obama sycophant, just might be a tad embarrassed by the August 4th vote on Proposition C in her home state of Missouri. If you are unfamiliar with what Proposition C says, the following comes from the ballot itself:

Proposition C:

Shall the Missouri Statutes be amended to:
• Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services?
• Modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies?
It is estimated this proposal will have no immediate costs or savings to state or local governmental entities. However, because of the uncertain interaction of the proposal with implementation of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, future costs to state governmental entities are unknown.

It was a Yes Or No option. And it was one the people of Missouri voted to pass in a big way as this piece by Tony Messenger of the STLToday.com reported in "Prop C Passes Overwhelmingly":

Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance, rebuking President Barack Obama's administration and giving Republicans their first political victory in a national campaign to overturn the controversial health care law passed by Congress in March.

"The citizens of the Show-Me State don't want Washington involved in their health care decisions," said Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, one of the sponsors of the legislation that put Proposition C on the August ballot. She credited a grass-roots campaign involving Tea Party and patriot groups with building support for the anti-Washington proposition.

With most of the vote counted, Proposition C was winning by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1. The measure, which seeks to exempt Missouri from the insurance mandate in the new health care law, includes a provision that would change how insurance companies that go out of business in Missouri liquidate their assets.

Uh, yeah - I'd say the people had spoken. Go here to read the rest.

Below, Peter Johnson, Jr. goes into more detail about what the overwhelming support of Proposition C can mean down the road, as well as why the MSM is so dismissive of this proposition:



Indeed, as Mr. Johnson says, this is reflecting the will of the people, reflecting what the people were telling their elected officials before they voted to pass this far-reaching, Big Pharma giveaway, gold coin taxing (not kidding - it's in there), IRS-increasing, exceedingly expensive to the tax payers, law that they didn't even bother to read first. Yep, I reckon they have made their voices clear now, don't you think?

You know, this has not been a good week for the Birthday Boy. First a federal judge in Virginia, U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson, rules that the lawsuit filed by Virginia's Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli II, against the Healthcare Law could proceed, and now this. I'd say this one will open some doors for the other 19 states which have filed similar suits.

And now Missouri has spoken out loud and clear. Check out what Lt. Gov. Kinder has to say (he has a great expression in there):



Well, I reckon those elected officials might be listening now. If not, the people will have another chance to make their voices heard come November.

Who Really Helped Pass Prop 8 in California? **Updated* X2

That's the question raised by David Fletcher of the LGBT Mentoring Project of the Learn Act Build Program at the LA Gay and Lesbian Center. Mr. Fletcher's findings have been documented in this article in the LA Times, Behind the numbers of Prop. 8: It's crucial to understand the data about Prop. 8's victory before launching another attempt to legalize gay marriage..

Huh - and here I thought we already knew the answer to that question, as I wrote back in November 0f 2008: Obama and his supporters. That's the short answer, anyway. Obama remains opposed to same-sex marriage, after all. That is also the answer to how Proposition (or Amendment) 2 passed in Florida that election, too, a law far more restrictive regarding the LGBT community, but one that is rarely, rarely mentioned, even though it garnered 62% of the vote.

But here is the point Mr. Fletcher wishes to make:

[snip] After the election, a misleading finding from exit polls led many to blame African Americans for the loss. But in our new analysis, it appears that African Americans' views were relatively stable. True, a majority of African Americans opposed same-sex marriage, but that was true at the beginning and at the end of the campaign; few changed their minds in the closing weeks.

The shift, it turns out, was greatest among parents with children under 18 living at home — many of them white Democrats.

The numbers are staggering. In the last six weeks, when both sides saturated the airwaves with television ads, more than 687,000 voters changed their minds and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. More than 500,000 of those, the data suggest, were parents with children under 18 living at home. Because the proposition passed by 600,000 votes, this shift alone more than handed victory to proponents. [snip]

There is more to this report, including wrong-way voting which affected both sides, though that seems to be the case more for those who OPPOSED same sex marriage actually voting for it (500,000). You can read the rest of the article HERE, and the full report at prop8report.org.

Yes, it seems 687,000 people shifted their votes in the final weeks. And those people were mainly Democrats. Is Mr. Fletcher really surprised by this? I have been saying for some time now that the DNC is not as "gay-friendly" as they would like us to believe. Again, Obama himself opposes same-sex marriage. So, the outcome should not be a huge surprise, at least not to me. Curious that it seems to be a surprise for Mr. Fletcher.

I find it interesting that Mr. Fletcher made a point of claiming it is not the fault of African Americans - entirely, that is. He seems to want to take the heat off of the African American community while having to acknowledge that, while their numbers may not have changed that much from polls before the vote to the vote itself, they still voted FOR Prop 8. Um, is that revised look at the data supposed to be a comfort to those affected by this votes?

Regardless, I have been saying for almost two years now that it was the Democrats, in both California AND Florida, who voted to suppress our right to marry. It's a fact, Jack, no matter how one looks at the data. Sad, but true.

