Thursday, December 31, 2009


The color for the year is RED!



The fireworks over Sydney Harbor in Austrailia kick off the New Year's celebration. Sydney is 12 hours ahead of U.S. Eastern Time.


Fireworks flash over Sydney Harbour during New Year celebrations, Friday, Jan. 1, 2010. The annual fireworks extravaganza over the city's landmark harbor bridge and opera house are the centerpiece of Australia's celebrations, and generate some of the most striking images from a night of revelry across the globe.

Happy New Year!!!

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Fallout of Obama's Failure to Detect Underwear Bomber Grows

Obama seems to care more about his golf game than he does about keeping Americans safe!

Let's set the table. First, a reminder of what Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano (dubbed "Janet Incompetano" by Mark Steyn) said in a March interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel titled "Away from the Politics of Fear":

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

SPIEGEL: This sounds quite different from what we heard from the Bush administration. How will the new anti-terror policy differ from the previous one?

Napolitano: Our policies will be guided by authoritative information. We also have assets at our disposal now that we did not have prior to 9/11. For example, we are much better able to keep track of travellers coming into the US than we were before. The third thing is to work with our international partners and allies to make sure that we are getting information and sharing information in an appropriate and real-time fashion.

So how did the "policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur" move us beyond the "politics of fear?" I just returned to South Carolina through the Detroit airport that was the scene of the near disaster from the underwear bomber. Fear is not far from the mind of any rational passenger.

And where was our President during these trying days? From Jennifer Loven, Associated Press White House correspondent:

Until Monday, the president had not been heard from publicly since the Christmas Day scare. He was ordering stepped-up security measures and after-action reviews behind the scenes, but also enjoying his Hawaiian vacation with games of golf, basketball and tennis and trips to the beach.

He drew questions about his level of involvement by not getting his first briefing on the incident until two hours after it was all over - and then only for 15 minutes, when he departed for the gym.

Aides defended the low-key approach as purposeful, designed to not glorify the attempted attack with undue presidential attention and perhaps encourage other terrorists.
If Obama is so concerned that terrorists should have any "undue attention" which might encourage other attacks then why is he is bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to trial in New York where the world media will put him on a stage bigger than any Broadway hit?

Catastrophic failure? Let's hit the beach!

Does Obama really take this latest terror threat seriously? Even the New York Times is beginning to doubt it. Obama's vacation has been a whirlwind of beach, golf and tennis. But after his latest statement admitting a "catastrophic breakdown in security" he went snorkeling!

That old Obama magic seems to be wearing thin as reporters are starting to catch on. Writing at Politico, Carol Lee hints that we have seen this act before:

HONOLULU — There is a sense of déjà vu in the Obama administration’s response to the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day. A by-now familiar pattern has been established for dealing with unexpected problems.

First, White House aides downplay the notion that something may have gone wrong on their part. While staying out of the spotlight, the president conveys his efforts to address the situation and his feelings about it through administration officials. After a few days, the White House concedes on the issue, and perhaps Barack Obama even steps out to address it.

That same scenario unfolded over the summer, when Obama said Sgt. James Crowley, a white Cambridge, Mass., police officer, “acted stupidly” when he arrested Henry Louis Gates Jr., a black Harvard professor, in his own home. It happened in March when the public was outraged over AIG dishing out hefty bonuses. More recently the public witnessed the dynamic after a security breach at President Barack Obama’s first state dinner.

But the fact that the issue now is a terrorist incident — albeit an unsuccessful one — makes the stakes much higher, and the White House’s usual approach more questionable. That this test of his leadership comes while he’s on vacation in tropical Hawaii further complicates things.

After delivering his first public remarks Monday about a Nigerian man’s attempt to blow up a Northwest Airlines jetliner over Detroit, the president motorcaded to the golf course at a nearby country club.
And of course the Obama team always, ALWAYS finds a way to blame Bush for the problem:

“Obviously the procedures and the protocols employed in this instance are ones that we’ve inherited that had been built over the course of several years since 2003,” [National Security Council chief of staff Denis McDonough ]McDonough said. His comments echoed Obama, who pointed out that the review he ordered of the government’s terrorist watch-list procedures is of a system that “our government has had in place for many years.”

But contrast that C.Y.A. with the statement above by Janet Incompetano: "we are much better able to keep track of travellers coming into the US than we were before. "

President Bush gave up golf because he didn't want the families of troops to see him enjoying himself while their loved ones were in harm's way. Obama has been very adept at keeping photos of himself enjoying his vacation out of the news (got a little help from his friends in the "news" media?). But his behavior gives the appearance that he cares more for enjoying himself than he does for the security of Americans.

At least Bush took the job of protecting Americans seriously. He didn't just read words off a teleprompter in between beach and golf.

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Sen. Jim DeMint Screening the Baggage of the Obama Administration

So naturally, Dems try and blame him for Obama's failure to connect the dots in the Detroit underwear attack!

Speaking of the failed undwear bomber Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) focused his criticism on the heart of the matter:

"Soft talk about engagement, closing Gitmo, these things are not going to appease the terrorists,” said Jim DeMint, a Republican senator from South Carolina.“They’re going to keep coming after us, and we can’t have politics as usual in Washington, and I’m afraid that’s what we’ve got right now with airport security,”
So naturally, Sen. DeMint becomes a target of the Chicago attack machine which will spend more time trying to destroy DeMint, who is up for re-election in 2010 (campaign web site), than they will trying to protect Americans. Writing in the Washington Examiner, Mark Hemingway describes how "news" media allies of Obama are only too willing to cooperate:

Democrats are trying to blame the Transportation Safety Administration's total failure on Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. News items are starting to appear along these
lines -- see this McClatchy story "Who's running the TSA? No one, thanks to Sen. Jim DeMint"; "Republican senator DeMint holds up nomination for TSA chief" at the Washington Post; and "GOP blame at TSA?" over at Politico. Our national security
apparatus may be in disarray, but thank goodness the Democratic spin machine is
in tip-top shape.

Democrats are trying to pin blame for the TSA breakdown on Sen. DeMint, R-S.C., who has placed a hold Erroll Southers, the Obama administration's nominee to head up the TSA. However, the Obama administration didn't even nominate Southers until September. It's pretty hard get indignant over DeMint for holding up Southers' nomination for three months -- if the post is so crucial, why did the Obama administration wait nine months to fill it? There are scores of other key administration positions that remain unfilled solely due to the Senate's obsessive health care focus, including a number of key Homeland Security and law enforcement positions.

DeMint's concern with Souther is his reluctance to state whether he would permit the workers in the Transportation Security Administration to become unionized. It's a national security issue as it relates directly to TSA's ability to restructure it's workforce and procedures in response to an immediate threat; something that would be impossible with union work rules. Think of it this way: why do you suppose we don't have unions in the military?

More from Mark Hemingway:

Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was fairly blunt about the risks of unionizing TSA employees: "I'm not going to negotiate our national security or subject our national security to arbitration. Marines don't collectively bargain over whether they're, you know, going to end up being deployed in Anbar province or Baghdad."

And as I noted yesterday, DeMint questioned Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano earlier this month about her support for unionizing TSA employees. He asked her specifically how unionizing employees was consistent with safety, when "every previous administrator at TSA has said that collective bargaining is not consistent with the flexibility and the need to change." Napolitano did not answer the question.
Of course we all know how dependent Obama and the Democrats are on the contributions from labor unions. But would they really put their own political interests ahead of national security?

