No more Dem KKK plantation for these guys and millions more!
It's time THEIR voices are heard!!!

Friday, July 31, 2009

Cash for Clunkers Headaches Should Give Americans Reason to Be Wary of Govt. Run Health Care

If they make it so difficult to cash in your clunker, guess how difficult it will be if your ticker gives out?

Gosh! It sounded like such a good idea for the government to help the ailing auto industry and the environment by getting old gas guzzling cars off the road. Yet, like every government program, there's a downside:

First, the Environmental Protection Agency magically recalculated the miles per gallon it estimates many older cars get. Suddenly people whose cars met the previous standard no longer do.

EPA's move has caused confusion and headaches:

From CNN: In some cases, car buyers say, dealers are backing out of sales they've already made because the EPA changed the fuel economy figures on their trade-in.

"My wife just received a call from the sales manager saying that our clunker doesn't qualify anymore, and that we could either pay the extra $4,500 or return the new car (and get our old car back)," Greg Straka wrote Tuesday on a message board at the Edmunds.com automotive Web site.
If all EPA has to do is wave a wand and make cars compliant on this score, then why don't they do it for all cars and avoid the costly retolling of industry necessary to meet more stringent government fuel standards on new cars?

Second, there is that little matter of government paperwork. This report from Minnesota highlights a problem seen all over the country:

Walser Toyota in Bloomington was open until midnight on Monday, with a waiting list. Salesmen were working long hours processing all those government rebates.

Each deal is 20 pages of documents that must be scanned and submitted individually through a government website that often doesn't work very well. They’ve sent in more than a hundred deals, cars they've already sold and about thirty have been rejected. Many of them were rejected because of a paperwork error. The rules of the program sound pretty simple, but the rulebook is at least a couple hundred pages long.

In a hotel ballroom, more than a hundred Minnesota auto dealers met Tuesday afternoon, invited by the Minnesota Auto Dealers Association. They were there to discuss all the problems they are experiencing.

What happens to the folks who already traded in their clunker but now find out their paperwork was rejected? Will dealers have to repossess those cars? Sound like fun to you?

Lastly, there's the problem of when and how dealers get paid for the clunkers. Multiple reports show that dealers haven't received any money and don't know when they will. It's causing a drain on already stretched financial resources.

Imagine Government Run Health Care

So what happens when government takes over health care with a rule book of thousands of pages? Will you get the immediate care you need or will you spend your sick days trying to get the correct paperwork moved through a faceless bureaucracy?

What happens when your doctor says he can't treat your condition without authorization from Washington? Will you die while some ACORN agent looks up your voting history to see if you qualify as a value to society?

To quote President Reagan: "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." If you depend on government to help you, you will be disappointed!

NEA Gave Stimulus $$$ to Fund Porn

Meanwhile, millions more Americans are out of work!

Remember a few weeks ago when Joe Biden said he saw clear evidence that the monster stimulus bill was working? Biden implored a gathering of Senior Citizens in Richmond Virginia to "Come see what I see everywhere I go: workers rehired."
Well, maybe Joe's been hanging out in some places most Seniors wouldn't be caught dead in (with or without Obama Care):

Stimulus Bill Funds Go to Art Houses Showing 'Pervert' Revues, Underground Pornography
By Joseph Abrams
Fox News
Thursday, July 30, 2009

Talk about a stimulus package.

The National Endowment for the Arts may be spending some of the money it received from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act to fund nude simulated-sex dances, Saturday night "pervert" revues and the airing of pornographic horror films at art houses in San Francisco.

The NEA was given $80 million of the government's $787 billion economic stimulus bill to spread around to needy artists nationwide, and most of the money is being spent to help preserve jobs in museums, orchestras, theaters and dance troupes that have been hit hard by the recession.

But some of the NEA's grants are spicing up more than the economy. A few of their more risque choices have some taxpayer advocates hot under the collar, including a $50,000 infusion for the Frameline film house, which recently screened Thundercrack, "the world's only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women and a gorilla."
We can't afford to make perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary," Obama said at the time.

But he presumably didn't intend to have stimulus money help fund the weekly production of "Perverts Put Out" at San Francisco's CounterPULSE, whose "long-running pansexual performance series" invites guests to "join your fellow pervs for some explicit, twisted fun."

CounterPULSE received a $25,000 grant in the "Dance" category; a staffer there said they were pleased to receive the grant, "which over the next year will be used to preserve jobs at our small non-profit."
One project that has received past NEA funding and stands to get an additional boost from a $25,000 stimulus grant is "The Symmetry Project," a dance piece by choreographer Jess Curtis.

The show depicts "the sharing of a central axis, [as] spine, mouth, genitals, face, and anus reveal their interconnectedness and centrality in embodied experience," according to a description offered on Curtis' Web site.

In the flesh — and there's a lot of it — it amounts to two people writhing naked on the floor, a government-funded tango in the altogether.

Curtis said that diminished support from regular funders like San Francisco Grants for the Arts "would mean lots less work and less ability to organize ... to get the work out in front of people." He said the NEA funding will help keep his art afloat.

Nice! Obama preserves jobs for pornographers!

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Iran Kills Protesters in Prison and Beats Funeral Mourners

Why is it that Obama found it so easy to criticize the Cambridge Police and yet he ignores the continuing violence in Iran?

Remember the international outcry of the frat pranks at Abu Ghraib? Why the near total silence over this?

Reports of Prison Abuse and Deaths Anger Iranians
New York Times
July 28, 2009

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Some prisoners say they watched fellow detainees being beaten to death by guards in overcrowded, stinking holding pens. Others say they had their fingernails ripped off or were forced to lick filthy toilet bowls.
More bruised corpses have been returned to families in recent days.
One young man posted an account on Tuesday of his ordeal at the Kahrizak camp, which was ordered closed on Monday by Ayatollah Khamenei. “We were all standing so close to each other that no one could move,” he wrote in a narrative posted online. “The plainclothes guards came into the room and broke all the light bulbs, and in the pitch dark started beating us, whoever they could.” By morning, at least four detainees were dead, he added.
Earlier this month, family members of missing demonstrators were taken to a morgue in southwest Tehran where they reported seeing “hundreds of corpses” and were not allowed to retrieve bodies unless they certified that the deaths were of natural causes.
Hmmmm... Makes Abu Ghraib sound like a picnic. But where is the outrage? Have you heard ANY of the handwringers over abuses at Abu Ghraib bemoaning REAL torture in Iran?

Nope! And you won't either. There is no political gain to be had by drawing attention to the evil Iranian government.

Now this:

Iranian police use force against graveside rally
Associated Press
July 30, 2009

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iranian police fired tear gas and beat anti-government protesters with batons to disperse thousands at a graveside memorial Thursday for victims of post-election violence, witnesses and state television said.
Police barred opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi from joining the crowd around the grave of Neda Agha Soltan, a young woman who was shot to death at a June 20 to protest the disputed presidential election. The 27-year-old music student's dying moments on the pavement were filmed and circulated widely on the Web, and her name became a rallying cry for the opposition.

