Timothy Birdnow
The big "people" story of the news cycle is the
firing of Paula "hiw wife could eat no lean" Deen, former doyen of the
Food Network. Deen was fired ostensibly for making racial slurs in the
past. I think the Paula Deen, the queen of non-lean, was really sacked
because of racial profiling and her steadfast refusal to promote the
modern Progressive diet.
First let us look at Deen herself (I
might add I have never seen her except in the few photographs the media
has run in response to this controversy, and I have never seen her
show.) An old white woman from the deep South, Deen is known as a
devout Baptist - something guaranteed to raise liberal hackles. She is
also unapologetic about her Georgian roots. To liberals, that means she
is de-facto a foul person.
And she cooks with salt, sugar, and fat, lots of it, in the old Southern tradition.
This caused a major controversy when she admitted she was a diabetic.
Deen
then monetized her diabetes, becoming a paid spokeswoman for Novo
Nordisk, a Danish pharmaceutical firm that makes diabetes medicine. Deen
continued to make her signiature dishes, which enraged the food Nazis.
Michelle
Obama has made changing the American diet her signature issue, but this
sort of thing has been going on for a long time. The Left has always
hated the American diet because it illustrates our wealth and privilege,
and because they want an international diet that all people will be
forced to consume. See, what the Left is trying to do is weaken
sectional cultures - particularly America's - and create a new world
culture to bond the public to a sense of world citizenship. That is part
of why they are so vigorous in promoting amnesty for illegal aliens;
they want an internationalizing of America's culture. A big part of
culture is cuisine.
I wrote about this a number of years ago at American Thinker. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/wheres_the_beef.html
The
venom against Mrs. Deen by the Left is proof-positive she is upsetting
their carefully laid plans; when they all jump on board with a hate
campaign against someone it is because that person is a threat to them.
Paula Deen probably can't understand this; she doesn't know what she has
done wrong. But it is because Mooch Obama has been moving ahead with
plans to restrict America's diet (as Nanny Bloomberg has already done in
New York City) and Deen's popularity and antiquated cooking style pose a
direct challenge to their plans.
But they couldn't bring her
down over the diabetes, nor over her success at making money off of it,
so they had to find a plan B.
Now, Paula Deen is from the old
South, where the N word was not abbreviated nor was it necessarily
considered a pejorative. (In point of fact, blacks today call themselves
that, and if anyone remembers Trayvon Martin called himself the "no
limits N***er"). Had Deen NOT used that word on occasion she would have
been quite odd, just as someone who calls doesn't call them "illegal
immigrants" but invaders is odd today. After all, the word means dark,
hardly a pejorative. It has become taboo as a direct result of the
labors of the Progressives during the '70's. That she should slip up and
use such a word is not surprising given her early life.
But you
cannot violate a liberal taboo. The Left has made the foulest of sexual
language acceptable up to and including calling someone a female parent
copulator, and the most vile of profanity is considered merely colorful
invective.
Change the language and you change the culture. The
Left has successfully done just that. What was a racial description that
some found offensive is now taboo, while what were taboo words reserved
for sailors and prostitutes is now mainstream. Please notice; the
coarsening of sexual language fits with the liberal free love/sexual
revolution movement. To get people to accept any and all sex, public and
private, they have removed the taboo of sexual language. But they have
added a taboo; terms such as "queer" or "faggot" have now become taboo
(unless you are Alec Baldwin).
The liberal sense of freedom is reserved for what they themselves seek to promote.
And so this older white woman handed them the tool to promote her destruction.
But
why should that be? What she has done is certainly far less egregious
than, say, the anal raping of a little girl, yet many on the Left pushed
for amnesty for Roman Polanski, who did precisely that. So it is o.k.
to rape a little girl but not say "n***er"? They offer forgiveness for a
degenerate like Polanski but not for a God-fearing woman?
This
goes back to Saul Alinski rule number 4 "make your enemies live up to
their own rulebook". Paul Deen didn't KNOW she was their enemy, but she
has been mugged just the same, because she is a professing christian who
may have fallen short. Not Polanski short, but short enough that the
Left could crush her.