Would they?

Apparently Chris Dodd (D-CT) did just that:

Now that our attention is focused on airline security measures thanks to the failed airline attack on Christmas Day, it's worth mentioning that one senator took money away from aviation security to line the pockets of a constituency that supported his presidential campaign in a big way.

Back in July, Senator Chris Dodd, D-Conn., proposed an amendment reducing aviation security appropriations by $4.5 million in favor of firefighter grants -- a notoriously inneffective program. In fact, the money was specifically "for screening operations and the amount for explosives detection systems." The amendment was also sponsored by Sen. Lieberman, D-Conn., and Sen. Carper, D-Del., but Dodd deserves to be singled out here because the firefighters union is a pet constituency of his. In 2007 he campaigned all through Iowa with the firefighters union. It was one of the few distinguishable features of Dodd's ill-fated presidential
Conservative Action Alert: Help Jim DeMint in 2010

At the top of the list for conservatives wishing to make a difference and help win big in 2010 should be the re-election of Senator Jim DeMint. His outspoken criticism of the Obama Administration has made him a major target for defeat by the left.

Any contribution you care to make would send a strong signal to Sen. DeMint that you appreciate his leadership and the risks he is taking to defend America against the socialists who would weaken our national security and undermine our economy and political system.

Monday, December 28, 2009

Is Obama's Weak Approach to War on Terror Inviting More Attacks?

Obama has not made us safer. Just the reverse!

Remember when Obama worshipping columnist Andrew Sullivan opined that electing Obama would be the best weapon in the war on terror?

Here's a reminder:
It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.
Yeah. How'd that work out!

First we had the Muslim shooting at the Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas killing one soldier in June. Then, in November, the Muslim massacre at Fort Hood killing 13 soldiers and wounding 30. Now, the botched Christmas Day attack on the airliner carrying 300 people.

One might make the case that the tempo and seriousness of these attacks is on the rise.

And yet, from the beginning of the Obama Administration, they have downplayed the seriousness of the problem. Obama and company refused to call this a "war on terror." Janet Napolitano, Sec. of Homeland Security choose to call these attacks "man caused disasters." It's no wonder that Mark Steyn dubbed Ms. Napolitano "Janet Incompetano" after she claimed "the system worked" in the wake of the failed underwear bomber (bomb photos here). Let's not forget that Sec. "Incompetano" seemed to be more concerned with "rightwing extremist activity" than she was by Islamic terrorists who have killed thousands of Americans.

Obama too has had trouble calling terrorism by it's name. After the Little Rock killing, a belated White House statement called it a "senseless act of violence." After the Fort Hood shooting Obama referred to the attack as a "horrific outburst of violence." Later at the memorial service at Fort Hood he only managed to call the attack a "tragedy" that killed "13 men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war."

Obama "Alleged" Terror Attack?

Three days after the failed Christmas bombing, Obama finally took a break from his vacation and commented on Monday. His statement referred to an "alleged" attempt to ignite an explosive by an "isolated extremist" despite mounting evidence that the attacker was trained by an Al Queda group in Yemen led by terrorists released from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. At least Obama was able to admit that this was an "attempted act of terrorism."

But what is the Obama Administration reaction to this "attempted act of terrorism?" It seems that instead of working to assure that no more terrorists were preparing further attacks White House officials fanned out to blame the incident on Bush. Never mind that the Obama Administration had thoroughly reviewed the Bush anti-terror policy and also, that the vital warning by the would be terrorist's father was passed up the chain of command to Washington after the initial report on November 19th.

When Obama aides aren't blaming Bush they are busy promulgating ridiculous new airline security regulations which take away passengers blankets and pillows and demand passengers remain in their seats with their hands visible during the last hour of flight. Why not just insist that passengers be shackled to their seats during the entire flight?

Obama Attitude a September 10th Mentality

When Obama does talk about these recent attacks he looks pained when he places them within the context of a war. He seems far more comfortable treating these attacks as criminal incidents instead of acts of war. Just as he is allowing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to have his day in court in New York with the world's press there to broadcast the entire trial, Obama has granted this Nigerian terrorist wannabe the full panoply of constitutional rights of an American citizen. He's now lawyered up and able to refuse the questioning by the FBI or CIA that might lead to the discovery of information which could prevent future attacks.

It's clear that Obama's evident weakness in perceiving the nature and reality of this threat have only emboldened the terrorists. After learning that one of their own was able to walk past security and onto a plane they will likely try again. No doubt they won't be bothered by the lack of a blanket or a bathroom visit in the last hour of the flight.

Instead of seeing that iconic figure described by Andrew Sullivan above, the terrorists see a President who has continued many of his predecessors policies, but who also spends a great deal of time validating the terrorist's propaganda against the United States by apologizing for past wrongs at every available opportunity. It isn't just the French President who sees Obama as weak and ineffective. Everything about Obama invites the terrorists to try harder. Bush scared them, but Obama couldn't frighten anything larger than a fly.

Has Obama's election made America safer? Clearly the answer is NO!

Even the French President Prefers Bush to Obama

Didn't Obama promise that electing him would make the U.S. more respected in the world?

Sarkozy cool on relationship with Obama
By Ben Hall in Paris
Financial Times
December 27 2009

Nicolas Sarkozy, the most pro-American president of France for half a century, has gone cold on Barack Obama, the most popular American leader in France in generations.

A year ago Mr Sarkozy was engaged in a tussle among European leaders anxious to be the first to secure a meeting with the freshly elected Mr Obama. Mr Sarkozy described Mr Obama as “my friend” after meeting him just once as a senator.
“He has now shifted from a pro-Bush position to an anti-Obama position,” said Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, international affairs spokesman for the opposition Socialists.
The main acts of France’s rapprochement with Washington – a tougher line on Iran and a promise to rejoin Nato’s military command structure – came before Mr Obama.
Like his predecessor, Mr Sarkozy plays up differences with the US for domestic purposes. But there is a crucial difference. Whereas Mr Chirac’s stance towards the US was determined by suspicion of US power, current French frustration is aimed at Washington’s hesitancy or even weakness.
Who would have thought we would live in an era when even the French think the U.S. President is weak and ineffective? What this article underscores is that our friends around the world depend on strong U.S. leadership and Obama isn't providing it. They might complain about U.S. actions when a strong president sits in the White House, but they miss it when it is gone.

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Death Toll Mounts in Iran Protests

Protesters ask: "Obama are you with us or them?"

Death Toll Rises to 10 as Clashes in Iran Intensify
New York Times
December 27, 2009

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Iranian police opened fire into crowds of protesters in Tehran on Sunday, killing at least 10 people and setting off a day of chaotic street battles that seemed poised to deepen the country’s civil unrest, as demonstrators in cities across Iran flooded the streets and fiercely fought back against security forces, witnesses and opposition Web sites said.

The protests, on the holiday commemorating the death of Hussein, Shiite Islam’s holiest martyr, were the bloodiest and among the largest since the uprisings that followed Iran’s disputed presidential election last June, witnesses said. Hundreds of wounded people were reported wounded, and the Tehran police said they had made 300 arrests.