"Neda is alive, Ahmadinejad is dead," some of those at the ceremony chanted, referring to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who the opposition claims won the June 12 election by fraud. Witnesses said plainclothes forces charged at them with batons and tear gas, some of them chanting, "Death to those who are against the supreme leader." State television also reported that police used tear gas to disperse the demonstrators.
Even after the clash, thousands of supporters continued to visit Soltan's grave. Passengers on the subway ride back from the cemetery to central Tehran chanted slogans against Ahmadinejad: "Traitor Mahmoud, we want you to become homeless," witnesses said.
The memorial service marked the end of the 40-day mourning period under Islam for 10 people killed in protests and clashes on June 20, including Soltan.
Too bad Obama is too busy with his Beer Summit to pay the slightest attention!

3 to 1 Gang Up on Cop at White House "Beer Summit"

V.P. Joe Biden had to put his two cents in too!


Barry, Joe and the boys do some brew in the White House Rose Garden!

In a statement shortly after the Beer Summit Obama said: "I have always believed that what brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart." Yeah. That's why he accused the Police of acting "stupidly" even know he didn't have the facts. I hope he learned something.

As for Crowley, he later expressed his respect for the President and revealed that his conversation with Gates boiled down to "two gentlemen who agreed to disagree on a particular issue." No doubt Gates took the opportunity to stick it to "whitey" (his favorite phrase to demonstrate his neutrality on the issue of race)

Crowley's statement follows in this eight minute video. Note that no one apologized to him for anything:


A Bud Light for the president and a Blue Moon for Crowley. Gates drank a Samuel Adams Light, not a Red Stripe. Biden drank a non-alcoholic beer, Buckler. All served up by a white guy so Gate's doesn't go ballistic.

Massive unemployment, wars overseas and huge political issues at home and Obama drops it all for a photo op to show what a regular guy he is! Give me a break!

Related Story: Black Cop who supports Crowley called "Uncle Tom" and "traitor!"

This is what happens to anyone of color who fails to fall in with the racebaiters!

Black cop at Gates home regrets 'Uncle Tom' label
July 30, 2009

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A black sergeant who was at the home of Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. when he was arrested says he's been maligned as an "Uncle Tom" for supporting the actions of the white arresting officer.

Cambridge Sgt. Leon Lashley gave a letter to Sgt. James Crowley to give to President Barack Obama during their so-called beer summit with Gates on Thursday night at the White House.

In the letter, which was also sent to CNN, Lashley says Gates "may have caused grave and potentially irreparable harm to the struggle for racial harmony."

Lashley says he has become known as a traitor to his heritage by some because he "spoke the truth" about the arrest.

A Raft of Latest Polls Shows Obama Sinking

Get it? Raft... sinking!

From House GOP Leader John Boehner (Ohio), who deserves your full and financial support for his efforts to stop Obama from destroying American health care:

Five Polls in 24 Hours: Americans Increasingly Opposed to Dems' Government Takeover of Health Care

Boehner: "The More [President Obama] Talks About This, the Less People Support It. And They Are Deeply Skeptical About the Government's Involvement."

Washington, Jul 30 - As congressional Democrats fight with one another over what to do next on health care, the American people are growing increasingly opposed to the idea of a government takeover of health care that will raise costs, destroy jobs through a small business tax and onerous employer mandates, and put bureaucrats in charge of decisions that only patients and doctors should make. In the last 24 hours, no fewer than five national public opinion surveys have registered similar results: Americans don’t support the Democrats’ government-run health care plan. Take a look:

1. WSJ/NBC News poll: “In mid-June, the public was evenly divided when asked whether it thought Mr. Obama's health plan was a good idea or bad idea. The new poll, conducted July 24-27, found 42 percent calling it a bad idea versus 36 percent who said it was a good idea. Among those with insurance, the portion calling the plan a bad idea rose to 47 percent from 37 percent ... [T]here was another worrisome sign for the president: Only two in 10 people predicted the quality of their own care would improve under the Obama plan, and just 15% of those with private insurance thought it would. Twice as many overall, and three times as many with private coverage, predicted their own care would get worse.”

2. National Public Radio poll: “When asked about the plan now moving through Congress, a plurality of 47 percent was opposed and 42 percent said they were in favor, based on what they had heard about the plan so far.”

3. New York Times/CBS News poll: “President Obama’s ability to shape the debate on health care appears to be eroding as opponents aggressively portray the effort as a government-takeover that could limit Americans’ ability to choose their doctor and course of treatment, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. Americans are concerned that overhauling the health care system would reduce the quality of their care, increase their out-of-pocket health costs and tax bills and limit their options in choosing doctors, treatment and tests, the poll found.”

4. Time Magazine poll: “By significant margins, survey respondents said they believe the final health-reform legislation is likely to raise health-care costs in the long run (62 percent), make everything about health care more complicated (65 percent) and offer less freedom to choose doctors and coverage (56 percent).”

5. Gallup poll: A plurality of Americans believes a new health care bill will “worsen” their health care and “reduce” their access to care. Bottom line: “Whether the focus is access to healthcare or the quality of care, less than a majority of Americans are convinced that health care reform will be beneficial to either the country or to their own personal situations. Americans are less likely to believe health care reform will result in improvements to themselves personally than to the national healthcare situation. Americans believe that health care reform will increase costs rather than lower them, both nationally and for themselves.”

In a Christian Science Monitor forum yesterday, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) discussed Americans’ growing opposition to the Democrats’ government-run plan, noting that the more President Obama talks about his proposal, the less Americans like it:

“Boehner pointed to this public skepticism about healthcare reform. ‘Over the last few months, the more [President Obama] talks about this, the less people support it. And they are deeply skeptical about the government’s involvement.’”

“The Republican leader charged that ‘one of the reasons the Democrat[ic] leaders are pushing so hard to get this bill passed before they leave is because they know that if this bill hangs out there over the August recess my guess is it will be shredded and when they get back they will have nothing.’”
Americans’ opposition to a government takeover of health care is bad enough on paper, but as Congress prepares to leave Washington for the August break, Democrats are about to see that opposition firsthand when they return back to their congressional districts. The American people support real health care reform – a plan that reduces costs and expands access to quality care. The Democrats’ proposal does neither. And unless Democratic leaders agree to work with Republicans on a bipartisan plan that achieves real reform that Americans are seeking, it will be a long, hot August for Democrats in Congress.
Rasmussen Has Obama At Another All Time Record Low!


Gallup too has a new record low for Obama's job approval. In a number of polls Obama is at or below the percentage of votes he had in the 2008 election meaning he is losing support directly from the people who voted for him (like the Policewoman in Cambridge, Massachusetts in the wake of Obama's racebaiting remarks).

