Why are Democrats voting yes on Health Care Reform?

As found at VASS

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, Rep. Kucinich, Senator Gillibrand, oh the list could go on and on. What reason do they all have in common to vote yes?



It seems that not much has changed since 1940.

If you can't laugh you'll wind up crying.

TIME looks at Pelosi, I reflect on video

As I was serching for "accomplishments" of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - trying to understand how TIME could ever consider her for Person of the Year - I ran across a theme that I've said often at my political blog VASS.

"Liberals believe that you can say anything, do anything... as long as it is completely what they agree with. Otherwise they will shut you down."

It was on this theme that the cries of Speaker Nancy Pelosi insulting Americans at the Tea Party's falls upon. It is this theme that encapsulates President Carter and Clinton (and Pelosi too) claiming that ANY disagreement with the policies of President Obama and Democrats is based solely in racism.



And the list goes on and on.

But I ran across a couple of interestig things on Freedom of Speech and stating your mind that most probably never think about. But maybe we should. Maybe entertainment will make that thought easier to have.



Just substitute President Obama or Speaker Nancy Pelosi for Senator McCarthy


You don't have to agree with me, but just think what television, movies, and life would be like if you just let Person of the Year runner-up Nancy Pelosi ramrod all your decisions through Congress? If our politics can't be filled with free thought, how can you imagine our entertainment to be so?

If Speaker Nancy Pelosi is to be one of the paragons of 2009 I am led to remember a video I've shown here before. And I would say that Pelosi and those of her mindset would be more akin to the view of China or other socialist nations than America in the following video:



Again, you may not agree but it is a thought, via entertainment, that's worth having if you want to read how TIME waxes gloriously about Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Is Newsweek sexist?

The big question of late is all about Sarah Palin. Her book, if she will run in 2012, if she can win. And then there are the controversies.

Newsweek really set things aflame with their cover of Mrs. Palin. And the claims of the cover photo being sexist and insulting have been raised. But are they right?

Well the best way to answer the question seemed obvious to me. Compare the cover photo (taken from an image used by a running magazine some time ago) to a similar photo of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Or Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Except that no such photos seems to exist. None.

I searched through 500 images of Hillary Clinton on Google looking for a single legitimate image of her with exposed legs. Couldn't find any. In fact I was hard pressed to find photos of Secretary Clinton in a dress. I know hardcore lesbians that show more cleavage and legs than Clinton has over the decades. (As for Speaker Pelosi, I'm sure there might be a photo somewhere that shows off her legs, but I'm too scared to see it)

So it would seem that compared to her the general media is sexist. They have directly sought to make her an image that is more of a tart than a political figure. And I have to wonder why any woman would allow that without complaint.

Basically isn't Newsweek saying that a mother and independant woman is worthless if she is cute and/or doesn't agree with the editor's views. They are saying that a woman who has achieved success in business and politics - she did run a major State after all - is about as important as a bikini model. Which I would think Secretary of State Clinton might find insulting. (And don't expect N.O.W. to stand up for a woman that exemplifies many of the ideals they are supposed to support)

Newsweek says the image is fair. Ok, then show me a similar photo that was on their cover of Nancy Pelosi, or Hillary Clinton. I couldn't find one. How about Michelle Obama? Why don't they have an image of Michelle Obama in a bikini on the cover while the story in the magazine is about say healthcare. Would anyone find that sexist?

I know, how dare I use examples of the First Lady and Secretary of State (and the Speaker of the House). They are Liberals and Democrats after all. It's a taboo to speak of them as anything but powerful women that are political leaders. Yet, Mrs Palin IS a political leader too. So what's the difference?

If it isn't sexism, then all that is left is a political bullying that says you better think the way we want you to think or else. Is that what we have come to expect from the media? That the ideas they like are the only ones we should have? That the only people we should vote for or listen to are the ones they approve of?

I recall another time when the media told people what to believe. They told people directly to buy only the versions of songs that Elvis sang and not the Black original versions. They said that African Americans didn't need to vote, or to sit in diners, or enter buildings through the front door. I recall when the media claimed that all Japanese in America were spies and traitors. I recall when the media was so afraid of politicians that McCarthy had everyone looking over their shoulder in case they were called a Communist and would be blackballed from their careers.