The Iranian authorities’ decision to fire into crowds on the sacred Ashura holiday stunned many Iranians, and some said the violence appeared to be galvanizing more traditional religious people who have not been part of the protests so far. The Shah’s forces never fired on protesters during Ashura, wary of violating the day’s sanctity.

Obama Silent as Iranians Die for Freedom

Iranian youth no longer chant "death to America." Now they shout "death to the dictators" as they trample photos of Iran's Supreme Leader. They also chant "Obama are you with us or with them [the dictators]?"

The reaction from the White House to the latest violence and the calls for recognition of the freedom movement? Silence. Once again, Obama doesn't want to rock the boat with his hopes for a deal with the mad Mullahs who hold the Iranian people hostage to their warped ideology.

Regime Change the Key to Winning War on Terror and Preventing Spread of Nukes

The radical and tyrannical regime that the crowds in the streets of Tehran desperately want to overthrow has been the grandfather of Islamic terrorism. The threat we face each day is a direct result of the Mullahs mad efforts to spread the Islamic revolution and defeat the West. Bringing down that evil regime which has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans throughout the Middle East via their proxies like Hezbollah, would be the equivalent of the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago.

That great event only occurred because the United States under the leadership of President Reagan was willing to provide both material and moral support to groups like the Solidarity movement in Poland.

Obama barely acknowledges the struggle of the Iranian protesters and he cut off funds to pro-democracy and human rights groups in Iran. Instead, he has pursued a policy of apology and appeasement with Iran's leaders. He's done everything but bow to Iran's whacko President Ahmadinejhad. Perhaps he's saving that gesture for next year.

In return, the hardliners in Iran have spit in his face and rejected every request from the U.N. and our allies that Iran cease work on developing nuclear weapons.

Why won't Obama adopt Reagan's successful Cold War winning strategy?

Because he was raised by a cadre of leftists who despised Reagan and resented the application of U.S. power especially when it was aimed at the Soviet Union with which many of Obama's mentors and family had great sympathy. The idea of American exceptionalism is an alien concept to these lefties who loathe America's leadership role in the world.

But it wasn't just Obama and his radical associates who held these views. Much of the Democrat Party devoted itself to opposing Reagan's efforts to win the Cold War. And many of them still refuse to recognize how every wrong they were during those crucial years. So don't expect them to embrace the lessons of Reagan's success.

A Free Iran is a Friendly Iran

Regime change in Iran would likely bring a government much friendlier to the West. You need only recall the candlelight vigil Iranians held in the streets of Tehran mourning the violence of the September 11th attacks on the U.S. to understand that a great many people in Iran would welcome a chance to return to a more normal relationship with the West.

Supporting the Iranian people in their hour of need is not only the moral thing to do, it is the smart thing to do.

Obama appears to be doing just the opposite. His effort to appease the Mullahs won't succeed but it will give the Mullahs more time to develop a nuke and more time to imprison their people. And this is one time Obama won't be able to blame it all on George Bush. Obama has had his way and his policy didn't work, it has made things worse.

This is the consequence of electing an inexperienced community organizer with antipathy towards the successes of American leadership in the world. Sadly, Obama's policy is more likely to endanger peace and foster greater violence in the months ahead!

More scenes from the recent protests:



The Iranian people want to know: Are we with them or with the terrorist regime?

Friday, December 25, 2009

Al Queda Airline Attack with New Bomb

Terrorist detonation failed as plane approached Detroit.

Mike's America had just landed in Detroit the day before!

Reports: NWA passenger was trying to blow up flight into Detroit

A Northwest Airlines passenger from Nigeria, who said he was acting on al-Qaida’s instructions, tried to blow up the plane today as it was landing in Detroit, law enforcement and national security officials said.

A senior U.S. counterterror official says a passenger aboard a Delta Air Lines flight in Detroit was planning to blow up the plane but the explosive device failed, the Associated Press reported today.

Passengers subdued the man and may have prevented him from detonating the explosives, the officials said.

A White House official said the incident was an attempted act of terrorism.

Federal officials imposed stricter screening measures after the incident.
One of the U.S. intelligence officials said the explosive device was a mix of powder and liquid. It failed when the passenger tried to detonate it.

Detroit is a hotbed of Mulsim violence with reportings of shootouts with police a not uncommon occurrence.

I was just lucky that I got my pounds of pecans and camellia flowers through security before the crackdown.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009


May the Joy of the Christmas season fill your heart with renewed hope for 2010!


Merry Christmas!

Pelosi and Reid to Override Legislative Conference and Write Final Version of Health Bill in Secret?

Was this what Obama meant when he promised to end the old Washington ways of secret backroom deals?

For Their Next Trick . . .
The latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory
By John Fund
Wall Street Journal
DECEMBER 23, 2009

Look for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to try to circumvent the traditional conference committee process by which the different versions of health care reform passed by each house will be reconciled. If so, it will be the latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory.

Conferences involving members from both houses are messy things. They are usually conducted in public and often televised, and can produce a compromise version of the bill that leaves rank-and-file members tempted to vote against the final version. That could be perilous in the case of health care since it's likely to pass without a vote to spare in the Senate and the House's version passed by only five votes.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi would love to come up with a way to bash heads in private and skip any public discussion that further reveals just how incoherent and unworkable both the bills are. Luckily, there is a subterfuge readily available that wouldn't require the House to swallow the Senate's bill unchanged but also ducks the traditional give-and-take of the conference committee.

When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they increasingly did not send bills through the regular conference process.
[S]erious dialogue isn't what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are interested in right now. Look for the traditional conference committee to be replaced by a "ping-pong" game in which health care is finalized behind closed doors with little public scrutiny before the bill is rushed to the floor of each chamber for a final vote.
Is this the new kind of politics Obama said he would bring to DC?

ACTION ALERT: Call, fax email or mail your Congressional Representative or Senator and let them know that you've had enough of these secret backroom deals that shortchange the American people! If you think they are not listening, then write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper (check their web site for email contact and letter length guidelines).

One way or the other, we must stop these anti-democratic tactics and hold Democrats responsible for their actions in 2010!

Postal Service Sends Empty Truck to Chicago

And Dems want government to run health care?

Political Grapevine
Fox News

Running on (Almost) Empty

A Minnesota truck driver is miffed at the Post Office for sending him 300 miles with nothing in his trailer but a post card.

Roy Combs says he arrived in Louisville expecting to haul mail back to Chicago but was told another truck had picked up his load. So he was instead given a work order card and told to deliver that to the Windy City.

Because Combs' trucking company signed a contract with the Postal Service, he couldn't pick up another load despite the empty space. Combs says: "It's just a waste of time, a waste of money, a waste of fuel."

The Louisville Post Office branch says the mistake was an isolated incident and has nothing to do with the cuts in hours or cost-saving measures the Postal Service has been forced to make.

I wonder what the carbon footprint of this big government screwup was?

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

What Price for Stupak's Vote in the House?

If Ben Nelson can get $100 million to sell out his principles, will Stupak stick to his?

I hope I am wrong but it seems to me we've seen this movie before:

Rep. Stupak: White House Pressuring Me to Keep Quiet on Abortion Language in Senate Health Bill
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor
CNS News
Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives have been pressuring him not to speak out on the "compromise" abortion language in the Senate version of the health care bill.

“They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview on Tuesday. “Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here.”