And speaking of racebaiting. Tonight is Obama's beer night with that other racebaiter Harvard Prof. Henry Gates and the Police Officer, Sgt. Crowley who both Obama and Gates attempted to smear.

Trying to think of some appropriate music for their little beer fest in the Rose Garden, I came across this. It ties all these story elements together in one neat package:

First Conservative Dems Held Up Health Care "Reform" NOW, Liberal Dems Threaten to Do the Same

Liberal Dems are refusing to accept the "Blue Dog" compromise!

Next time President Obama blames Republican for bucking health care "reform" we can all get a good laugh. Dems are so split on the issue that it seems unlikely that any compromise will hold up. For everyone who rejects massive government intrusion into the health care of every American that's good news!

Liberals gag over health deal

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spent half of Wednesday finalizing a deal with the Blue Dogs — and the other half quelling a brewing rebellion among progressives who think conservatives have hijacked health care reform.

Liberals, Hispanics and African-American members — Pelosi’s most loyal base of support — are feeling betrayed after House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) reached an agreement with four of seven Blue Dogs on his committee who had been bottling up the bill over concerns about cost.

The compromise, which still must be reconciled with competing House and Senate versions, would significantly weaken the public option favored by liberals by delinking reimbursement rates to Medicare.

“Waxman made a deal that is unacceptable,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), one of about 10 progressives who met repeatedly with Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Wednesday.

“We signed a pledge to reject any plan that doesn’t include a robust public option, and this plan doesn’t have a robust public option,” he added.

By sundown Wednesday, the outcry from the left had become so loud that Waxman was forced to scrap a scheduled markup of the compromise measure. He rescheduled the meeting for Thursday morning and convened a mass question-and-answer session for a deeply divided Democratic Caucus — a meeting that is expected to be extremely contentious.

Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall of that meeting?

Dems are damned if they do compromise and damned if they don't. In short, they're DAMNED!

Obama Won't Use the Word "Victory" in Afghan "War"

But he does know how to apologize!

Historians always used to say that it was important for a President, the leader of the Free World, to have a vision. I wonder if that rule has been scrapped in favor of the affirmative action President who doesn't seem to understand how important a concept like victory in war is to those fighting it:

EDITORIAL: No substitute for victory
The president equivocates on the Afghan war
Washington Times
July 27, 2009

President Obama isn't sure if victory is the U.S. objective in Afghanistan. On July 23, ABC's Terry Moran asked the president to define victory in Afghanistan. He responded, "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur." Fidelity to history requires us to note that Emperor Hirohito did not sign the Japanese articles of surrender on the Battleship Missouri on Sept. 2, 1945, and was not even at the ceremony.
There is scant difference between the Bush and Obama strategies in Afghanistan. The "stronger and smarter" approach Mr. Obama introduced in March is substantively little different from the Bush administration's 2004 Afghan counterinsurgency strategy. Both seek to secure the country, promote a stable government and defeat the terrorists who seek to attack the United States. However, one important difference is that the Obama administration generally eschews the word "war." Defense jargon du jour indicates that our country has shifted from "fighting a war" to "engaging in overseas contingencies." This renders the whole question of victory moot. Wars are won or lost; contingency operations just come and go.
There is no harm, and a great deal of good, in calling the achievement of war objectives a victory. After all, if you can't say you won a war, the implication is you lost it. The pursuit of victory also makes war's sacrifices more meaningful. John P. Roche, special assistant to President Johnson, wrote in 1968 that the basic issue in Vietnam was whether a free society could fight a limited war for limited objectives. "It is very difficult to tell a young soldier," he wrote, "Go out there and fight, perhaps die, for a good bargaining position."

Gen. Douglas MacArthur famously said that "there is no substitute for victory," a fact that remains true today. We cannot alter the nature of war by redefining it to conform to shifting political fashion. Our men and women in uniform are putting their lives on the line overseas fighting an implacable enemy. Their commander in chief should allow them the opportunity to say that their objective is victory.

President Reagan also cited that quote from MacArthur and he lived by it. Reagan's vision bucked the conventional wisdom and forced the bureaucracy to go along with his plans to WIN the Cold War. If Obama had been President during the 80's, the Berlin Wall and the threat of nuclear Armageddon would likely still hang over us.

If victory is a foreign language to Obama; how does he feel about defeat?

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The Real Victim of Racism in Cambridge Police Episode Speaks Out!

Why isn't she invited to the White House for a beer?

Lucia Whalen describes the new fascism that grips the American left:

This woman was afraid for her life after reporting what she thought was a crime in progress!

Shame on Democrats who trumpet phony racist charges at the expense of good citizens!

Shame on you!

House "Blue Dog" Democrats Cave on Health Care

They got their 30 pieces of silver. The rest of us will be crucified!

The "Blue Dogs" in the House Democrat caucus caved in to pressure today and signaled they would no longer block health care "reform" legislation from moving forward. Their price? $100 billion in cuts from a bill set to cost a $trillion and up.

As Gomer Pyle used to say: "Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!"

There were a few other changes in the bill which while welcome, do not overcome the fact that this will be another massive intrusion by the federal government into health care and it will accelerate the financial collapse of Medicare and Medicaid.

The one good point in today's agreement is that no vote will take place until Congress reconvenes in September. That will give Americans time to understand how dangerous even this watered down Democrat bill is.

My fear is that the majority of voters will be so relieved that the original socialist makeover of health care was defeated that they will be ready to accept the socialist-lite version which is hardly an improvement.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Police Report on Gates "Racist" Cop Drama

Why is it that the first thing to pop into this man's mind is an accusation of racism?

PhotobucketWhen I heard that the Boston Globe had removed most of the police report from the arrest of Harvard's blacktavist Henry Gates by Sgt. Crowley of the Cambridge Police Dept. I knew I had to go and read the full report.

It's pretty clear that by omitting the narrative that explains how Gates acted when first approached by the officer it makes it easier to push the argument that either Crowley acted improperly or at the very least, both men are to blame (the old moral equivalence crapola).

Here's what they didnt' want you to read. And it's all backed up by on the scene witnesses including non-white police officers. In the words of Sgt. Crowley:

Page 2: As I turned and faced the door, I could see an older black male standing in the foyer of {} Ware Street. I made this observation through the glass paned front door. As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would step out onto the porch and speak with me. He replied “no I will not”. He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was “Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police” and that I was “investigating a report of a break in progress” at the residence. While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed “why, because I’m a black man in America?”. I then asked Gates if there was anyone else in the residence. While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer. I assured Gates that I was responding to a citizen’s call to the Cambridge Police and that the caller was outside as we spoke. Gates seemed to ignore me and picked up a cordless telephone and dialed an unknown telephone number. As he did so, I radioed on channel I that I was off in the residence with someone who appeared to be a resident but very uncooperative. I then overheard Gates asking the person on the other end of his telephone call to “get the chief’ and “whats the chiefs name?’. Gates was telling the person on the other end of the call that he was dealing with a racist police officer in his home. Gates then turned to me and told me that I had no idea who I was “messing” with and that I had not heard the last of it. While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me. I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card. Upon learning that Gates was affiliated with Harvard, I radioed and requested the presence of the Harvard University Police.

