In our Liberty Update commentary last week, we noted the many failures of Barack Obama as president…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Stat of the Day: Terrible Deterioration of Race Relations Under Obama

In our Liberty Update commentary last week, we noted the many failures of Barack Obama as president over the past eight years.  Today, as the nation celebrates Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, a Washington Post-ABC News survey shows just how disastrously race relations have declined under his watch:

In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 63 percent of Americans think race relations are 'generally bad.' Shortly after Obama took office, that number was 22 percent. In the same time period, those who think race relations are 'generally good' plummeted from 66 percent to 32 percent." Of his failures and disastrous legacy, this may be the most depressing.…[more]

January 16, 2017 • 02:13 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Dear Senior Citizens, Part Three Print
By CFIF Staff
Thursday, November 19 2009
It is still your job, quickly now, to instill both courage and fear into enough Democratic Senators to cast that handful of 'NO' votes. If you have already called, faxed, written, then please do so again, because Senators have short memories and President Obama has set his enforcers on them.

Oh goodness gracious, granny.

By now, we thought we’d be singing “over the river and through the woods, to...”

But you didn’t finish your job, did you? 

Perhaps you believed that nice young man, President Obama, who told you ObamaCare would have no effect on your Medicare services, rather than those of us who bluntly told you he’s a lying snake.

Perhaps you believed that nice AARP, which has spent millions in ads trying to convince you that everything’s going to be okay if you just accept $500 billion in cuts from Medicare.  (Of course, AARP also has some nice insurance to sell you, should you be needing any of that, which they know you will after they get through colluding to diminish what you now have.)

You didn’t listen to Grandma Pelosi or Grandpa Reid, because you’re smarter than that, but you let them sneak around behind you to keep this monster alive, and now the truth is flopping about like a dying fish, gonna start to smell soon.

The truth is out there this week, because there’s a guy who did do his job.  His name is Richard S. Foster.  He’s the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which actually administers Medicare and Medicaid, unlike those politicians who just meddle with them.  As the chief actuary, he looks at the system and figures out the costs and what those costs mean.  In this case, he specifically looked at ObamaCare and what that would mean.

You’re not going to like Mr. Foster’s analysis, not one bit.

To put part of it in plain language and assure you that we’re not making this up, here’s how Lori Montgomery of The Washington Post reported it:  "A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending – one of the biggest sources of  funding for President Obama’s proposed overhaul of the nation’s health-care system – would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

“The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.”

We and others have told you this already, but we don’t have the standing of Mr. Foster.  Nor do we have the standing of Jeffrey Flier, Dean of Harvard Medical School, no crazed radical he, who this week wrote, “...the people who favor the legislation are engaged in collective denial....Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality.  But that’s not true.”

This entire mess can be stopped now, and you can stop it. 

Senate Majority Leader Reid is forcing his twisted version of the bill on the Senate right now.  Given the makeup of the Senate, and what, for the moment, appears to be unified Republican opposition, the bill can be stopped by one or two Democratic Senators saying “NO, I will not allow this assault on this nation’s seniors to continue one more day.”

Those who vote “NO” on the first vote know they will be stopping this dead in its tracks, House bill gone, Senate bill gone, ending months of anxiety by the population at large, but most specifically senior citizens.  No more deceptive “debate.”  No more schemes to pay for this on the backs of senior citizens.

It is still your job, quickly now, to instill both courage and fear into enough Democratic Senators to cast that handful of “NO” votes.  If you have already called, faxed, written, then please do so again, because Senators have short memories and President Obama has set his enforcers on them.  Ask Aunt Molly and Uncle Joe and everyone you know to do the same thing.

If you will just finish your job this week, then next week you can get back to baking those pies.  We still like mincemeat, which you can and should be making of this legislation.


Also read:

Question of the Week   
Since 1950, which one of the following U.S. Presidents has appointed the greatest number of Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"When I was leading soldiers in Afghanistan, Private Manning was undermining us by leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks. I don't understand why the president would feel special compassion for someone who endangered the lives of our troops, diplomats, intelligence officers, and allies. We ought not treat a traitor like a martyr."…[more]
 
 
—U.S Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)
— U.S Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)
 
Liberty Poll   

Has President-elect Trump sufficiently distanced himself from his numerous international business holdings to eliminate reasonable conflict-of-interest concerns?