The Michigan Democrat succeeded last month in getting 64 House Democrats to join him in attaching his pro-life amendment to the House version of the health-care bill. The “Stupak amendment,” as the provision is known, would prohibit the federal government from allocating taxpayer money to pay for any part of any health insurance plan that covers abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.
The current version of the Senate bill contains so-called “compromise” language crafted by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). This language does not bar taxpayer funding of health plans that cover abortion, but does create a firewall to supposedly keep federal money from being used to pay for abortions. Over the weekend, Stupak issued a statement calling the proposed Senate language "unacceptable."

"A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage," said the statement.
“We’re getting a lot of pressure not to say anything, to try to compromise this principle or belief,” Stupak said. “[T]hat’s just not us. We’re not going to do that. Members who voted for the Stupak language in the House – especially the Democrats, 64 Democrats that voted for it – feel very strongly about it. It’s been part of who we are, part of our make up. It’s the principle belief that we have. We are not just going to abandon it in the name of health care."

When asked if he has the votes he needs to stop the bill if, in its final version, it does not include the language of his amendment or nearly identical language, Stupak did not answer directly.

“Well, if all the issues are resolved and we’re down to the pro-life view or, I should say, no public funding for abortion, there’s at least 10 to 12 members who have said, repeatedly, unless this language is fixed and current law is maintained, and no public funding for abortion," said Stupak. "There’s 10 or 12 of us, and they only passed the bill by 3 votes, so they’re going to be short 8 to 9, maybe 6 to 8 votes. So they [Democrats] do not have the votes to pass it in the House.”

In contradiction to every principle Obama campaigned on the Chicago machine and Harry Reid bought and paid for the "compromise" of Sen. Ben Nelson's principles on abortion. No doubt Obama and Pelsoi are attempting to do the same with Stupak and his colleagues. All behind closed doors with secret deals. So much for Obama's promise to change the way Washington works.

Dem Congressman Switches to GOP

Dems are too liberal, not doing what is best for the country and our future!

Alabama's Griffith, a physician and now a Republican:

Griffith: "I was not sent to congress to represent a party. I was sent to congress to represent the people....Joining the Republican party is what is best for our country, best for Alabama, best for our children's future...After watching this agenda firsthand I now believe that the differences in the two parties could not be more clear and that for me to be true to my core beliefs and values I must align myself with the Republican party and speak out clearly on these issues."
Our job of tossing Nancy Pelosi out of the Speaker's Chair just got that much easier!

Senators DeMint (R-SC) and Ensign (R-NV) to Force Vote On Constitutionality of Health Care Dictate

Forcing people to buy insurance is unconstitutional and unAmerican!

Our side is fighting with everything they have!

Curt has already posted on Senator DeMint's objection to the rule change which seeks to prevent a later change to certain provisions of Obamacare. Such changes in the rules require a yes vote by 2/3rd's of Senate members. Democrats are attempting to violate that rule.

DeMint has now released the following additional objection:

Ensign, DeMint to Force Vote on Health Care Bill Unconstitutionality

December 22, 2009 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and John Ensign (R-Nevada), raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor against the Democrat health care takeover bill on behalf of the Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators. The Senate will vote tomorrow on the bill’s constitutionality.

“I am incredibly concerned that the Democrats’ proposed individual mandate provision takes away too much freedom and choice from Americans across the country,” said Senator Ensign. “As an American, I felt the obligation to stand up for the individual freedom of every citizen to make their own decision on this issue. I don’t believe Congress has the legal authority to force this mandate on its citizens.”

“Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,” said Senator DeMint. “This is not at all like car insurance, you can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance. This is nothing more than a bailout and takeover of insurance companies. We’re forcing Americans to buy insurance under penalty of law and then Washington bureaucrats will then dictate what these companies can sell to Americans. This is not liberty, it is tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can.”

Americans who fail to buy health insurance, according to the Democrats’ bill, would be subject to financial penalties. The senators believe the bill is unconstitutional because the insurance mandate is not authorized by any of the limited enumerated powers granted to the federal government. The individual mandate also likely violates the “takings” clause of the 5th Amendment.

The Democrats’ healthcare reform bill requires Americans to buy health insurance “whether or not they ever visit a doctor, get a prescription or have an operation.” If an American chooses not to buy health insurance coverage, they will face rapidly increasing taxes that will rise to $750 or 2% of their taxable income, whichever is greater.

The Congressional Budget Office once stated “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

A legal study by scholars at the nonpartisan Heritage Foundation concluded: “An individual mandate to enter into a contract with or buy a particular product from a private party, with tax penalties to enforce it, is unprecedented-- not just in scope but in kind--and unconstitutional as a matter of first principles and under any reasonable reading of judicial precedents.”
I'm so happy to have voted for Senator DeMint and have him represent me in the U.S. Senate. I'm looking forward to the day when he has a major role in the Senate leadership!

Subzero Cold Killing People in Europe

And some global warming loon wants to make it colder?

Seventy-nine people have frozen to death in Poland since the start of a late fall/early winter cold snap. It's a story that has been repeated throughout much of Europe.

And yet, we still have nuts running around demanding we do something to stop global warming! Take this guy for instance. Nathan Myhrvo wants to use high altitude balloons with hoses attached to pump sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere where the particles would reflect sunlight and cool the earth is the same way volcanoes do.

I guess this nut forgot that manmade release of sulfur dioxide from coal plants was thought to be responsible for acid rain, the big environmental scare in the 1990's.

People are dying from cold and some loon wants to tamper with the earth's atmosphere and make it colder? How stupid are these people?

Obama: "A Parody of Leadership"

New record low in the Rasmussen approval index indicates the public is no longer being fooled!

Shortly after the Senate voted to proceed on the massive federal takeover of health care, I ran this post with excerpts from Dan Balz's column in the Washington Post describing the political fallout House and Senate Democrats could expect from their naked partisan effort to ram this bill through. Also writing in the Washington Post Columnist Robert Samuelson describes how these efforts are damaging Obama:

A Parody of Leadership
By Robert Samuelson
Real Clear Politics
December 21, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama's quest for historic health care legislation has turned into a parody of leadership. We usually associate presidential leadership with the pursuit of goals that, though initially unpopular, serve America's long-term interests. Obama has reversed this. He's championing increasingly unpopular legislation that threatens the country's long-term interests. "This isn't about me," he likes to say, "I have great health insurance." But of course, it is about him: about the legacy he covets as the president who achieved "universal" health insurance. He'll be disappointed.

Even if Congress passes legislation -- a good bet -- the finished product will fall far short of Obama's extravagant promises. It will not cover everyone. It will not control costs. It will worsen the budget outlook. It will lead to higher taxes. It will disrupt how, or whether, companies provide insurance for their workers. As the real-life (as opposed to rhetorical) consequences unfold, they will rebut Obama's claim that he has "solved" the health care problem. His reputation will suffer.

It already has. Despite Obama's eloquence and command of the airwaves, public suspicions are rising. In April, 57 percent of Americans approved of his "handling of health care" and 29 percent disapproved, reports The Washington Post-ABC News poll; in the latest survey, 44 percent approved and 53 percent disapproved. About half worried that their care would deteriorate and that health costs would rise.
[]Obama's plan amounts to this: partial coverage of the uninsured; modest improvements (possibly) in their health; sizable budgetary costs worsening a bleak outlook; significant, unpredictable changes in insurance markets; weak spending control. This is a bad bargain. Benefits are overstated, costs understated. This legislation is a monstrosity; the country would be worse for its passage. What it's become is an exercise in political symbolism: Obama's self-indulgent crusade to seize the liberal holy grail of "universal coverage." What it's not is leadership.