With the Harvard University identification in hand, I radioed my findings to ECC on channel two and prepared to leave. Gates again asked for my name which I began to provide. Gates began to yell over my spoken words by accusing me of being a racist police officer and leveling threats that he wasn’t someone to mess with. At some point during this exchange, I became aware that Off. Carlos Figueroa was standing behind me. When Gates asked a third time for my name, I explained to him that I had provided it at his request two separate times. Gates continued to yell at me. I told Gates that I was leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak with him outside of the residence.

As I began walking through the foyer toward the front door, I could hear Gates again,n demanding my name. I again told Gates that I would speak with him outside. My reason for wanting to leave the residence was that Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics of the kitchen and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit pertinent information to ECC or other responding units. His reply was “ya, I’ll speak with your mama outside”. When I left the residence, I noted that there were several Cambridge and Harvard University police officers assembled on the sidewalk in front of the residence. Additionally, the caller, md at least seven unidentified passers-by were looking in the direction of Gates, who had followed me outside of the residence.

As I descended the stairs to the sidewalk, Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him. Due to the tumultuous manner Gates had exhibited in his residence as well as his continued tumultuous behavior outside the residence, in view of the public, I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly. Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell, which drew the attention of both the police officers and citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed by Gates’s outburst. For a second time I warned Gates to calm down while I withdrew my department issued handcuffs from their carrying case. Gates again ignored my warning and continued to yell at me. It was at this time that I informed Gates that he was under arrest. I then stepped up the stairs, onto the porch and attempted to place handcuffs on Gates. Gates initially resisted my attempt to handcuff him, yelling that he was “disabled” and would fall without his cane. After the handcuffs were property applied, Gates complained that they were too tight. I ordered Off. Ivey, who was among the responding officers, to handcuff Gates with his arms in front of him for his comfort while I secured a cane for Gates from within the residence. I then asked Gates if he would like an officer to take possession of his house key and secure his front door, which he left wide open. Gates told me that the door was un securable due to a previous break attempt at the residence. Shortly thereafter, a Harvard University maintenance person arrived on scene and appeared familiar with Gates. I asked Gates if he was comfortable with this Harvard University maintenance person securing his residence. He told me that he was.

It's clear Gates dropped the "racist" charge without the slightest provocation. A white policeman shows up at his door and he instantly assumes he's being abused! How pathetic.

Black Policewoman for Cambridge P.D. Won't Vote Again for Obama!

Perhaps hoping to keep the racebaiting angle of the story alive, CNN sent a black reporter to Cambridge, Massachusetts and interviewed Sgt. Crowley and several police officers who were either at the scene or familiar with Sgt. Crowley. Skip ahead to about the 1:15 second point:

Policewoman on Obama: "I supported him. I voted for him. I will not again."

Meanwhile, Obama will host Gates and Crowley at the White House for a "beer" around the picnic table outside on Thursday evening. That proves it; Obama is a man of the people after all! Suuurrrreee!

Hillary Clinton Vows: We Will "Never" Let Iran Get a Nuke

Tough talk is fine. But ACTIONS speak louder!

From Politico:
Hillary Clinton: "What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions, that if you're pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we're not going to let that happen," Clinton said.

"First, we're going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran — nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed — it is something that we view with great concern, and that's why we're doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening. ... We believe, as a matter of policy, it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons."

Fine words. But what action is the Obama Administration prepared to take to back them up? Thus far, nothing! In fact, they blew the best opportunity in the last thirty years to rid the world of the Iranian threat by supporting the protesters in Tehran. Instead, Obama supported the mullahs as they butchered their own people.

A free Iran would be infinitely more likely to be a peaceful Iran. But instead we're left with nothing but "hope" for "change."

Monday, July 27, 2009

Does Anyone Think Government Run Health Care Would be Better Than What We Have Now?

Ask a Canadian!

For those of you who find the current debate over the details of the Dems proposed health care "reform" too complicated, here's a one minute eye opener:

Americans overwhelmingly are satisfied with their health care. Why fix something that ain't broke?

Congress may vote on this issue by the end of the week. Call your Congressman and tell him or her to VOTE NO!

What Does Promoting Tax Payer Funded Abortions Have to Do With Health Care?

Calling abortion an "essential benefit" while the Dem bill would cut back critical care to Seniors unmasks Obama care as a death cult!

GOP House Leader John Boehner is fighting back:
Taxpayer-Funded Abortion Is Not Health-Care Reform
By John Boehner, House Republican Leader
National Review
July 23, 2009

When most Americans talk about the need for health-care reform, they’re usually talking about the need to address rising health-care costs; they aren’t talking about the need for taxpayers to subsidize abortion. In fact, a November 2008 Zogby poll revealed 71 percent of Americans oppose government-funded abortion.

It seems Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill don’t share this perspective, however. With the unequivocal support of President Obama, they’ve written a health-care bill that won’t lower health-care costs for American families, but will require them to subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars.
How many Americans currently realize the House bill contains provisions that will result in federally mandated coverage of abortion on demand in virtually all of America's health plans?

Fact: The bill as currently written will allow the federal government to classify abortion as an "essential benefit" — a health-care right that would be guaranteed to all Americans. This will make it illegal for health-care providers nationwide — even Catholic and religious-based hospitals with missions that reflect a fundamental moral objection to the killing of the unborn — to provide anything less than abortion on demand for anyone who seeks it. As a result, the bill will repeal laws in many states that currently require commonsense limitations on abortion-on-demand, such as mandatory parental notification and waiting periods.

Fact: The bill would also establish a taxpayer-funded "public" health-care plan to "compete" with private-sector plans. This public plan, like all plans, will be required to classify abortion as an "essential benefit," forcing American citizens to directly subsidize abortion-on-demand with their tax dollars. And in addition to the public plan, individuals with incomes of up to 400% of the poverty level will receive subsidies to buy insurance to pay for abortion-on-demand.

Reps. Eric Cantor (R. Va.), Sam Johnson (R., Texas), and Mark Souder (R., Ind.) offered amendments this month in three different House committees to strike the provisions from the Democratic bill that force American taxpayers to subsidize abortion. All three amendments, sadly, were defeated by the Democratic majority in committee. And it remains to be seen whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), who champions the House bill and its abortion-related provisions, will allow such an amendment to be considered and debated on the House floor.
[G]iven its controversial nature, it deserves a full and open public debate — the sort of debate that is impossible when major bills are rammed through Congress based on politically driven timetables.