While we are talking about Democrats and votes, guess what the Democratic Party has decided to keep? Oh, you could see this coming a mile away: Democratic Party to Keep Controversial Superdelegates: A reform effort to take away party bigwigs’ presidential-nominating power suffers a setback..

"A reform effort...suffers a setback"? Uh, yeah - one could say that, but that is if one was ever foolish enough to believe the Democratic "bigwigs," which includes Obama, by the way, were ever, ever going to give up that power in the first place.

Oh, sure, Obama made noises about abolishing the Superdelegates after he bullied them into giving him the nomination (along with votes for Hillary which the RBC did), as this article reports:

[snip] After Obama secured the party’s nomination, he urged the DNC to create a commission to examine superdelegates’ influence and other shortcomings in the nomination process. The Democratic Change Commission (whose members included Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina) took a tough stance. Superdelegates, it recommended, should be required to vote for a candidate assigned to them, based on the results of their state’s caucus or primary. [snip]

After Obama secured the party’s nomination, he urged the DNC to create a commission to examine superdelegates’ influence and other shortcomings in the nomination process. The Democratic Change Commission (whose members included Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina) took a tough stance. Superdelegates, it recommended, should be required to vote for a candidate assigned to them, based on the results of their state’s caucus or primary. [snip]

Let's just look at the plethora of Obama sycophants listed right there. Are you seriously trying to make me believe that if Obama wanted this Superdelegate thing changed, it wouldn't be? Spare me already. Oh, he wants to keep it the same - he wouldn't be where he is today without the Superdelegates (not to mention Convention delegate, voter, and caucus fraud, but hey - no need to be picky, right?).

And the outcome of the proposed change? You know it - you knew it from the get-go. They said NO:

[snip] But the rules committee took a dim view of this proposal. While endorsing recommendations to dilute the superdelegates’ influence (mostly by increasing the number of ordinary delegates), it quietly nixed the redefinition of their voting powers at it July 10 meeting. How quietly? Enough that even some members of the change commission hadn’t yet heard about it when NEWSWEEK spoke to them last week. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

All of us who were paying attention May 31, 2008, who watched as the Democratic Party revealed its true colors right before our eyes, knew damn well the Rules and Bylaws Committee would never, ever willingly give up such a great tool for overturning the will of the voters. These days, that's just how the Democrats roll.

I am so glad Mr. Fletcher made it clear that it is Democrats who voted FOR Prop 8, though we knew that already. But hey - never hurts to get a reminder, eh?

And we got another reminder from the RBC this week, too. How we vote, for what we vote, for whom we vote, one thing is clear - the Democratic Party does not stand for what it says it does: it is not the party of the people. And it damn sure is not the party that cares about one person, one vote. Glad the RBC made that crystal clear one more time for those who missed it a couple of years ago.

Like I said, these days, this is just how the Democratic Party rolls. I expect we will see more of the same in 2012, but then again, with this bunch, I never expected anything different. How about you?

UPDATE: As you may have heard by now, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughan R. Walker ruled that Prop. 8:

[snip]...violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court. [snip]

I am sure there will be more about this in the coming days. But, WOW!! Good news!

UPDATE #2: Just in case you were wondering if, maybe, just maybe, this reversal by Judge Walker has had an effect on Obama's stand against same sex marriage, the answer would be No. Obama continues to oppose same-sex marriage. Oh, but he supports us. Yeah. Right.

"Oh, Andy. How Could You?"

I don't know about you, but I grew up watching "The Andy Griffith Show."" Griffith was a fellow Tar Heel, after all. His show imparted words of wisdom on a regular basis. My 7 and 10 yr old nieces still watch his show on TV Land (along with the Lucille Ball Show).

Yes, the show routinely poked gentle fun at small-town America, allowing us to laugh at ourselves and not take ourselves too seriously. And who could forget what a great parent Sheriff Taylor was, often disciplining young Opie for mistakes made by sending him to his room so he could "think about that thar thing." Oh, yes. A great show, especially for someone growing up in the South.

Heck, we joke even now that we live in Mayberry since we are on an island with not even ONE stoplight. I kid you not. The UPS man's sister in law was my physical therapist, and the postal carrier who retired to rescue animals, would tell me about her vacations. People talk to one another here. Just like Mayberry.

So, imagine my disappointment when I saw the following ad put out by the Obama White House:



As Aunt Bea would say, "Oh, Andy, how could you?"

She's not the only one. FactCheck.Org also has a problem with it, as this article by Brooks Jackson indicates, "Mayberry Misleads On Medicare." It's a sad day for Mayberry, and the country, when the straight-shooting, plain talking "sheriff" is neither one. "Oh, Andy" indeed.