I thought we were past the days of yellow journalism. But it would seem, as Newsweek has proven, that we haven't moved forward at all.

Bailout bill HR 3597

After days of searching I finally found it. This was probably the funniest part of the entire Guy's Choice Awards on Sunday. The video clip was very hard to find, which I thought was amazing in itself.

But after having 2 computers blow up (thank you Windows Vista) and spending more time on this than it deserves, I can now present you with the only bailout that the Obama Administration won't publicly support. Though I bet he would enjoy being in charge of that industry.



But lest a political freak out there (like me) starts searching the net for this Bill, missing the joke, let me help out. This is not a real Bill before Congress.

Of course, according to the Obama Administration proposal, The Secertary of Treasury could take over the porn industry under the "significant ecomomic impact" clause. That is real.

And it would be a sad day when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in charge of what kind of porn gets made. I shudder to think of it.

Michael Vass becomes a Democrat

Well it's official now. I declare myself a Democrat. After a wee bit of drink and much deliberation I have converted to the political party of popularity.

Yes, I now affirm my belief in the political party responsible for the 13th and 14th Amendments. I too join the party that all African Americans have believed in since 1865. Like the South I too believe in the mantra of the Democrats.

I don't know how I held off following the lead of President Barack Obama. This is the leader that has lived up to every campain promise. I have sat back and had casual time to read each law for 5 days before he has signed them into law. I have luxuriated in the thought that every American soildier is returning from Iraq this year. I have beheld the decisive and exact nature of the economic plans he has put forth for the nation.

I can now join the most liberal of supporters, like Bill Ayers, in the thought that President Obama has created retro-active laws crushing private business. Truly the root of all evil, private business, has been defeated as the Government now can take control of any venture, and dictate the proper salary of every employee. And on the horizon is a health care system that the Government can dictate as efficiently as the Post Office.

Yes, I am part of the Party of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Congressional representatives so astute as to know they have approved laws and recommended investments that cannot be questioned by any American. I am part of the Party of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who have ensured that not one dime of my future earnings will be under my sloppy and independant control. Because only the Democrat Party truly understands the needs of the poor and those people of color, and other Americans.

Only in the Democrat Party are the needs of subservience understood. Because as a person of color, and an American, they know I cannot fathom the repercussions of deficits beyond the record of history. They know that the true definition of stimulus is social reform and not action. They know that I prefer to be fed fish rather than taught to fish.

Yes, today, April 1st 2009, I realize that listening to every socialized nation in the world warning of the economic perils facing our nation is folly and jealousy. I realize that having leaders that cannot pay their taxes as they expect me to do in droves is fair and equitable. That to expect those that would kill America under misbegotten beliefs to falter because of mere words is acceptable. That every nation in the world will love my country if we just do as they say is a mantra I must recite 24 times a day.

Only in America can I expect to have politicians determine my worth and pay. Only in America I should wish for the Government to determine my health plans. Only in America should I shun the soldiers that provide my freedom. Yes it is this kind of America that I now subnit my fealty to.

Because on April 1st 2009, the world is open to understanding. On this day North Korea will end it's plans to create a nuclear weapon. On this day China and the world will buy American debt like honey flowing down a river. On this day police will assume I am innocent of all crimes I never enacted as never before, and the justice system will punish all before them equally under the law. Yes this is a day to be heralded for years to come.

I no longer have the need to do math, since the Government will provide my income and balance my checkbook for me. I no longer need to care what contracts I create as the Government will decide which are lawful and those that are not. I no longer need to strive for success as the Government will mandate what I can sell and what is best for the world at large to buy.

The joy I now feel as a Democrat of far-left leaning is of immeasurable levels. Because I have a President that ignores the losses to my retirement funds, or my employees. There are untold numbers of rich that can be depleted to ensure my ability to live as the Government sees best. And I have no fear for my children as they will inherit a world of green energy and carbon-less emission once the techonolgy is created, if ever.

In fact those children will be free of the burden of marraige or children pf their own as they can freely abort any child at any age, and any stage of pregnancy. Even better, they will be able to engineer the look and intelligence of that child, if the Government does not do so for them in its infintie wisdom. And lest we wish to worry, every drug known to man will be accessible to beat down any thought of doubt.

Even better is the thought that now as a proponent of the Democrats, I will be able to sit back and watch programming that has been duely controled to be fair and balanced. I will no longer need to question the information provided to me, since the Government will ensure it passes muster. I will be ensured that the race to an ever lower common denominator will be matched by the number of channels providing such copied and flawed material. Material that I might add will be open to any viewer, regardless of age or mentality or content.

Oh, the exstacy that lies before me. Without the need for independant thought I can now toil away my days at a Government approved job, at Government approved wages, with an assurance of a Government approved retirement. Because President Obama, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi know far better what is needed than I. Even Rep. Barney Frank, with his dilegent eyes watching for any politically motivated question of impending peril, will protect my every move.

So on April 1st 2009, I join the Democrat Party. Because what else would anyone do on All Fool's Day?

Bill O’Reilly interviews Senator Obama – part 4 oil and ANWR

In the last portion of the interview between Senator Obama and Bill O’Reilly the subject of domestic drilling and alternative energy sources are discussed.



Now remember that when this interview was taken the Democrat-led Congress refused to discuss in any form domestic drilling. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was adamant in refusing to even consider the issue. Also note that Nancy Pelosi hold a substantial position (worth in excess of $250,000) in alternative energy stock.

But today OPEC has cut back crude oil production. The only reason for this is to sustain and elevate the price of crude oil. This is also timed directly for the winter heating oil season. For those that believed that crude oil was going to go back down, they had not considered the cyclic ups and downs of crude oil. Thus the need of alternative sources of oil are deeply in demand.

And Nancy Pelosi has hinted recently that Democrats will consider allowing some domestic drilling if some unstated factor is given to Democrats for their compromise. Though they emphasize that alternative energy must take primary attention.

Given this the fact that Senator Obama is against domestic drilling (based on his voting record) but states that he is for it is confusing. The same can be said about his willingness to create nuclear power plants as he told O’Reilly.

I will never understand, and Senator Obama makes no credible argument against, drilling for oil in ANWR. The amount of land suggested for drilling is miniscule. The disruption to wildlife is questionable. Yet the need for reliable sources of energy, until a viable alternative is available, grows daily. If Senator Obama wishes to side with an animal over American citizens, I cannot see him becoming President. I love animals, but people come before them for me.

Still Senator Obama is correct about the fact that money must be spent on all alternatives to find which is the viable option. All options. Note he leaves out nuclear in his description of where he wants to spend your money.

By the way, where will the new money for all these energy development and research plans come from? Senator Obama tactfully leaves out that. It’s called taxes, these on energy usage, which is left out of the economic plans that Senator Obama speaks about. So much for increasing the money in 95% of paycheck receiving citizen’s pockets.

And while we are developing these new energy sources Democrats seem to forget that America will still need energy. And if we are not drilling domestically we will be paying more money to foreign countries.

But I suppose if you can get to ANWR (which will take fuel unless you walk), and stay warm (more fuel), you might love the “beautiful real estate” and that will make it all worthwhile (while the pipes in your house freeze)

As for foreign policy, the clear signal so far has been that Senator Obama is unsure of what to do in the real world. His speeches sound great but his response is questionable at best. Georgia knows this, as it took him a week to support them. Iraqis know this as he fought to not send troops to that nation and create the stability that exists today. Russia, the Middle East and many other nations love the idea of an Obama Presidency. Because they think that it also means an America that avoids the issues in the rest of the world, slow action, and little impediments to attrocities. Unless you think the constant comments about Darfur that Senator Obama makes are changing things in the Sudan.


If you want to see the full interview of Senator Obama and Bill O’Reilly, from start to finish, please go to [www.mvass.com] VASS. You can also find commentary on all the candidates and the issues we all believe to be important in this election.