If a health-care bill doesn't lower costs for middle-class families, but does require them to subsidize abortion-on-demand with their hard-earned tax dollars, one has to ask a fundamental question: For whom was this bill actually written? Was it written for the millions of Americans who were promised a health-care bill that lowers costs? Or is it really for the radical special-interest and lobbying groups that invested millions to elect a cooperative president and Congress?

Health care is too important to get wrong. Too much is at stake. For the sake of American families struggling with health-care costs — most of whom don’t want their hard-earned money being used by the federal government to subsidize abortion — President Obama should scrap the current health-care bill, and work in a bipartisan way for true reforms.
How long will it be before abortion on demand becomes a government demand to abort babies born whose lives would impose costly burdens on government care?

Worse still... An unaccountable Supreme Court for Health Care?

This from columnist David Broder:

WASHINGTON -- Americans are familiar with -- if not altogether comfortable about -- unelected officials exercising great authority over our lives. The nine justices on the Supreme Court and hundreds of other jurists exert their power from the bench. The economy is managed by the Federal Reserve Board, though no one ever forced Alan Greenspan or Ben Bernanke to campaign for a vote.

If President Obama has his way, another such unelected authority will be created -- a manager and monitor for the vast and expensive American health care system. As part of his health reform effort, he is seeking to launch the Independent Medicare Advisory Council, or IMAC, a bland title for a body that could become as much an arbiter of medicine as the Fed is of the economy or the Supreme Court of the law.

The only way decisions of this unelected body could be overturned would be with a vote in both the House and Senate 30 days or less after they reached a decision. If people like the "Communitarian" brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, a physician and part of Obama's health care policy team, were part of that board we would all be subject to the "social justice" edicts which would decide who lives and who dies based on what value liberals place on their lives.

This isn't health care "reform." This is Frankenstein medicine being pushed down our throats by liberals who have the gall to demand we pay for it!

Saturday, July 25, 2009

How LOW Can Obama Go?


I've updated the graphic on the comments pages


Apparently voters aren't so pleased with having a racebaiter and greivance monger as President!

Obama's Dr. Mengele Admits Health Care "Reform" Will Kill Old People Sooner

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's brother, a physician, appointed to Obama health care job admits killing old people is the only way to cut costs!

New York Post
July 24, 2009

Emanuel: Believes in withholding care from elderly for greater good.

THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).
"Communitarianism?" Sounds like ?

If you think my Dr. Mengele reference in the title above was too strong, consider that the NAZIS also believed in denying care to those thought unworthy.

In this case, the decision will be made by bureaucrats, possibly even ACORN employees. And if there isn't a "D" after your name on the voter registation roles, what do you bet your chances of receiving care will be?

Friday, July 24, 2009

Obama President of the Left. NOT President of the United States

Recent comments reveal how the Obama White House views everything from an us vs. them political prism!

Police, White House exchange barbs
The Politico7/24/09

The controversy over the arrest of Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. escalated Friday, as Cambridge, Mass., police union officials called on President Obama to apologize for his criticism of the arresting officers and the White House moved to blunt criticism of the president's remarks.

At a press conference in Cambridge with Sergeant James M. Crowley, the officer who arrested Gates, union leaders said Obama and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick had both gone after Cambridge officers' performance without having full information about the incident involving Gates.

Steve Killian, the president of the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association took exception to the president's charge that Cambridge police handled the incident "stupidly."

"Cambridge police are not stupid. I am proud to represent the officers of the Cambridge Police Department," Killian said. "I think the president should make an apology to all law enforcement personnel throughout the entire country."

Earlier in the day, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed a suggestion that the backlash from police groups could be distressing to the White House, given that Obama has enjoyed a positive relationship with the law enforcement community.

"I think the Fraternal Order of Police endorsed McCain," Gibbs fired back, referring to Obama's Republican opponent in the 2008 election. "If I'm not mistaken."

When a reporter pointed out that Obama had won the support of the Policemen's Benevolent Association, Gibbs conceded: "We got some."

Read more here.
Well there you have it. It doesn't matter to Gibbs, or to Obama, that what the Fraternal Order of Police has to say on a prominent national issue. If you didn't endorse Obama, your views will be ignored and impugned!

Is that what we expect from a President of the United States? Is this the patriotic and American way of doing things?

No. This is what we would expect from a liberal racebaiter in chief!

Obama and Dems to Use Health Care Bill to Payoff ACORN?

Funding a permanent campaign organization with OUR tax dollars!

Imagine the hue and cry that would erupt if a Republican President and Congress used taxpayer funds to support a permanent campaign organization to elect more Republicans.

Well, that is exactly what Obama and the Dems have been doing with these massive spending bills. First it was the stimulus bill that didn't create jobs for average Americans but was instead a big payoff to groups like ACORN. Then, there was the auto bailout deal with turned over the auto companies to the unions. That was another windfall worth billions.

Now, health care bills in both the House and the Senate mandate even more payola to ACORN!

Fleckman, the blogger made famous by twittering what he found in the bill House Dems are pushing for health care "reform" found these nuggets that relate directly to ACORN:

    • PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).
    • Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan.
    • pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can u say ACORN?!!
    • Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?
    • Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based org. Like ACORN?
In the Senate, similar language raises the ACORN issue:

Will ACORN Get Cash Earmarked in Health Care Bill for ‘National Network of Community-Based Organizations’?—Bill’s Author Says ‘I Don’t Know’
By Edwin Mora
CNS News
Thursday, July 23, 2009

Washington (CNSNews.com) – Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), the man who is shepherding the health-care reform bill through the Senate, says he doesn’t know for sure, but the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) could qualify to receive health-care grants under a provision of the bill that provides money for groups that are members of a “national network of community based organizations.”

The grants are designed to fund groups that will "measure" people's health-related behavior on the community level, including whether they are gaining or losing weight, eating the right foods, getting exercise, using tobacco, or engaging in other personal behaviors targeted for federal monitoring by the secretary of health and human services.

“I don’t believe so, but they could be,” Dodd told CNSNews.com. “I just don’t want to say categorically it’s the case.”

Let me translate: “I don’t believe so, but they could be,” translates to of course ACORN will be raking in YOUR dough!

There's more:

Under the “Creating Healthier Communities” provision of the bill (found on page 382), grants could be awarded to only three types of "entities:" state governments, local governments and groups that are members of a “national network of community-based organizations."
"A “national network of community-based organizations?" Just who do you suppose that is? I can tell you with certainty it's no community organization with a conservative philosophy!


The grant program in question envisions that grantees, including those representing national networks of community based organizations, will work “to implement a variety of programs, policies, and infrastructure improvements to promote healthier lifestyles.”

These grantees will be charged with carrying out a “community transformation plan,” and the targets of their activities will include local schools, infrastructure and restaurants.