You can read it all here, but here are some of the salient points:

[snip] So how can the Obama administration claim that "guaranteed Medicare benefits will remain the same"? The answer is that the term "guaranteed" is a weasel word — a qualifier that sucks the meaning out of a phrase in the way that weasels supposedly suck the contents out of an egg. It may sound to the casual listener as though this ad is saying that the benefits of all Medicare recipients are guaranteed to stay the same — and that may well be the way the ad’s sponsors wish listeners to hear it. But what the administration is really saying is that only those benefits that are guaranteed in law will remain the same.

There’s even a section in the new law (section 3601) that says: "Nothing in the provisions of, or amendments made by, this Act shall result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security Act" (the title that establishes the Medicare program). Section 3602 says even Medicare Advantage recipients won’t suffer any reduction of "any benefits guaranteed by law."

But here’s the catch: The extra benefits generally offered by Medicare Advantage plans aren’t guaranteed by law. They are offered by private insurance companies as inducements. The companies have been able to offer somewhat more generous packages than traditional, fee-for-service Medicare because the system pays them as much as 40 percent more per patient than it pays for traditional Medicare, according to the chief actuary. The average in 2009 was about 14 percent more, according to the most recent analysis by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, issued in February. But the new law generally eliminates the extra payments in the coming years. Foster, the chief actuary, estimates that federal spending for Medicare Advantage will be reduced by $145 billion over the law’s first decade.[snip]

Wow. So, it seems ol' Andy wasn't quite telling the truth after all, especially when you add in this Wall Street Journal article referenced by Brooks Jackson, "Health Law Augurs Transfer of Funds From Old To Young," by Janet Adamy. Check out this particular tidbit:

[snip] "I'm sure that some of those additional benefits have been nice," Nancy-Ann DeParle, who runs the White House's Office of Health Reform, says of Medicare Advantage plans. "But I think what we have to look at here is what's fair and what's important for the strength of the Medicare program long term."

Stuart Butler, a vice president at the conservative Heritage Foundation, says the White House is misrepresenting the benefits that accrue from Medicare payment cuts. "It uses it to create a new entitlement for a separate group of people rather than strengthening" the program, he says. Moreover, such cuts alone don't pay for the law.

The law will spend $938 billion over a decade, mostly to expand coverage to lower-income Americans. To finance that, there will be $455 billion coming from cuts in government payments to health-care providers that serve patients on Medicare and two other federal programs. The hardest hit—to the tune of $136 billion—will be private insurance companies that run Medicare Advantage plans. [snip]

Oh, you won't believe what all is in that article. I suggest you read the rest. It ain't pretty, but I think the headline already made that point clear. Especially if you are older, that is.

As for the new ad, I'd say that Andy has some "'splaining to do," as Ricky Ricardo used to say. After lying to his fellow senior citizens, he needs to go to his room and "think about that thar thing," and not come down until he understands how wrong lying is. Don't you think?

Coming Out Of The Woodwork

About what happened to the Hillary Delegates back in 2008. I guess it's better late than never, though the damage Obama has done to this country is immeasurable. I imagine we know only the tip of the iceberg at this point - the Nancy Pelosi philosophy of finding out just what has been done after the votes have been cast.

Yes, people are speaking out now about what machinations ensued at the Democratic (sic) National Convention. Here are Gloria Allred and Alma Sanford, along with an anonymous delegate, speaking out about the way the Obama Campaign and the DNC stole the election from Hillary Rodham Clinton:



I think the days of the Democratic Party being Democratic are long, long, gone. I appreciate Ms. Allred's sentiment and all, but the party she thought she knew no longer exists, at least as far as I am concerned. It made that abundantly clear May 31, 2008.

And here we are, getting ready for yet another election. What are the Democrats doing? Throwing lavish parties for one of their House representatives who had had a number of ethics violations levied against him. Oh, yes, that would be Charlie Rangel with his big birthday bash at the Plaza. That will sure show him, won't it? Sheesh. Oh, sure, Obama is making some CYA rumblings about Rangel being old and wishing he could end his career with dignity, but it is way too late for that already, isn't it? But that party for him is still going forward, and the numbers of Democrats expressing concern can be counted on two hands. Way to make clear the Party's priorities, DNC, especially around ETHICS.

Then there is Maxine Waters with her current Ethics charges. She already has been under scrutiny by some of us for the direction in which she wants to take the country, but these charges are concrete indicators of how she does business. Waters and Rangel both, I should say.

And that's just it - the DNC has made its priorities clear, and it is not to represent the will of the voter, and certainly not to conduct business in an ethical manner. Maybe this has been going on for a while, but never was it so blatant as 2008. Voter fraud, caucus fraud, false charges of racism - yep, ethics do not seem high on the DNC list, unless it is a way to violate more of them.

I hope the voters send THEM a clear message in 2010 that we do care about people's behavior. We do care how the parties conduct themselves, and how their leaders conduct themselves. And, assuming our votes actually count, that we can make that clear in the polling place in 2010, and beyond.

Ethics do matter. It's high time the Democrats, and Republicans, too, act like it.