Read it all here.
Obama is the only president in my lifetime to make Jimmy Carter look good by comparison!

Monday, December 21, 2009

Senate Democrats Break Filibuster of Health Care

-They now "own" this trainwreck and it will cost them BIG!

-Republicans will keep fighting to the last vote on Christmas Eve!

Shortly after 1 AM Monday morning Democrats reached the all important 60 vote mark required to begin moving their health care "reform" bill to final passage this week in the U.S. Senate. Not a single Republican voted to end the filibuster.

We are only now learning the price Democrats paid for those votes. $100 million for a hospital in Sen. Chris Dodd's state of Connecticut, $500 million for Medicaid for Massachusetts and $100 million for Medicaid in Nebraska to win Ben Nelson's vote and $600 million for Medicaid in Vermont. That's on top of Sen. Mary Landrieu's $300 million for Louisiana. Those of us not living in the above states will have the pleasure of supporting this corruption by paying for it with our tax dollars.

As this monstrosity moves to final passage the cost to Democrats is becoming painfully clear. They have squandered the good will and high hopes of election night 2008 in an orgy of excess and arrogance.

Writing in the Washington Post, Dan Balz has a must read commentary:

Sunday Take: For Democrats, health-care debate exposes deep wounds
By Dan Balz
Washington Post
Sunday, December 20, 2009

... The health-care debate has split the Democratic coalition. Unity has given way to bitter infighting. This has been a moment for individuals to make war on one another.
Whatever goodwill existed among Democrats at the start of Obama's presidency has been fractured and will be difficult to put together again. The events of the past week underline that reality.

Joe Lieberman, who bolted the party in 2006 to salvage his Senate seat and then accepted the Democrats' generosity to maintain his committee chairmanship despite having backed Republican John McCain in last year's presidential race, held the party hostage in negotiations, infuriating many liberals.

Howard Dean, who has grievances about the way he was discarded by the Obama team after running the Democratic National Committee for four years, has led a vocal guerrilla war against the bill from outside the Congress, enraging the party leadership.

Democratic centrists have extracted costly promises to stay onboard, but still fear for their political future. Bloggers and progressive activists have counterattacked against them, vowing retribution. Labor is unenthusiastic to hostile.
Leading Democrats also think that, in the end, voters care less about the process than about the outcome. If, in the face of united Republican opposition, the Democrats produce historic changes in the availability of health care to millions more citizens and protect against some of the arbitrary practices of the insurance industry, that will override the messy path to success.

But there is something broader for Democrats to worry about as they try to finish their work this year and prepare for 2010 and the midterm elections. What began as an undercurrent of dissatisfaction has grown throughout the year. Disappointment with the president is dwarfed by discontent with Congress.

No Congress is ever loved, but the assessments of this Congress are striking in their negativity. In the most recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, only 7 percent rated the performance of Congress above average, and 34 percent called it one of the worst.

Two benchmarks put that number into perspective. In October 1994, shortly before Republicans ousted Democrats from power in the House and Senate, 16 percent called that Congress one of the worst. In October 2006, just before Democrats recaptured control, 25 percent called that Congress one of the worst. In the past five months, the percentage rating this Congress that low has jumped 11 percentage points.
A third finding underscores the problem for Democrats: Thirty-eight percent said their member of Congress deserves to be reelected, and 49 percent said it is time to give a new person a chance. That is identical to the percentage who said to give a new person a chance a month before the 1994 GOP landslide and slightly above the number a month before the 2006 Democratic takeover.

Why won't that anti-Washington sentiment fall equally on Republicans and Democrats? Because it rarely does. Republicans are hardly secure or popular, but Democrats are in control. If the public is ready for change again in November, Democrats will feel the brunt of that anger.
Republicans may not win the battle in the Senate to derail health care. But they have won the fight for public opinion. If this keeps up, Democrats may have won the battle, but Republicans will win the war!

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Sell Out! Nebraska's Sen. Ben Nelson (D) Gets His Price for Health Care Vote

Dems now have the 60 votes needed for a federal takeover of health care!

UPDATE: Video Statement of GOP Leader McConnell: "This bill is a legislative trainwreck of historic proportions!"

Late Friday night the Dems paid off Ben Nelson:

Sen. Ben Nelson announces support for health-care bill
By Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery
Washington Post
Saturday, December 19, 2009; 10:55 AM

Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the final Democratic holdout on health care, announced to his caucus Saturday morning that he would support the Senate reform bill, clearing the way for final passage by Christmas.
Democratic leaders spent days trying to hammer out a deal with Nelson, and worked late Friday night with him on abortion coverage language that had proved the major stumbling block. Nelson also secured other favors for his home state.

Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in insurance exchanges the bill would set up to serve individuals who don't have employer coverage. Plus, enrollees in plans that do cover abortion procedures would pay for the coverage with separate checks - one for abortion, one for rest of health-care services.

Nelson secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Other states must pay a small portion of the additional cost. He won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax. He also was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts.

So Nebraska gets full federal funding of expanded Medicaid coverage and the remaining 49 states will be stuck with paying a hugely increased bill.

No One Should Be Surprised

All along I've said that we were likely to reach a point where the public option and some of the other bells and whistles Dems tried to attach to health care "reform" would be tossed away in a saham compromise. That day has come. But what is left are higher taxes, higher insurance costs and a decrease in the quality of care for the majority of Americans.

And Democrats got what they wanted more than the public option: They got vastly expanded federal control over health care. Remember this organizational chart describing the bureaucratic nightmare the House health care bill created? Most of that still exists in the Senate bill and will become law.

Full size version here.

Next Moves?

Harry Reid will now introduce what is called the "Managers Amendment" which he has negotiated in secret for several weeks. A PDF copy of the amendment runs to 383 pages. It's an incredibly complex document that attempts to modify existing legislation in both major and minor ways. Unfortunately, Democrats don't want to give the American people, let alone the Senators required to vote on this important legislation the time to read it.

With polls showing that Americans would rather the Senate do nothing than pass this bill, Republicans have been emboldened to demand that the process be slowed down so that Senators have a chance to at least read what they are voting on. They only power they have left to slow things down is to object to the practice of waiving the Senate rule requiring that all new legislation be read. It will be interesting to see whether they demand this amendment be read. Obviously reading a 383 page amendment won't slow things down much.

Senate Republicans Ask for YOUR Help!

Don't sit on the sidelines. Call Senate Democrats and tell them to change their vote to NO! Call Senate Republicans and tell them to stay strong and united against this bill!

Friday, December 18, 2009

Obama Trys the Big Scare Technique in Hopenchangen (Copenhagen)

The tactic doesn't work any better on China than it does anymore in the U.S.

A rare blizzard blew into Copenhagen yesterday in advance of Obama's arrival and his latest speech trotting out the now familiar tactic of the "big scare." He greeted delegates with these opening lines:

OBAMA: You would not be here unless you – like me – were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.
Oh the sky is falling! Run for your lives! Aren't people getting a bit tired of Obama's habit of crying "WOLF?" Yes they are.