Consider the foul things that so many
liberals have done and the Progressives have excused. Bill Clinton has
been credibly accused of rape, and certainly used his authority to
compel women to sexual favors. He also committed perjury and obstructed
justice. No big deal! Nothing to see here! Consider Anthony Weiner,
who is running for elective office in New York yet again and will
probably win. Consider Barney Frank's live-in lover was running a house
of ill-repute out of his home; no big deal! Consider Al Sharpton, who
has done all manner of evil things including his promotion of the Tawana
Brawley lie and his part in numerous shakedowns and in stirring up
violence in the black community; he is rewarded with his own television
show. The list goes on and on.
Yet Paula Deen must be destroyed.
It’s
all about Barack Obama’s promise of fundamental change; what we eat,
how we live, who we idolize, how we speak, how we think - all must be
fundamentally altered if we are to create the New Man, one fit for our
socialist utopia.
The double standard is stark. When Barack Obama
needs to get out the black vote his people find an obscure non-case
involving a "white hispanic" shooting a "no limits N***er" after nearly
getting his hand smashed in, and they run the poor man through a
farcical trial. George Zimmerman will never be free of this incident,
yet he clearly was the victim here, the victim of a thug who hated white
people and enjoyed fighting "MMA style". But Zimmerman had a political
role to play, and so was sacrificed on the alter of Obama. The same is
true of Paula Deen, who stands in the way of Mrs. Obama's personal
deification.
This is indicative of the Progressive mindset. They
do not believe in God, or at least not in a God as we have traditionally
understood Him. People are widgets, like the part of a car, and if they
are inconvenient or defective they are simply tossed aside. It is a
particularly materialistic view of individuals. Leftism begets the worst
sort of Macchiavellianism, because ends justify means. Paula Deen
unwittingly stepped into the lion's den, and is now being devoured.
That is our future, folks, should we not stop the relentless advance of the Left.
Read more from Tim and friends at www.tbirdnow.mee.nu
Monday, July 1, 2013
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Five Things You May Not Know About Obamacare
The health
insurance marketplace – particularly for individuals – will look
markedly different after Jan. 1, 2014, when key provisions of Obamacare
will take effect. With such a complex piece of legislation, there are
myriad unknowns, and the government is trying to get the word out before
Oct. 1, when consumers can begin shopping for coverage on state- and federally run exchanges. The Obama administration on Monday launched a helpline and revamped its HealthCare.gov site. The NFL and the NBA have reportedly been approached by the administration to help pitch health insurance to the young and uninsured, and advocacy groups are working to educate consumers on their options in 2014.
There’s no way to tell now how well reform will work, but there are some trends – both positive and negative – we’re seeing already and expect to see when the law’s remaining provisions roll out.
1. Young, healthy adults won’t buy coverage
The Obama administration aims to enroll at least 2.7 million young adults – a group that’s historically been uninsured at higher rates than other age groups – through the exchanges for coverage in 2014. But there are indications that 20-somethings won’t be buying in and will instead opt to pay the penalty. (The penalty is $95 per person for 2014 or 1% of yearly income, whichever is higher. In 2016 it increases to 2.5% of income or $695.) Bailey comment: you will be paying this amount for the lazy non working people to get free insurance.
An ADP Research Institute report published this week found that, while health benefits eligibility declined slightly in every age group since 2010, younger workers faced the largest decrease (which may indicate their jobs were less likely to offer benefits). But the report also found that, even when employees under 30 were offered benefits, only half participated in their employer’s health program in 2013, a figure partly explained by the provision that allows those up to age 26 to get coverage through a parent’s plan.
Another potential hurdle: young adults’ increased use of retail health clinics. According to a Rand study that
examined more than 1.3 million retail clinic visits, young adults (ages
18-44) accounted for 43% of retail clinic patients, compared to only
23% of patients who visit primary care physicians. Patients are also
less likely to have a personal doctor or to pay for care with health insurance, the study found.
2. Uptick in early retirement
With health costs in retirement topping $200,000, according to some estimates, many Americans find they have to keep working just for the employer-sponsored insurance (workers can’t sign up for Medicare until age 65). According to a January report from the Employee Benefits Research Institute,
19% of retirees said they had worked longer than they would’ve liked to
in order to continue receiving employer-sponsored insurance.
Currently, if you’re between 55 and 64 and you decide to retire, you
have to buy insurance on your own. And right now in 45 states, you could
be denied coverage based on your health status, says Jean Abraham,
associate professor at the University of Minnesota’s School of Public
Health. Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), consumers can’t be denied
coverage if they have a pre-existing condition. They also can’t be
charged more: If you’re in a particular age bracket – say, 60 to 64 –
your premiums cannot vary by more than a certain amount from those
charged to the youngest adults, says Abraham. In other words, high
health costs won’t be a factor in keeping older workers tied to their
desks when they’d otherwise retire.
3. Some people won’t find their current plans on exchanges
Beginning in 2014 insurance sold to individuals and small businesses on an exchange must be at one of four “actuarial value levels”:
60% (bronze plan), 70% (sliver), 80% (gold) and 90% (platinum). This
means, for example, the bronze plan covers 60% of medical expenses. The
higher the actuarial value, the lower the out-of-pocket costs and higher
premiums paid by the consumer. So platinum plans would have the highest
monthly premiums and lowest out-of-pocket costs, but the plan will pay
more of the costs if you need a lot of medical care.Most employer-sponsored plans sit in the 80% range of actuarial value, while in most states you can now find plans with a 50% actuarial value – below Obamacare’s minimum, Abraham says. Those plans won’t be available on the exchanges in 2014, and for some, “there will be higher premiums because they’re getting more coverage... It will force them to modify their choices,” she says.
4. Better hospital food
Banana-nut pancakes and rack of lamb for your hospital stay, courtesy of Obamacare? A Kaiser Health News and USA Today report this
week found that hospital administrators are paying more attention to
food service in an effort to boost patient satisfaction ratings. Under
the ACA, since last year Medicare began paying hospitals based partly on their these ratings,
essentially tying patients’ assessments on everything from room
tidiness to nurse availability to payments. Medicare has been publishing
patient-satisfaction scores on its Hospital Compare website since 2008,
but hasn’t used them to adjust payments.
One patient at Rex Hospital in Raleigh, N.C., cited in Kaiser’s
report raved, “The food is amazing,” while about 84% of Rex patients
surveyed said they’d recommend the hospital, compared to 71% nationally,
the Kaiser report said. While Medicare's surveys don’t ask specifically
about food, Rex administrators attributed their better-than-average
satisfaction rates to improved food.5. Surprise tax bills
A key ACA provision provides tax credits to low- and middle-income consumers to help them purchase coverage on the exchanges.
The subsidies are available to those with incomes of up to four times
the federal poverty level – which this year is $45,960 for an individual
or $94,200 for a family of four. The lower your income, the bigger the
subsidy. A potential snag is that eligibility for a subsidy can change year to year if your income fluctuates.
Consumers must estimate their 2014 income this fall when they sign up
for coverage; the exchange will look at your most recently filed tax
return (2012 for most people) as one sign of what your earnings may be
in 2014, says Karen Pollitz, senior fellow at the Kaiser Family
Foundation.If you or your spouse gets a raise and your family income jumps in 2014, you could end up with a bigger subsidy than you’re entitled to. If that happens, the law says you have to pay back at least part of the money when you file your tax return in the spring of 2015. If your circumstances change midyear – say, you get a new job – you can go back to the exchange and correct your information and adjust your subsidy accordingly. Says Pollitz, “A big part of the trick will be how well people are counseled about all of this, and how well they remember [or are reminded] to come back to the exchange to report midyear changes that affect their subsidy entitlement."
NFL bucks call to promote ObamaCare, as Republicans pressure sports leagues to say no
The National Football League appears to be bucking the Obama
administration's request to help promote the health care overhaul, as
Republican lawmakers pressure all the major sports leagues not to get
involved in the effort.
In a statement obtained by Fox News, an NFL spokesman said the league has "no plans to engage in this area and (has) had no substantive contact with the administration" about the implementation.
Earlier in the week, Health and Human Services Department officials said they were talking to the NFL, NBA and others about possible advertising campaigns, in the run-up to the launch of a key part of the health care law.
But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, on Friday wrote to the heads of six professional sports organizations urging them not to take the bait.
"Given the divisiveness and persistent unpopularity of the (health care law), it is difficult to understand why an organization like yours would risk damaging its inclusive and apolitical brand by lending its name to its promotion," they wrote.
The senators suggested the administration was reaching out to them because the law is so "unpopular."
The NFL's statement late Friday was in response to lawmakers' concerns.
The letters were sent to the heads of the NFL, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, Professional Golf Association and NASCAR.
Republicans, who have been largely opposed to the law ever since they tried to kill the legislation back in 2009 and 2010, have in recent months tried to rein in the administration's promotional efforts.
Several GOP lawmakers want investigations into HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' effort to solicit support from private groups for a non-profit that is promoting the law.
Some of the biggest elements of the health care law are expected to take effect by early 2014. This fall, enrollment begins for a new marketplace -- called exchanges -- of government-regulated insurance plans. The requirement that nearly everyone buy health insurance kicks in at the beginning of 2014.
Despite the controversy over the possibility of the government partnering with sports leagues, this wouldn't be the first occasion the two have linked up.
The military has long engaged in sponsorships with NASCAR, though that relationship encountered hurdles in this age of fiscal austerity. The Army recently decided to drop its sponsorship, though the Air Force did not follow suit.
In a statement obtained by Fox News, an NFL spokesman said the league has "no plans to engage in this area and (has) had no substantive contact with the administration" about the implementation.
Earlier in the week, Health and Human Services Department officials said they were talking to the NFL, NBA and others about possible advertising campaigns, in the run-up to the launch of a key part of the health care law.
But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, on Friday wrote to the heads of six professional sports organizations urging them not to take the bait.
"Given the divisiveness and persistent unpopularity of the (health care law), it is difficult to understand why an organization like yours would risk damaging its inclusive and apolitical brand by lending its name to its promotion," they wrote.
The senators suggested the administration was reaching out to them because the law is so "unpopular."
The NFL's statement late Friday was in response to lawmakers' concerns.
The letters were sent to the heads of the NFL, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, Professional Golf Association and NASCAR.
Republicans, who have been largely opposed to the law ever since they tried to kill the legislation back in 2009 and 2010, have in recent months tried to rein in the administration's promotional efforts.
Several GOP lawmakers want investigations into HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' effort to solicit support from private groups for a non-profit that is promoting the law.
Some of the biggest elements of the health care law are expected to take effect by early 2014. This fall, enrollment begins for a new marketplace -- called exchanges -- of government-regulated insurance plans. The requirement that nearly everyone buy health insurance kicks in at the beginning of 2014.
Despite the controversy over the possibility of the government partnering with sports leagues, this wouldn't be the first occasion the two have linked up.
The military has long engaged in sponsorships with NASCAR, though that relationship encountered hurdles in this age of fiscal austerity. The Army recently decided to drop its sponsorship, though the Air Force did not follow suit.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Is it really worth that much to you?
Twenty-two of President Barack Obama's top advisers make the White House salary of $172,200 per year. Do the math, that's $3,788,400 a year that you the taxpayer has to hand over to these crooks in Washington. Yes this is how much you pay these so called public servants that are screwing up your lives and this country. But that's small change compared to the total White House pay roll, after all there's a total of 460 public servants that work there. If you want to see exactly what you are paying to have the employees boss the boss (you), go to website below.
https://opendata.socrata.com/Government/2013-Report-to-Congress-on-White-House-Staff/44xn-rs2p
https://opendata.socrata.com/Government/2013-Report-to-Congress-on-White-House-Staff/44xn-rs2p
Friday, June 28, 2013
A Message From Obama to America: I’ll Do What I Want; Deal with it
President Obama does not care what you think. Whenever he is confronted with evidence of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior, his answer is most often to shrug it off and hope that Americans just deal with it.
The man who once promised all things positive- hope, change, prosperity, transparency- now promises that he will do whatever he wishes and it is up to us to learn to deal with it.
I am not privileged to the White House meetings. I cannot say that his “America can deal with it” policy is, in fact, an official policy. But whether or not his arrogance is an official policy, the fact remains that Obama has made it entirely clear that he intends to rule as he sees fit and is generally uninterested in how he is viewed by the majority of Americans.
Case in point:
Americans are still trying to figure out what happened in Benghazi. The same government that can monitor our phone usage and collect and store our data to paint a picture of the electronic activities of millions of Americans cannot come to a firm consensus of what the White House as doing during the hours-long attack on our consulate in Benghazi. Though there are glaringly obvious inconsistencies in the ever-changing narrative pushed by the government, the standard response by the Obama Administration has been, “That’s our story and we’re sticking to it.”
Then, as a firm and unfriendly message to America who demands accountability, Obama appointed Susan Rice to a national security adviser position. Rice was instrumental in the cover-up of the Benghazi scandal and pushed a knowingly false narrative about the attack in the aftermath.
The message sent from President Obama to the rest of us peasants was clear: Deal with it.
Now, at a time when Americans everywhere have to tighten their belts and make ends meet, President Obama and his family are off on another fabulous taxpayer-funded vacation to Africa. Though he alleges it’s an official trip, the Obamas are spending $100 million of taxpayer money to tour Africa.
We can’t keep the White House open for field trips because America is so broke, but $100 million can be spent to go to Africa.
After receiving a fair amount of criticism for this outlandish expenditure, Obama doubled-down and told America what they could do with their outrage by bringing along the extended family.
Yes, President Obama is bringing along not only his wife and kids, but his mother-in-law and his niece.
Obama could not care less what Americans have to say about his actions or his policies. Like King Louis XVI before him, he clearly believes he is above the criticisms of the people and he has worked very hard to make sure we know it.
(IBD) Billionaire Obama Donor Set To Profit From Keystone XL Demise if oil goes to China
Energy Policy: A billionaire hedge fund manager and Barack
Obama donor is pushing the president to stop the pipeline that would
compete with one he's invested in. That pipeline could send Canadian oil
to China.
Environmental activist Tom Steyer donated as much as he could to get Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey elected to the Senate in the recent special election to fill the seat vacated by now-Secretary of State John Kerry. He wanted another senator who's opposed to completing the Keystone XL pipeline that he says would be an environmental plague on the planet.
A few days before President Obama said that Keystone XL would be built only if it could be shown to have no net effect on greenhouse gas emissions, Steyer, a major contributor to Obama's campaigns, urged the president to kill the project.
"We really cannot afford 40 to 50 years of development of a humongous oil reserve that's twice as bad — soup to nuts — as normal crude," Steyer told a gathering at the National Press Club, referring to Canada's extraction of crude from its oil sands in Alberta.
Steyer has mounted an extensive campaign to kill Keystone, yet he owes his personal fortune to a lifetime of investments in oil, gas and pipeline companies. He stands to reap another financial reward through the extensive investments his hedge fund, Farallon Capital Management, has made over the last 27 years in fossil fuel companies. These include holdings that could benefit from the blocking of the Keystone pipeline.
Farallon has made millions for its investors, and left Steyer with a net worth estimated by Forbes at $1.4 billion. One of Farallon's biggest holdings is in U.S. pipeline company Kinder Morgan, which has plans to expand a major competitor to Keystone — the TransMountain pipeline.
Steyer has also lobbied against Northern Gateway, which would carry oil from Edmonton to Kitimat, British Columbia, on Canada's west coast. Curiously, he is not opposed to TransMountain, which Kinder Morgan has sought approval to expand.
Environmental activist Tom Steyer donated as much as he could to get Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey elected to the Senate in the recent special election to fill the seat vacated by now-Secretary of State John Kerry. He wanted another senator who's opposed to completing the Keystone XL pipeline that he says would be an environmental plague on the planet.
A few days before President Obama said that Keystone XL would be built only if it could be shown to have no net effect on greenhouse gas emissions, Steyer, a major contributor to Obama's campaigns, urged the president to kill the project.
"We really cannot afford 40 to 50 years of development of a humongous oil reserve that's twice as bad — soup to nuts — as normal crude," Steyer told a gathering at the National Press Club, referring to Canada's extraction of crude from its oil sands in Alberta.
Steyer has mounted an extensive campaign to kill Keystone, yet he owes his personal fortune to a lifetime of investments in oil, gas and pipeline companies. He stands to reap another financial reward through the extensive investments his hedge fund, Farallon Capital Management, has made over the last 27 years in fossil fuel companies. These include holdings that could benefit from the blocking of the Keystone pipeline.
Farallon has made millions for its investors, and left Steyer with a net worth estimated by Forbes at $1.4 billion. One of Farallon's biggest holdings is in U.S. pipeline company Kinder Morgan, which has plans to expand a major competitor to Keystone — the TransMountain pipeline.
Steyer has also lobbied against Northern Gateway, which would carry oil from Edmonton to Kitimat, British Columbia, on Canada's west coast. Curiously, he is not opposed to TransMountain, which Kinder Morgan has sought approval to expand.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...