The bill specifically directs organizations receiving the grant money that they must “with respect to residents in the community, measure—(i) decreases in weight; (ii) increases in proper nutrition; (iii) increases in physical activity; (iv) decreases in tobacco use prevalence;(v) other factors using community specific data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey; and(vi) other factors as determined by the Secretary.”Photobucket
So ACORN will be knocking on the door of your local school making sure that you're doing the right thing according to their wishes. And after all that hard work they'll bundle off to the local restaurant where they will shake down the owner for the price of their meals.... OR ELSE!

But it would be nice to see ACORN taking a keener interest in the problem of obesity. After all, so many of it's members seem to suffer from that affliction.

Some have suggested that Obama and the Dems are making these payoffs to ACORN as reparations for slavery in all but name. That's a stretch. But it is clear that the goal of these payments is to finance a permanent campaign to support the election and re-election of Democrats!

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Do You Miss Bush Yet?

This week marks six months since integrity and honor turned the top job over to fluff and posing!

More reminders of what we have lost in the Bush Thankathon archive.

Obama's Press Conference: Lies, Blame Shifting and Speechifying!

And even the mainstream media starts to understand.


12 questions in 55 minutes left plenty of time for President Obama to do what he does best: make a speech. Yet this time, the teleprompter couldn't paste the words up fast enough so the President did what he does second best: ramble incoherently in search of a thought. Along the way he sprinkled in a good dose of disinformation and outright fabrications.

And if you think it's just conservatives saying this, you would be wrong.

Shortly after Obama finished his monologue, Ben Smith at the Politico penned this:
At big moment, President Obama goes small

President Barack Obama came alive about 50 minutes into Wednesday night’s news conference — when somebody finally changed the subject.

The president’s remarks on his chosen subject, health care, were cautious and choreographed, hemmed in on one side by the calculations of his professional wordsmiths, on the other by the delicacy of negotiations with two houses of Congress.
He never detailed his own plan or named a single victim of America’s broken system, and he spoke largely in the abstractions of blue pills, red pills and legislative processes. It’s not easy to turn delivery system reform into a rallying cry for change, but at times, it was as if Obama wasn’t even trying.

His dryness was all the more striking by contrast with the press conference’s conclusion, when he suddenly re-engaged with a question that he’s spent much of his life mulling: race, in the form of the arrest of a black Harvard professor.
Yep. Give him a chance to do some race baiting and he's on fire!

But back to the main topic. Obama used the word "inherited" three times (transcript)in a continuing campaign to blame everything on President Bush. What a shame reporters threw nearly all softball questions last night. A good one in response to the blame Bush theme would be: Unemployment is now much higher than when President Bush was in office. Your stimulus bill which you claimed would hold unemployment under 8% has failed. Why shouldn't the American people blame you for those millions of jobs lost since you took office?

More from Ben Smith:

[I]nstead of shaking the rafters, he spent most of his hour just checking rhetorical boxes, with language so poll-tested and focus-grouped, it was bleached of life.

[Obama] rarely seemed deeply emotionally engaged with the human facts of health care and kept his remarks to a level of abstraction that recalled the old knock on Obama the candidate — too aloof, too detached."
He described a hypothetical child having an unnecessary tonsillectomy because of perverse insurance incentives but didn’t make clear whether he was talking about an actual child.

He added in a puzzling abstraction about cost containment: “If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that’s going to make you well?” he asked.

And Obama repeatedly made the case that cost savings would be found in rationalizing health care without any painful sacrifices.
And as always when Obama speaks you need a Fact Check. This one comes from the Associated Press:

FACT CHECK: Obama's health care claims adrift?
ByCalvin Woodward And Jim Kuhnhenn
Associated Press
Thu Jul 23, 2009

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's assertion Wednesday that government will stay out of health care decisions in an overhauled system is hard to square with the proposals coming out of Congress and with his own rhetoric.
OBAMA: "We already have rough agreement" on some aspects of what a health care overhaul should involve, and one is: "It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it."

THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool.
OBAMA: "I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."

THE FACTS: ... White House Budget Director Peter Orszag told reporters this week that the promise does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients.
budget experts have warned about various accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget lists a variety of them, including back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.

OBAMA: "You haven't seen me out there blaming the Republicans."
[Mike: WTF?]

THE FACTS: Obama did so in his opening statement, saying, "I've heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to 'go for the kill.' Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about 'breaking' me."

OBAMA: "If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we've made, it's going to be $7.1 trillion."

THE FACTS: Obama's numbers are based on figures compiled by his own budget office. But they rely on assumptions about economic growth that some economists find too optimistic. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in its own analysis of the president's budget numbers, concluded that the cumulative deficit over the next decade would be $9.1 trillion.

One point the AP fact checkers left out in that last Obama distortion is the phony assumption Obama used to claim savings on Iraq war spending. The war was won during the Bush years and yet Obama's phony budget assumes it would have continued indefinitely and falsely claimed the wind down as their "savings." The argument is about as phony and dishonest as Obama's claim to save jobs.

Americans Tuning Out Obama's Lies in Ever Greater Numbers

It's no surprise that the television ratings for Obama's press conference were much lower than his already low performance in April. With his popularity dropping daily in most, if not all, opinion polls, it's no surprise that viewers would rather tune in "So You Think You Can Dance" than watch Obama stand there and spin, spin and spin!

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

House Republicans Ask: WHERE ARE THE JOBS!

Your House GOP is fighting back! Are you willing to help?

Contribute NOW to the campaign to retake congress in 2010!

Sen. DeMint (R-SC) Has Questions for Obama's Press Conference

Will reporters take the hint?

SC conservatives are justifiably proud of our junior Senator Jim DeMint (Jim's Blog here). He's out front on so many of these critical issues and not at all afraid to say what so many of us are thinking.

He drew direct fire from Obama by proclaiming that stopping Obama's drive for government takeover of Health Care would be "Obama's Waterloo." He got asked about that and more today with Matt Lauer on the Today Show:

And Jim has a few questions for Obama in tonight's news conference. Wouldn't you love to hear a straight answer to these?

Below are the top five questions Sen. DeMint would like the president to address:

1. If the major provisions of the health care bills will not kick in until 2013, four years from now, why the rush to pass a thousand-page bill before the August recess, a bill you admit that you haven’t fully read yourself?

2. You have said your health care bill will cut costs and not increase the deficit. But, independent analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office contradicts both claims, saying it will raise costs and increase the deficit by $240 billion in the first ten years. What independent analysis will you provide that supports your claims and refutes CBO’s?

3. You have repeatedly said that your health care bill allows any American who likes their current employer-based plan to keep it. But the most comprehensive independent analysis available, by the Lewin Group, contradicts your claim and found your bill will force over 80 million Americans to lose their current coverage. Will you provide independent analysis to refute this study?

4. Your own record in the Senate reveals you spent years voting against nearly every reform to make health care more affordable and accessible, but this week you said that opponents of your plan are “content to perpetuate the status quo, [and] are, in fact, fighting reform on behalf of powerful special interests.” Which specific elected officials will you cite that have proposed to keep the status quo, and is that how you characterize the opposition of the 52 Blue Dog Democrats in the House and the moderate Democrats in the Senate?

5. Yes or no question: Will you guarantee pro-life Americans that, under your plan, they will not be forced to subsidize elective abortions?

Can't you just hear Obama answering those? "Ah, well, I, ahhhh...."

WH Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: "We Rescued the Economy"

How? It's as if he tossed a drowning man a brick instead of a life preserver!

The sheer hubris of these people indicate that their ego's will lead them to a fall!

WASHINGTON, July 22 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama shifts his effort to convince the American people healthcare reform is the right thing to do right now to prime time Wednesday.

In an evening news conference, Obama is expected to outline the case for healthcare reform as well as provide an update on what has been accomplished since he took office in January.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told The New York Times Obama intends to use the news conference as a "six-month report card," to talk about "how we rescued the economy from the worst recession" and the legislative agenda moving forward, including health care and energy legislation.

Political observers said Obama is at a pivotal moment in his presidency because how he handles the healthcare issue during the next few weeks could help shape the rest of his presidency and his relationship with Congress, among other things.

Rescued the Economy or Enriched His Campaign Contributors?

It's hard to see signs of Obama rescuing anything in the last six months except his campaign contributors. He nationalized banks and insurance companies who are now paying big bonuses to their executives. He took over Chrysler and GM and handed them over to his union buddies. Obama supported cap and tax legislation which is a huge payback to environmental groups and investment bankers. And signed stimulus legislation which didn't generate many jobs but did provide billions for groups like ACORN.

Meanwhile, despite his repeated promises to the contrary, unemployment continues to skyrocket and looks to go into double digits very soon:

And even conservative forecasts of Obama's plans, which are rapidly becoming outdated by events, show a reckless increase in debt which cannot possibly be sustained:


Meanwhile, Obama's popularity is sinking and is below what Jimmy Carter's was at the six month point in his presidency.

Will Reporters Ask the Tough Questions Tonight?

To reporters interested in covering the news this should be like sharks who smell blood in the water. So far, the "news" media has been largely silent, if not supportive of Obama's plans. But just as there were big ratings to be made by propping up an inexperienced black man for President there may be bigger ratings in watching him fall; or even giving him a push.

While I won't be watching the news conference live (I can't stand watching Obama preen and strut) I will look for highlights of tough questions later. If readers happen to catch any particularly interesting moments, please relate them in the comments section.

Force Democrat Voters to Watch This Video!

Force them? Heck ya! If they can force us into government managed health care we can damn sure demand they spend a few minutes watching this!

From Not So Sure.Org. A project of Let Freedom Ring:

And if you think this is all just hype, it's not. It's IN THE BILL. How do we know? Because this guy has read it! No wonder they tried to ram this thing through so fast.

P.S. If you still haven't found a candidate or cause to contribute to, you might consider supporting the excellent work of Let Freedom Ring or a similar group. It's time to get in the game!

Thanks Craig from Montreal for bringing this to our attention!

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Citizens Speak Truth to Power at Laughable Dem Health Forum Monday

We're mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore!

Congressman Russ Carnahan,(D-MO) held a health care forum in his St. Louis district on Monday. While some in the audience dutifully clapped while he read off his talking points, others weren't so willing to swallow Carnahan's collection of distortions and disinformation.

Two videos from the event make this clear. The first is rather more tame, but well worth watching. A man in the audience shouts: "If it's so good why doesnt' Congress have to be in on it?"

The second, is a MUST VIEW:

When they start laughing at you you know you are in trouble!

Ground Shifting Fast in Health Care Battle

Political heat is causing House Dems to have second thoughts! Keep it up!

The last 24 hours have brought a slew of positive changes to the effort to stop Obama's plan to socialize America's health care and force Americans to become more dependent on the Federal Government.

Yesterday, in this ACTION ALERT I implored readers to write, call or email their Congressmen and Senators and deliver this simple message: STOP BIG GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE!

As an addendum to that post, a reader emailed and suggested that letters would take too much time to pass the layers of security necessary now for outside correspondence to members of Congress. Good point! If you have yet to send a letter, better to fax it instead. If your Congressman or Senator does not list a fax number in their contact information, call the office to get it.

Also, some readers have suggested that it's a waste of time to write Democrat members of Congress. While I believe it's important to put them on notice I get your point. Those in that situation might consider making a contribution to a candidate running to replace those dinosaurs. If no candidate currently strikes your fancy, make a contribution to one of the many fine groups working to get out the message of how dangerous Socialized Obama care would be for the country. The point is, you can and MUST do something!

House Democrats Retreating on Health Care Takeover!
Obviously, the calls and letters of millions of Americans are having an impact!

Members of a key House committee is having second thoughts. So Obama summoned them to the White House:
Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce panel are headed to the White House, not their committee room, on Tuesday.

Instead of continuing their markup, Energy and Commerce Democrats will be lobbied by President Obama at the White House. Tuesday’s continuing markup was canceled, but the panel is scheduled to meet again on Wednesday.

The delays and intense effort by the White House cast more doubt on whether the House will meet its deadline of voting on the landmark bill before the August recess.

Conservative Democrats on the panel have criticized the healthcare reform bill’s costs, and complained it does not do enough to reduce long-term healthcare spending. Freshman Democrats have also been worried about growing fiscal deficits and the risk the healthcare bill could add to them, while members from wealthy districts are upset about a surcharge on the wealthy that would be used to pay for some of the bill’s costs.
Another report has House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) admitting that the bill is in trouble.

Perhaps when Obama meets with House Dems he will finally learn what is in the bill. In a conference call with liberal bloggers on Monday he had this exchange:

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)
Audio of that exchange is here.

I cited the Investor's Business Daily editorial on July 16th. Since then, more information has come to light confirming the conclusion that Obama Care would force you into Government Care.

The Wall Street Journals goes into detail on the plan here. They conclude:

So when Mr. Obama says that “If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what,” he’s wrong. Period. What he’s not telling the American people is that the government will so dramatically change the rules of the insurance market that employers will find it impossible to maintain their current coverage, and many will drop it altogether. The more we inspect the House bill, the more it looks to be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever introduced in Congress.
And this:

New York Post
July 17, 2009

...Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.
One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?

Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.

Congress should pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too much to lose with this legislation.

Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York. betsy@hospitalinfection.org
Obama's Popularity Continuing It's Slide

From USA Today:

Barack Obama, who completed six months in office Monday, has a 55% approval rating in the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, putting him 10th among the dozen presidents who have served since World War II at this point in their tenures.
And while some may try and spin that fact, it's undeniable that even Jimmy Carter had a higher approval rating at this time in his doomed presidency!