Whether it's the climate hoax, the stimulus bust or health scare, Obama's first rhetorical refuge is to try and scare us into obediance. It's not working. We're on to him.

All the president's mendacity
By David Harsanyi
Denver Post
December 18, 2009

President Barack Obama grimly warned America this week that if his health care plans fail, the nation will go "bankrupt."

Sure, adding another trillion-dollar entitlement program to our $12 trillion of debt may seem like a counterintuitive way to stave off economic ruin, but who are we to argue? The president's got smarts.

And as is the case with so many issues, Obama adorned his rhetoric with sharp warnings of calamity should he fail, fabricated consensus to buttress his case and a promise of rapture should he succeed.

You'll remember it was Obama who cautioned that failure to pass the stimulus boondoggle would "turn a crisis into a catastrophe." He claimed that a failure to act on cap and trade will lead us to "irreversible catastrophe" and that a failure to pass a government-run health care system will mean "more Americans dying every day."

It's like living the Old Testament. Scary.

Holy burning bushes! Did you know that everyone -- and I mean everyone -- agrees with the president? Obama stressed this week that you can "talk to every health care economist out there and they will tell you that ... whatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses and government, those elements are in this bill."

Not "some" or "most" or "Peter Orszag on a two-day bender" but "every" health care economist in the entire world would tell you as much.

This sort of exaggeration reminds us of another whopper the president unloaded. While promoting the stimulus plan in January, he claimed that "there is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jump-start the economy."

No disagreement whatsoever ... until the Cato Institute found 200 economists from major universities across the country who did have a disagreement -- and judging from the stimulus plan's impressive impotence, perhaps Obama should have lent them an ear.

So when Obama says that "whatever ideas exist" to help with cost are featured in the health care bills, let's chalk it up to his propensity to exaggerate, embellish or worse.
Of course, ignoring the substantive ideas of the ideological opposition is not, in and of itself, new for presidents or politicians. But Obama's fondness for creating imaginary consensus and offering false choices to the American people has been something to behold.
Meanwhile, Obama has had about as much luck in Copenhagen convincing China and India to curb their carbon emissions as he did with winning the Olympics for Chicago!

Marco Rubio: A Conservative Worthy of Hiring for Florida Senate

He's pulled even in polls with powerhouse RINO, FL Gov. Charlie Crist!

I often listen to WOKV AM-690 from Jacksonville, Florida whose signal carries well up the coast here to Hilton Head Island, SC. One day,I was shocked when I heard the following ad from Florida Governor Charlie Crist who is now running for the U.S. Senate in 2010:

Sounds good hunh? So why was I shocked? Because it was only February that Gov. Crist was playing cheerleader for Obama and praising the failed stimulus bill:

What's worse, now Crist is lying about his support of the stimulus and Obama.

So the question is: do you trust a guy who embraces Obama when it's popular and then lies about later? Do you think he would be a reliable conservative voice in the U.S. Senate? Besides, conservatives won't forget that it was Crist who was key to McCain's victory in the Florida 2008 presidential primary which sealed his nomination. Mark Levin hasn't forgotten. His commentary on Crist is biting.

There is a solid conservative alternative!

Marco Rubio, 38, former Speaker of the Florida House, is also running for the GOP nomination for the 2010 Senate seat (campaign web site). In the latest polls he has pulled even among likely Florida GOP voters with statewide powerhouse Crist. Born to parents who immigrated from Cuba, Rubio speaks fluent Spanish and would be a valuable GOP asset in attracting more Hispanic votes. It's also a nice change to have someone who is not a gray haired old man representing the face of the future of the GOP.

I would encourage conservatives who long complain about the lack of true, viable, conservative choices to put their money where their mouth is and back Rubio with a contribution to his campaign. If we must take back the Republican Party, I can't think of a better place to start!

So Much For Civility: The Clown Franken Cuts off Veteran Senator Lieberman

Former Dem V.P. nominee gets cut off by comedy clown!

It's a sign of just how bad things have gotten in the Senate under Democrat rule:

These new Dems have no respect for the traditions and rules of the Senate. They deserve no respect in return!

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Update on Senate Health Bill

Dems still don't have the votes! GOP continuing vigorous opposition!

Wednesday's headline in the Politico Vote by Christmas in peril might have been just a tad premature, but Thursday's development of a "NO" vote on the current bill from Nebraska Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson means that Harry Reid still doesn't have the 60 votes he needs to advance the bill. Sen. Nelson refuses to budge on the issue of abortion and other fiscal concerns and it's unclear whether bribes and threats coming from Reid and Obama will sway him. Combine that with a mutiny by the whacko left and unions and it would appear the effort to advance the bill is in for more rough sailing.
Health deadline obstacles pile up
By: Carrie Budoff Brown and Meredith Shiner
December 17, 2009

...The net effect was the loss of any sense of inevitability surrounding the passage of health care legislation by the end of the year as Reid struggled to keep it on track.

"If we are going to get a bill out of the Senate, which will be very close to getting a bill enacted, we have to do it in 2009," said Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), who is working on the abortion compromise with Nelson. "Some might not think so, but what I would worry about is losing momentum."

"We're down to 48 to 72 hours," he said at 2 p.m. Thursday.

Reid needs a commitment - privately or publicly - from Nelson and other undecided senators by Saturday night, which is the drop-dead time at which the majority leader must begin the procedural steps necessary to finish the bill by Christmas Eve. The current timeline would have the Senate taking a series of votes: at 1 a.m. Monday, 7 a.m. Tuesday, 1 p.m. Wednesday and 7 p.m. Christmas Eve.
One cautionary note on the mutiny and objections from wavering Democrat senators: GOP Pollster Whit Ayres correctly describes much of this as "more bark than bite at this point." The fear is that some Dems may vote to end the filibuster and let the bill go to a final vote where only a simple majority is required for passage. They might then vote "NO" on the final bill which would still have the votes needed to pass. This would be similar to John Kerry's famous "I voted for the bill before I voted against it."

Meanwhile, on the GOP side of the aisle SC Sen. Jim DeMint is inviting readers to sign the petition at his campaign web site demanding that the Senate read the entire bill. [Note: if you do leave your email address you may be getting quite a few fundraising appeals from DeMint]. Thursday, DeMint vowed to use every procedural tool to slow down this bill. He will refuse to give back any time for debate and may demand that the entire bill or amendments be read on the senate floor.

That reading is made all the more necessary because at this point, no one but a handful of senators has actually seen the bill that will be brought to a vote. The Senate GOP prepared a series of quotes by Democrats admitting they did not know what they would be voting on. GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell smacked that theme hard in this statement Thursday:

Completely Reckless, Completely Irresponsible
from the Office of Senator Mitch McConnell

Thursday, December 17, 2009

‘And here’s the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader’s conference room has even seen. That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Thursday regarding the importance of getting it right on health care reform:

“Senators on both sides acknowledge that the health care bill we’re considering is among the most significant pieces of legislation any of us will ever consider.

“So it stands to reason that we’d devote significant time and attention to it.

“Indeed, some would argue that we should spend more time and attention on this bill than most — if not every — previous bill we’ve considered.

“The Majority disagrees.

“Why? Because this bill has become a political nightmare for them.

“They know Americans overwhelmingly oppose it, so they want to get it over with.

Read Sen. McConnell's entire statement here.

Sen. McConnell was equally outraged by the Dem's blatant rewrite of Senate rules which occurred on Wednesday preventing the full reading of the Amendment by Sen. Sanders (Socialist-VT). His speech on the Senate floor decrying that shocking episode is here.

There is unanimity across the GOP Senate caucus in opposition to a rush to vote on this bill. Lo and behold, even Olympia Snowe (R-ME) is on record suggesting that there is no good reason to rush to vote.

The next two days will be crucial. Stay tuned!

If you haven't had a chance to vote on the question: "Are you reasonably satisfied with the job Senate Republicans are doing to stop ObamaCare?" please do so now.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Senate GOP Forces Reading of 767 Page Amendment Stalling Health Bill

Are you happy yet?

Even though 75% of those responding to an earlier online poll on these pages expressed satisfaction with the "masterful" job the Senate GOP was doing to slow down the ObamaCare train wreck we still had a few grumblers demanding to know why we were not doing more.

Today they got their Christmas wish!

Senate GOP slowing health debate; forces reading of 767-page healthcare amendment
By Alexander Bolton and Tony Romm
The Hill
12/16/09 12:42 PM ET

Republicans have forced the Senate clerk to read aloud a 767-page amendment to healthcare reform legislation, paralyzing action on the chamber floor as Democrats approach a Christmas deadline.

Senate aides estimated that it could take 8 to 10 hours to read the massive amendment offered by Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) objected to a request to dispense with the reading of the amendment, a courtesy that is almost always granted to fellow senators.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) came under strong pressure from conservatives last week to do more to delay progress of the Democratic health bill.
Senators had been expected to vote on Wednesday but now the schedule is uncertain.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had hoped to file a motion to cut off debate on the healthcare bill by Friday so that the chamber could pass the measure by Christmas. But the new GOP procedural offensive raises serious questions over whether that timeline can be met.

Republicans have long threatened to use parliamentary procedure to slow down this year's healthcare debate. A memo authored by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) that surfaced last month reminded Republicans they could use such tactics as requesting an amendment's full reading to keep Democrats from offering new amendments, voting on proposals that have already been offered or proceeding to a final vote on the healthcare bill.

"We, the minority party, must use the tools we have under Senate rules to insist on a full, complete and fully informed debate on the health care legislation – as well as all legislation – coming before the Senate," Gregg wrote in that memo.

Ultimately, if Republicans continue invoking regular order and requesting the full reading of all amendments, Democrats could find themselves still locked in debate by Dec. 23.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), South Carolina's always reliable conservative voice in the Senate, today joined with Coburn in the request to read the amendment. DeMint hints that he may demand the entire bill, which is currently being re-written AGAIN in secret, be read before voting on it:

DeMint Joins Effort to Make Senators Read the Bill
Office of Senator Jim DeMint

December 16, 2009 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) announced his support for the procedural effort initiated by U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) to require senators to read the health care bill.

"Democrats are playing a bait and switch trick -- wasting our time debating a bill they've rejected while writing a new one in secret. Right now, behind closed doors, Democrats are writing a brand new bill, thousands of pages long, and want to rush it through before Christmas.”

“Americans are tired of watching their leaders in Washington pass bills they haven’t even bothered to read,” said Senator DeMint. “If Senator Reid won’t slow down this debate, we will do it for him. This bill allows the federal government to take over our health care system, and it must be stopped. We will use whatever procedural tools are necessary to defeat this bill.”

Earlier today, U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana) admitted that senators will not have time to fully read and understand the Democrat health care takeover bill. VIDEO HERE

Under Senate rules, the clerk is required to read aloud all bills and amendments offered on the Senate floor. Senators routinely waive this requirement by unanimous consent. Objecting to such requests forces the clerk to read them aloud.
The move comes in concert with a radio ad Michael Steele has released which is now playing in stations within my listening area:

Michael Steele: "The Democrats are accusing us Republicans of trying to delay and stonewall their government takeover of health care. You know what? They're finally right."
With polls showing support for ObamaCare at the lowest level ever, the move by the GOP is smart politics:


Any of those who voted "dissatisfied" with the GOP Senate in our poll want to change their vote?

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Big Meeting At the White House on Health Care Today

Did you see the session with Dem Senators on C-Span?

Obama has held numerous meetings with Democrats imploring them to pass legislation to take over America's health care system. Have you seen ANY of them televised? Senators don't even know what is in the bill, let alone the American people.

Remember this?

Obama's slippery slope for so many of his promisies: It's wasn't a "lie." It was true when he said it... So much for transparency and a new kind of politics! Promising that was the big lie!

Monday, December 14, 2009

Left Wing Nuts Go On Violent Rampage at Copenhagen Climate Summit

We never saw this kind of violence at the Tea Parties or Town Halls!

Glenn Beck compares the violence at Copenhagen to Nancy Pelosi's tearful concern over "rhetoric" from the Tea Partiers! This is sure to send the Beck haters into fits! Good!

Will the climate hoaxers be held accountable for inspiring this kind of violence? Yeah, sure!

Let's Start the Holiday Fun!

Take a moment off from the dreariness of the latest Obamination and recall the joy of the season!

Need some help with holiday decorating?

And the famous Christmas Carol Puzzle. Print this out and take it to the office or a holiday party. See who can guess the Christmas Carol which matches the pictogram. Answers are here.


Senate GOP Does "Masterful" Job in Derailing ObamaCare!

Take the poll to register your satisfaction/dissatisfaction on job Senate GOP is doing!

As a panelist on Fox News Sunday, Liz Cheney, a potential bright future star of the conservative movement, declared that the job Senate republicans have been doing to derail ObamaCare was "masterful." I agree.

I realize there are some conservatives out there who are disappointed that our GOP Senators aren't initiating legislative Armageddon to stop this latest Obamination. They don't want the Senate GOP to be the "party of no" they want the GOP to be the party of HELL NO! I have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view and did have the chance to express myself on the issue of stronger Senate GOP leadership directly to Senator McCain here a few years back.

But leading GOP senators has been compared to herding cats. If they get too skittish, they scatter. And lately, it has been remarkable how united they have been. Even Olympia Snowe appears to have come back from the dark side despite intense personal lobbying by President Obama at the White House.

And while GOP senators are more united than ever before, a huge swing in independent support has abandoned Obama and taken up opposition to ObamaCare. These are the same voters who constantly complain about partisan bickering and whose support GOP Senators fear might weaken if GOP Senators were to follow more hardball tactics. Such tactics risk fracturing our unity in the Senate and the majority support we enjoy on this issue among the public.

Keep in mind that the GOP strategy means that the media focus has been on the moderate Democrats and Joe Lieberman rather than headlining stories about GOP obstruction. That in itself is a master stroke. What would be gained by a hyper-aggressive GOP in the Senate?

Let's not forget that the Dems original plan was to have a health bill on Obama's desk this fall with a bill passed in both Houses by the August recess. That didn't happen in large part because House and Senate Republicans were able to slow down the process and give the public a chance to have their voices heard in Town Hall protests.

What GOP Senators Are Doing

On Saturday, I highlighted what House Republicans are doing to counter the runaway train of fiscal irresponsibility that grips House Democrats as they prepare to raise the debt ceiling by astounding and unprecedented levels. It's only fair I give equal time to Senate GOP efforts to derail ObamaCare. That's job one to every single member of our Senate leadership.

Sadly, don't expect to read or hear too much about this on the mainstream "news" broadcasts. They're more interested in reporting on the Tiger Woods scandal than reporting on a story that has a direct impact on the life and well being of every American. But that's why blogs were invented and that's why you are reading this now.

Take a moment and visit the Senate GOP web site. There you will find the latest news and information about what the Senate GOP is doing to stop the train wreck known as ObamaCare. A few highlights:

Senate Health Care Bill a "Jobs Killer."

On the same day that President Obama gathered a handful of business leaders at the White House for a phony "jobs summit" (how many jobs were created? ZERO!) Senate GOP leaders held their own jobs meeting to highlight the negative employment aspects of Obamacare. In contrast to Obama's photo op you probably didn't hear much about their efforts, so here's a 1:34 sample:

Big News: Top Medicare Official Declares Dem Plan Will RAISE Costs!

Obama and the Democrats have long insisted that their plan would lower the "cost curve" for health costs and insurance. In November the Congressional Budget Office said that individual insurance premiums will rise an additional 10% under the Democrat plan . Last week, the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, part of the Health and Human Services Dept., declared that under the Dem plan health care costs would increase by $234 billion more than if no plan were enacted. Plus, many hospitals which are already on a financial knife's edge would be pushed firmly into the red.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said the report "confirms what we've known all along," arguing that the bill would "increase costs, raise premiums and slash Medicare." (1)

It's going to be a big week in the Senate. We'll see if the Congressional Budget Office returns a favorable report on the latest Dem plan to push millions more into an already financially troubled Medicare system. Even the New York Times admits Democrats have "hit a rough patch" over the past week with new "roadblocks." Those roadblocks didn't get there by accident.

UPDATE: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to vote NO on current bill! The job for Harry Reid just got harder!

Have Your Say: Satisfied with Senate GOP?

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Double YIKES! Obama Approval Nosedives!

Not even a Nobel Peace Prize can make up for the disgust voters have for his big spending/big government/no jobs fiasco!



Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Rasmussen Reports
Sunday, December 13, 2009

...Today is the second straight day that Obama’s Approval Index rating has fallen to a new low. Prior to the past two days, the Approval Index had never fallen below -15 during Obama’s time in office (see trends).

The 23% who Strongly Approve matches the lowest level of enthusiasm yet recorded. Just 41% of Democrats Strongly Approve while 69% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 21% Strongly Approve and 49% Strongly Disapprove.

Among those who consider the economy to be the most important issue, just 26% Strongly Approve of the President’s performance while 39% Strongly Disapprove.

Among those who consider fiscal policy issues the most important, just 1% Strongly Approve and 81% Strongly Disapprove. [Mike's Note: Maybe they are worried about this?]

The President’s Approval Index rating is -2 among voters under 30 and -29 among senior citizens. From an income perspective, the President’s ratings are weakest among those who earn $40,000 to $100,000 annually.
The question is: HOW LOW CAN HE GO?

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Welcome to Obamaville: A Tent City for Homeless in Colorado

Don't expect to see this story reported in the "news" media either!

As Powers That Be points out: "During the depression, people referred to homeless camps as 'Hoovervilles.'Colorado now has it’s own modern-day version — 'Obamaville.'"


Where is their stimulus? Where is their hope and change?

KRDO:COLORADO SPRINGS - Someone has put a lot of thought into a welcome sign that may surprise you, it's in front of a homeless camp and if you drive up the Cimarron Street on ramp to I-25 - you won't miss it.

Its message, "Welcome to Obamaville, Colorado's fastest growing community."

The sign was later taken down. No doubt after angry Obamatons threatened similar violence from union thugs as that they directed at Tea Partiers this summer.

On a lighter note, some tea party types whipped up this little ditty earlier in the year. It fits this post perfectly:

With Obama and the Democrats in charge it won't be long before we're all living in the poorhouse!

Dems to Skyrocket National Debt: Obama's Leadership Failure?

The Gross National Debt:

"Raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure."
--Sen. Barack Obama
from a speech he delivered on the Senate floor, March 16, 2006
Obama spoke those words in 2006 when Republicans still controlled Congress. One year later, when Democrats were in charge and began the first of their record increases in debt Obama didn't even show up to vote. He was too busy running for President. In 2008 he did show up to vote FOR increasing the debt under a Democrat plan.

In February 2009 Democrats again raised the debt ceiling $789 billion to pay for the first installment of Obama's government takeover. Ten months later they are back again, asking for another $1.8 TRILLION increase in the debt limit.

It's the largest single increase in the debt limit and part of an accelerating pattern of increases since Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. According to the White House Office of Management and Budget during the 12 years Republicans controlled Congress the debt was increased by slightly more than $4 trillion. Under less than three years of Democrat control the debt is set to increase by more nearly $5 trillion.

Obama campaigned on a promise of fiscal responsibility. He had the audacity to hold one of his White House "Summits" on fiscal responsibility in February where he once again promised: "We need to send a signal that we are serious" about solving these fiscal problems.

All this time the red ink flows like a Tsunami of proportions that have never been seen before.

Republicans Stand United and Firm in Opposition to Fiscal Irresponsiblity

Before Democrats can pass the 2,500 page omnibus spending bill to fully fund government operations for the remainder of this fiscal year they must pass the increase in the debt ceiling. Action starts in the House of Representatives where Republicans are standing firm:

I think it’s very credible to oppose increase in the debt ceiling, and you’ll see Republicans vote against it. And we’ll vote against it because of their trillion-dollar stimulus plan that hasn’t worked. We’ll vote against it because of all of this excessive spending that’s in this bill right here, a 12 percent increase with 5,000 earmarks -- all of it pushing the debt to record heights. And while I understand the political games that get played around here, it will be an opportunity for us to point out the excessive spending that’s going on in this Congress. (1)
Before taking office, the President said he would go through the budget and these bills ‘line-by-line, page-by-page.’ After Congress passed the $410 billion omnibus spending bill with more than 9,000 earmarks, the President signed it, and said, ‘well that was last year’s business.’ Now the President says reducing the deficit is next year’s business – that we need to ‘spend our way’ out of this economic recession we’re in.

Well I think the President ought to go through this bill line-by-line and page-by-page, all 2,500 pages of it. And then maybe he’ll figure out, we don’t need to be spending this money that we don’t have and piling more and more debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids. Instead, our bond rating, our AAA bond rating is in jeopardy and our Democrat friends want to raise the debt limit next week by $1.8 trillion. Instead, let’s stop the madness and vote ‘no.’ (2)

--House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
Since I know the "news" media is more interested in Tiger Woods than fiscal issues, I'll offer readers Boehner's three minute speech on the House floor here.

Offering more than just outrage Republicans present real solutions:

Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) today introduced H.R. 4262, the Control America’s Purse-strings to Deliver a Better Tomorrow (CAP the DEBT) Act. Scalise’s bill would require a two-thirds majority in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate in order to increase the national debt ceiling. His bill also repeals the Gephardt rule which currently allows lawmakers to increase the federal debt ceiling as an attachment to other budget resolutions.
Over 50 members have already signed as co-sponsors to this bill. On Friday, a press conference where members expressed their support:

But with Democrat control of both houses it's unlikely that GOP ideas for fiscal responsibility will see the light of day. All the more reason to support a GOP comeback in 2010. Only then will fiscal responsibility stand a chance.
fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator