BluntPolitics.com

Researched by Ric Joyner

This is a blog post from DailyKos.com which is a VERY leftist blog. They call themselves Kossacks and if you review their logo it appears to mimic the old Soviet Union communist propaganda art. Remember communism seeks to create an egalitarian society by taking wealth from others to give it to people who didn’t work or earn it and basically turning the entire country into slave labor with no opportunity.

Please follow the thread to see the “rock and the hard place” that President Obama is experiencing with several different factions in the democratic party, labor and left wing organizations that are for and against health care reform. President Obama has pandered to the left, unions and has helped to pay them back in the stimulus bill and even bailing out their pension plans in HR3200.

AFL-CIO: No Public Option, No Support

By BarbinMD

Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 03:00:04 PM PDT

This is what it sounds like when someone representing the Democratic wing of the Party speaks:

Democratic lawmakers will not be able to count on the AFL-CIO’s support if they drop the public insurance option from the health care reform legislation, union officials said Tuesday.

The AFL-CIO’s incoming president, Richard Trumka, outlined “three absolute musts” in any overhaul package: a public option, an employer mandate and no tax on employer-provided health benefits.

Asked if the union would work against any bill that did not hit those targets, Trumka told reporters during a *briefing: “That means we won’t support the bill if it doesn’t have the public option.”

Please note I cannot find independent verification of *a briefing: Ric

And as Trumka declared last month during a speech to the Sheet Metal Workers International Association:

We need to send them a special message: it’s that you may have forgotten what the labor movement did to get you elected; but, by God, we never will! And if you stab us in the back on health care this year don’t you dare ask us for our support next year!

And the Max Baucus/Blue Dog wing of the Party needs to remember that — and that 2010 is just around the corner.

Overview of what the “left” believes is the next move for Obama.

Report: President to reveal health care deal-breakers

By Jed Lewison

Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 04:30:04 PM PDT

Marc Ambinder delivers a report that has the feel of a trial balloon:

This time, the President is going to be specific. Next week, President Obama is going to give Democrats a health care plan they can begin to sell.

He plans to list specific goals that any health insurance reform plan that arrives at his desk must achieve, according to Democratic strategists familiar with the plan.

Strikingly, despite the tough “deal-breaker” language, there still seems to be a ton of wiggle room on the public option:

He will insist upon a mechanism to cut costs and increase competition among insurance companies — and perhaps will even specify a percentage rate — and he will say that his preferred mechanism remains a government-subsidized public health insurance option, but he will remain agnostic about whether the plan must include a robust public option. Officials won’t say whether the president intends to endorse a specific “trigger” mechanism if the competition mechanism fails, but they say he will make it clear that the final bill must contain language that increases competition.

Purely in political terms, if the White House’s goal is to generate enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that sort of approach won’t cut it. If they want to excite the base — and as Kos showed earlier, they need to — then they will need to come out more strongly for a public option, because it is the only mechanism that anybody has proposed that will meet his stated objectives.

Update (4:50, by Jed) — Remember that this sounds like a trial balloon, and it’s not coming from named sources. Nothing is written in stone. President Obama hasn’t said anything yet. If you don’t like what you’re hearing, the best thing to do is to let your voice be heard, whether at public events, phone calls to your senators and representatives, or whatever works best for you. Without your active involvement, AHIP could still win this thing.

Make a difference on Friday 9-11 and make the call. Your Representatives need to hear from you. They will be hearing from those who wish to take our freedom of choice, jobs and livelihood.

I went to the Obama web site and used the tax refund calculator. This showed with my income that I would receive about $1340 tax cut. First, this is not a tax cut. Second, this is a refund check. I will promptly return this to the government from whence it came because I didn’t earn it, and it came out of someone else’s pocket who did earn it.

Starting To Pay Price For Our Protectionism (investors business daily)

Trade: As Obama makes political hay off protectionism and promises a new Smoot-Hawley era, it’s no surprise our trading partners are beginning to look to other markets — such as Europe. It’s a warning.

   Our No. 1 trading partner, Canada, isn’t stupid. When Obama threatened last February to rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement on his own terms, our northern ally started looking abroad to other markets.
   They found a big one in Europe, which seems to have few hangups about increasing exports and signing free-trade treaties. Last Friday, Canada and the European Union held the first talks toward an eventual free trade agreement between the two.
   When this goes through, $27 billion in new trade is expected by 2014, according to a joint EU-Canada study. Canada will add an extra 0.8% to its GDP and see income gains of $11.1 billion from the new jobs and higher salaries coming in from Europe.
   After all, if free trade with the U.S. bolstered Canada’s economy and standard of living by a factor of four since 1994, it makes sense to do more of what brought in that wealth.
Europe’s $14 trillion market is an attractive alternative to the U.S. for the Canadians, if it comes to that, and the Europeans are happy to add Canadian investment to the $500 billion investment its three largest economies drew in 2007.
Canada isn’t the only one responding to these chill trade winds blowing in from the Washington elites in election season.
Colombia is also preparing to sign a free-trade deal with Europe, as its own free-trade accord with the U.S. languishes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked it in Congress last April.
U.S. allies are wise to seek other partners no matter what the U.S. climate — the U.S. downturn no doubt plays a role too. But it started with noises out of the U.S. about pulling up the drawbridge.
With a global downturn, free trade makes more sense than ever. That ought to be an election issue for the U.S., which needs to stay globally competitive. Sadly, it’s not.
Canada and Colombia are effectively defending themselves from the anti-trade vortex in the U.S. by turning to other markets. The Europeans have no intention of imitating the mistake made by the U.S. “It’s never a good sign when the U.S. becomes protectionist,” Philippe Favre, special ambassador for international investment and chairman of Invest in France Agency, the country’s foreign investment arm, said in recent comments to IBD.
   Like many European officials, Favre thinks the sentiment has been brewing for a while. “If you look at the last two or three years, there was the U.S. preventing foreigners from buying ports,” he said. “The Chinese wanted to buy an oil company and they were stopped. Then you have the contract for (air refueling) tankers refused to a European company (EADS).”
   Another failure was the World Trade Organization talks. “We have seen since 9/11 a U.S. trend to be more wary of the rest of the world,” Favre said. “We probably underestimated the impact (of the attack) on the people and the country in the EU.”
   Agree or disagree, there’s no doubt that protectionism will make America poorer and less influential, protecting nothing. Outsourcing is particularly full of misperceptions.
   “Look at the auto industry — Japan started by exporting to Canada and the U.S., and now produces cars in the U.S. They did it because the market itself is in the U.S. We see exactly the same thing in Europe. More car plants are going up in Germany and France than Bulgaria and Romania, even though the labor costs are lower there.”
   Michael Pfeiffer, managing director of Invest in Germany, told IBD that exports are no threat: “We (Germans) are the largest exporters in the world — it’s something we do. We have to do it.”
   Why? Germany doesn’t have the diversified economy America does. “One-quarter of German people are employed for export industries,” said Pfeiffer.
   With the possibility of a protectionist Democratic president (Barack Obama) working with a protectionist Democratic Congress, the U.S. may be the odd man out when it comes to free trade.
   Pity. Because free trade, as any economist will tell you, inevitably boosts the economies of those who engage in it. So others, like Canada, Colombia and Europe, will continue down the free-trade path — toward greater wealth for their citizens — while the U.S. sits on the sidelines.
   The world will decide it isn’t going to wait for Nancy Pelosi to come around on free trade — it’s going to leave the U.S. in the dust.

By Ric Joyner

Nancy Pelosi sent the Congress home for a 5 week vacation without allowing a vote on energy! Why? The democrats gained control of Congress in 06, amidst the anti-Bush vote, and promised action on energy. Their “action” is what we have today…higher prices! Oil affects nearly every part of our economy, and once oil starts going up EVERYTHING goes up including daily necessities. Since the Democrats took control of Congress, and the Senate, oil has skyrocketed? But why?

The oil speculators could see the future. With the Dems controlling congress, and taking an ideological stand against using fossil fuels (no drilling, no exploration, no nuclear, just wind and solar or other alternatives which are in their infancy) the speculators could now drive up prices…and make huge profits, without consequence. The speculators know the Dems would block any further expansion of fossil fuels due to ideology. But who does higher energy cost impact the most? The little guy…which are the people the Dems say they represent. Or do they represent an ideology or the environmentalist lobby? I think both. If you don’t believe my comment, read a liberal newspaper article regarding the agenda of the Dems after winning in 06. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111400801.html

Another interesting aspect of the article is it comes very close to predicting the current outcome!

To be fair the Republicans didn’t do anything when they were in office, but they didn’t need too either. Oil was cheap, but getting more expensive, because worldwide demand was increasing.(The republicans were a bit too cozy with the oil companies as well which is similar to Dems cozy with environmental groups).

China helps their citizens by paying part of the cost of the oil and this drives up utilization.

Notice that when President Bush said he was lifting the executive order against off shore drilling, gas prices started to come down. Now the ball was in Nancy Pelosi’s court to pass a bill allowing fossil fuel exploration, and she dodged the issue by recessing Congress! Nancy Pelosi said; “I am trying to save the planet!”. What about those that voted for you Ms Speaker?

We need energy answers for the long term. Lower prices now by fossil fuel exploration, and alternative fuel research. We need to wean off of fossil fuels and become energy independent. Becoming energy independent won’t happen overnight.

I feel as though the Dems are going against their roots of watching out for the little guy versus ideological paths, and this is why I am not a Dem.

Call Congress today, and demand they end their 5 week vacation, and solve the energy crisis!  http://speaker.gov/contact/

My next blog post will be on the bogus red herrings the dems are using to stop fossil fuel exploration. Some of the red herrings are:

1. The oil companies aren’t drilling on land they have now.

2. If we drill now, the oil will not be available for 10 years.

3. Fossil fuels add to global warming.

4. It’s President Bush’s fault or rich people, or Republicans or oil companies.