Obama is meeting his Waterloo and conservatives are leading the charge. Individual calls and letters from readers like you will make the difference. Don't sit on the sidelines this time! We are winning!

Monday, July 20, 2009

Action Alert: Call or Write Congress NOW!

Time to stop complaining about Obama and DO SOMETHING to stop this Obamination!

In March I responded to a Flopping Aces commenter who suggested we spend too much time complaining about Obama's reckless policies and not enough time actually DOING something to stop him before he permanently damages the U.S.A. I wrote "Basic Training for the Conservative Comeback! The steps YOU can take that make a difference TODAY!" It's a wide ranging discussion of steps each of us can take.

But today, I want to call you to action on one point. Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are reaching critical points in legislation that if passed will do great harm to our country. Both Cap and Trade and the Dem's Health Care plans will take this country further down the road of dangerous and reckless big spending and socialism. If you don't speak up now, by contacting your Representative and Senator, then it may be too late.

Obama is already weakening in the polls and voters are recoiling against the "change" that he is bringing. Stopping these two pieces of legislation would mark the beginning of the end of Obama's plan to remake America as a socialist fiefdom. It would be, as my Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said, "Obama's Waterloo."

Your Reps DO Listen!

Years ago, I worked in Senator Alphonse D'Amato's New York office. My job was to answer some of the mail from constituents. I learned that letters, phone calls and emails DO matter. But letters have the greatest impact. If you care enough to put a stamp on it, it carries more weight than if you email it. But whichever method you choose, your letter will be read and your opinion tallied up along with all the others.

And after you do that, make sure to send your letter or email to the editor of your local newspaper and recommend he or she run it as a letter to the editor. Use the link for your local paper or try this site.

Talking Points

While your letter should be an original expression of your thoughts, here are a few points you may wish to consider:

  • Congress seems hell bent on rushing through huge bills, which few if any members have read, that have profound implications for our country. They must stop this reckless practice. Ask that they sign the Pledge to Read card.
  • Massive big spending in these bills is fiscally irresponsible. Warnings from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office that current spending is "unsustainable" should be heeded.
  • Cap and Trade is a massive tax increase on EVERY American masquerading as energy and environmental legislation. And it won't solve the problem of global warming, even if that was a real problem.
  • The American people are increasingly fed up with the attitude that Congress and the President seem more interested in representing the wants of campaign contributors like big unions, big business and liberal special interest groups than they do average voters.

You might also let your Senators know that you believe Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, and her persistent reference to a "wise latina" making a better judge than a white male makes her unqualified to be a juror, let alone a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Just as you would with a letter to the editor of your newspaper, keep letters to your Representatives and Senators short and to the point. Make sure to state right up front that you want them to:

  • Vote NO on cap and trade legislation.
  • Vote NO on phony health care reform.
  • Senators should vote NO on Sonia Sotomayor.

If you need some help researching a particular point, or you just want to bounce some thoughts off the readers here, please feel free to ask for assistance in the comment's section below. Or, you might put a draft of your letter here and get some feedback before you send it.

Time is of the essence and we can't afford to stay silent anymore. But the only way your voice will be heard is if you act.... NOW!

Sunday, July 19, 2009

40 Years Ago Today Man First Walked on the Moon

One of the most stupendous days in the history of man! And a great day to be proud of what America and Americans can do!


A short two minute video with the late Walter Cronkite bringing us the news:

Restored moonwalk video montage here.

It was hard to believe that we were actually watching live television images from the moon:


"One small step for a man. One giant leap for mankind." -- Neil Armstrong, July 20, 1969 from Tranquility Base


It was only later, after the astronauts returned, that we saw these color images:


The Apollo 11 Lunar Module (LM) "Eagle", in a landing configuration is photographed in lunar orbit from the Command and Service Modules (CSM) "Columbia". Inside the LM were Commander, Neil A. Armstrong, and Lunar Module Pilot Edwin E. "Buzz" Aldrin Jr. The long "rod-like" protrusions under the landing pods are lunar surface sensing probes. Upon contact with the lunar surface, the probes send a signal to the crew to shut down.


The crowning achievement for the Saturn V rocket came when it launched Apollo 11 astronauts, Neil Armstrong, Edwin (Buzz) Aldrin, and Michael Collins, to the Moon in July 1969. In this photograph, astronaut Aldrin takes his first step onto the surface of the Moon.


Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, lunar module pilot, walks on the surface of the Moon near the leg of the Lunar Module (LM) "Eagle" during the Apollo 11 exravehicular activity (EVA). Astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, commander, took this photograph with a 70mm lunar surface camera. While astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin descended in the Lunar Module (LM) "Eagle" to explore the Sea of Tranquility region of the Moon, astronaut Michael Collins, command module pilot, remained with the Command and Service Modules (CSM) "Columbia" in lunar orbit.


Astronaut Edwin E. "Buzz" Aldrin Jr. poses for a photograph beside the U.S. flag deployed on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission.


Astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., Lunar Module pilot, is photographed during the Apollo 11 extravehicular activity (EVA) on the lunar surface. In the right background is the Lunar Module "Eagle." On Aldrin's right is the Solar Wind Composition (SWC) experiment already deployed. This photograph was taken by Neil A. Armstrong with a 70mm lunar surface camera.


This view of the Earth rising over the Moon's horizon was taken from the Apollo 11 spacecraft. The lunar terrain pictured is in the area of Smuth's Sea on the nearside.


Astronaut Edwin Aldrin walks by the footpad of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.


A close-up view of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module as it rested on the surface of the Moon. This photograph was take with a 70mm lunar surface camera during the extravehicular activity of Astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin on July 20, 1969.


One of the first footprints of Apollo 11 astronaut Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin on the moon.


This interior view of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module shows Astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., lunar module pilot, during the lunar landing mission. This picture was taken by Astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, commander, prior to the moon landing.


Astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, Apollo 11 commander, is seen inside the Lunar Module while the LM rested on the lunar surface. Astronauts Armstrong and Edwin E. Aldrin Jr. , lunar module Pilot, had already completed their extravehicular activity when this picture was made.


An interior view of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module showing some of the displays and controls. Mounted in the Lunar Module window is a 16mm data acquisition camera which has a variable frame speed of 1, 6, 12 and 24 frames per second.


In this July 20, 1969 file photo, the Apollo 11 lunar module rises from the moon's surface for docking with the command module and the trip back to earth. The earth can be seen rising in the background.


This photograph is a reproduction of the commemorative plaque that was attached to the leg of the Lunar Module (LM), Eagle.


Portrait of the prime crew of the Apollo 11 lunar landing mission. From left to right they are: Commander, Neil A. Armstrong, Command Module Pilot, Michael Collins, and Lunar Module Pilot, Edwin E. Aldrin Jr.

fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator