When is the mainstream media going to stop the lies? By that I mean the lies about how unemployment claims rose last week to 484,000, or how home foreclosures are up 6% from last year, or even that the deficit added $165,040,000,000 in one month. Am I expected to believe that some of the $878,000,000,000 bailout was used to help foreign firms and not companies in the United States? These have got to be lies. President Obama stated, “we are turning the corner on the economy”. If we are turning the corner that means unemployment and foreclosures are going down and the stock market is going up and there is singing in the streets. Since he got into office in 2009, he has stated we are “turning the corner on the economy” no less than 4 times. Hey Mr. President, when you take 4 left turns aren’t you going in the direction you started? In this case the downward spiral the Democrats put the U.S. on when they took control of the House and Senate in 2006. Michelle Obama warned us “Barack Obama will require you to work”. But of course that didn’t mean you would have job. And when Mr. Obama said, "I promise that I won't rest until America prospers once again.” It didn’t mean he wouldn’t take an occasional vacation every other week.
Speaking of vacations, I don’t know what the big hoopla is about Michelle “Marie Antionette” Obama’s recent vacation in Spain is all about. When the trip was first announced, it was billed as "private mother-daughter trip with longtime family friends." So the First Lady took a vacation to another country and stayed in 5 star hotels with an entourage that needed 60 rooms. I can understand that. After all, it’s not like there are any places in the United Sates that could have used the $36,000/night or the $75,000 that was being spent daily. WH advisor David Axelrod put it best; "Yes, she is the first lady of the United States. She's also a mom. She wanted to take her daughter on a trip. They went with some friends of the family to celebrate another little girl's birthday. There aren't all that many places to go where you get privacy. “ As for us, as least we have cake.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Memorial Day
Monday is Memorial Day. I would like to ask everyone to take a moment away from your "celebration" with barbecues, beer, commercial sales at local malls, parties, vacations and golfing to take a moment to think about what this day truly means. Thanksgiving is a time to pause and give thanks for the things we have. Memorial Day is a time to pause and give thanks to the people who fought for the things we have.
Founding Patriot John Adams wrote: "I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States." And the cost has been incalculable.
Our nation has, time and again, spent its treasure and spilt the blood of its fathers, sons, mothers and daughters not only for liberty at home, but also abroad. Benjamin Franklin noted in 1777 that it should be so: "Our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own." Since the opening salvos of the American Revolution, nearly 1.2 million American Patriots have died in defense of liberty. Additionally, 1.4 million have been wounded in combat, and tens of millions more have served honorably, surviving without physical wounds. These numbers, of course, offer no reckoning of the inestimable value of their service or the sacrifices borne by their families, but we do know that the value of the liberty they have extended to their posterity – to us – is priceless.
"Let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for. Strengthened by their courage, heartened by their valor, and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died." --Ronald Reagan at Pointe du Hoc, 1984
When you watch that parade go by, as a sign of respect to our flag, a symbol of freedom whenever it flies please remember what the Flag Code states; Americans should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute. Those who are not U.S. citizens should stand at attention. Public Law No: 110-181 (Sec. 594) "Allows members and veterans who are present but not in uniform during the hoisting, lowering, or passing of the flag to render the military salute." Feel free to nicely remind those next to you of proper flag etiquette if they forget if not by words, at least by your proper actions.
The flag is flown at half-staff until noon on Memorial Day. To fly your flag at half-staff, raise it first to peak position, then lower so it is one-half the distance between the top and bottom of the staff. At noon, raise it to the peak. The Flag Code also mentions that, if your flag cannot be flown at half staff, you may also affix a streamer of black crepe to the staff immediately below the spearhead of the U.S. flag.
Founding Patriot John Adams wrote: "I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States." And the cost has been incalculable.
Our nation has, time and again, spent its treasure and spilt the blood of its fathers, sons, mothers and daughters not only for liberty at home, but also abroad. Benjamin Franklin noted in 1777 that it should be so: "Our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own." Since the opening salvos of the American Revolution, nearly 1.2 million American Patriots have died in defense of liberty. Additionally, 1.4 million have been wounded in combat, and tens of millions more have served honorably, surviving without physical wounds. These numbers, of course, offer no reckoning of the inestimable value of their service or the sacrifices borne by their families, but we do know that the value of the liberty they have extended to their posterity – to us – is priceless.
"Let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for. Strengthened by their courage, heartened by their valor, and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died." --Ronald Reagan at Pointe du Hoc, 1984
When you watch that parade go by, as a sign of respect to our flag, a symbol of freedom whenever it flies please remember what the Flag Code states; Americans should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute. Those who are not U.S. citizens should stand at attention. Public Law No: 110-181 (Sec. 594) "Allows members and veterans who are present but not in uniform during the hoisting, lowering, or passing of the flag to render the military salute." Feel free to nicely remind those next to you of proper flag etiquette if they forget if not by words, at least by your proper actions.
The flag is flown at half-staff until noon on Memorial Day. To fly your flag at half-staff, raise it first to peak position, then lower so it is one-half the distance between the top and bottom of the staff. At noon, raise it to the peak. The Flag Code also mentions that, if your flag cannot be flown at half staff, you may also affix a streamer of black crepe to the staff immediately below the spearhead of the U.S. flag.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything!" - Bart Simpson or the Obama administration.
Huge oil spill in the gulf (though it would have to go on for another 469 years before it would equal the amount of oil Saddam Hussein’s troops spilled in 1991). President Obama had harsh words for all the parties involved in the disaster evolving in the Gulf of Mexico, saying he didn’t appreciate the “ridiculous spectacle” of oil and drilling executives pointing the finger at each other during recent hearings. He also acknowledged that the federal government had failed in its responsibility to regulate the industries that caused the disaster. He mentioned that for a decade or more there has been a cozy relationship between oil and government. What he failed to mention is that his administration, not just the Bush administration, gave a waiver on a required environmental analysis for the very platform that blew up. In fact the Obama administration gave a waiver just 10 days before the accident and last year the MMS awarded the rig an award for its safety history. When in doubt, rely on your usual standby and – BLAME BUSH!
The theme of this administration is not, "The buck stops here" (except that BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.). No, the theme of this administration is Bart Simpson's line, "I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything!"
The theme of this administration is not, "The buck stops here" (except that BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.). No, the theme of this administration is Bart Simpson's line, "I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything!"
Hope and Change? more like Hype and Cringe!
Since SB1070 –the Arizona illegal immigration bill, was signed into law, there have been numerous people saying it will result in racial profiling and threatening to challenge it in federal court as unconstitutional. What do the following people have in common?
The Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, the top law enforcement officer and lawyer for the government, is considering suing on the ground of unconstitutionality. He has spoken publicly many times about how it would create “a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how they look as opposed to what they have done”.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, the person concerned with protecting the American homeland and the safety of American citizens, and former Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, released a statement on SB1070. The statement read: “The Arizona immigration law will likely hinder federal law enforcement from carrying out its priorities of detaining and removing dangerous criminal aliens. With the strong support of state and local law enforcement, I vetoed several similar pieces of legislation as Governor of Arizona because they would have diverted critical law enforcement resources from the most serious threats to public safety and undermined the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve. I support and am actively working with bipartisan members of Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level because this issue cannot be solved by a patchwork of inconsistent state laws.” She continues to agree with President Obama that Arizona’s immigrant trespassing bill is “misguided”.
State department spokesmen PJ Crowley and Michael Posner have talked critical of the AZ immigration law. Mr. Posner even apologized to China about human rights violations over the law. To CHINA!!! China has one of the worst human rights records in the world.
What do these people have in common? None of them has taken the time to read a law before publicly speaking out against it. It isn’t 2000 plus pages like the health care fiasco or the stimulus scheme, both of which law makers didn’t read prior to signing. It’s 10 pages!
These people have taken the time to criticize a law and say it is bad but haven’t taken the time to actually read or know what they are against. It shouldn’t surprise me though. The majority of Americans voted for someone they didn’t know anything about either.
Is this the “hope and change” America wanted?
The Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, the top law enforcement officer and lawyer for the government, is considering suing on the ground of unconstitutionality. He has spoken publicly many times about how it would create “a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how they look as opposed to what they have done”.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, the person concerned with protecting the American homeland and the safety of American citizens, and former Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, released a statement on SB1070. The statement read: “The Arizona immigration law will likely hinder federal law enforcement from carrying out its priorities of detaining and removing dangerous criminal aliens. With the strong support of state and local law enforcement, I vetoed several similar pieces of legislation as Governor of Arizona because they would have diverted critical law enforcement resources from the most serious threats to public safety and undermined the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve. I support and am actively working with bipartisan members of Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level because this issue cannot be solved by a patchwork of inconsistent state laws.” She continues to agree with President Obama that Arizona’s immigrant trespassing bill is “misguided”.
State department spokesmen PJ Crowley and Michael Posner have talked critical of the AZ immigration law. Mr. Posner even apologized to China about human rights violations over the law. To CHINA!!! China has one of the worst human rights records in the world.
What do these people have in common? None of them has taken the time to read a law before publicly speaking out against it. It isn’t 2000 plus pages like the health care fiasco or the stimulus scheme, both of which law makers didn’t read prior to signing. It’s 10 pages!
These people have taken the time to criticize a law and say it is bad but haven’t taken the time to actually read or know what they are against. It shouldn’t surprise me though. The majority of Americans voted for someone they didn’t know anything about either.
Is this the “hope and change” America wanted?
Businesses don't really pay taxes. But don't tell Congress. They just don't understand
As the oil spill continues, Congress responds in typical knee jerk reaction. Raise taxes to pay for it. But, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. says "Taxpayers will not pick up the tab." Does anyone in Congress understand how commerce works?
Businesses do not pay taxes. Businesses are tax conduits. If it costs me one dollar to produce a widget and everyone needs widgets. I decide that I am going to make a twenty five percent profit, soI sell it for 1.25. Add on the 6.5 percent sales tax and it costs the consumer 1.33. But wait, I have to pay federal taxes and state taxes also so my twenty five percent profit isn’t twenty five percent. Taxes are a percentage of what I make for the year so let’s assume (for ease) we are going to sell 400,000 units. That means I made 100,000.00 dollars. I own the business with my wife, like most small businesses, so we pay on the married filing jointly schedule. I get to pay 9,362.50 plus 25 percent of the amount over 68,000 or an additional 8,000. Then I get to pay state taxes; another 4976.00. So of the 100000 I made, I paid 22335.50 in taxes for a total take home of 77661.5 (I am not including insurance or other costs in this to simplify the point). In essence, I made 19 percent on my product. But my goal was 25 percent so I raise my prices to get there.
Now, the government comes along and requires that my company pay higher taxes to offset the cost of half used widgets in landfills. Being the benevolent employer I am I don’t lay anyone off so I raise my price to cover the cost of the higher taxes and the consumer pays more for their widgets. I don’t care; I am passing the cost along to the consumer (tax conduit).
Does anyone believe if Congress quadruples the tax levied on oil produced in the U.S., or imported from foreign countries, to 32 cents a barrel, that it won’t raise the price of oil consumers pay? Do people think the company will pay it and not pass the cost on? And if costs for oil rise at the pump, the price to move goods and services around the country will rise and the resultant cost will be passed along. So yes Sen. Reid, the taxpayer will pick up the tab; in increased prices across the board.
Businesses do not pay taxes. Businesses are tax conduits. If it costs me one dollar to produce a widget and everyone needs widgets. I decide that I am going to make a twenty five percent profit, soI sell it for 1.25. Add on the 6.5 percent sales tax and it costs the consumer 1.33. But wait, I have to pay federal taxes and state taxes also so my twenty five percent profit isn’t twenty five percent. Taxes are a percentage of what I make for the year so let’s assume (for ease) we are going to sell 400,000 units. That means I made 100,000.00 dollars. I own the business with my wife, like most small businesses, so we pay on the married filing jointly schedule. I get to pay 9,362.50 plus 25 percent of the amount over 68,000 or an additional 8,000. Then I get to pay state taxes; another 4976.00. So of the 100000 I made, I paid 22335.50 in taxes for a total take home of 77661.5 (I am not including insurance or other costs in this to simplify the point). In essence, I made 19 percent on my product. But my goal was 25 percent so I raise my prices to get there.
Now, the government comes along and requires that my company pay higher taxes to offset the cost of half used widgets in landfills. Being the benevolent employer I am I don’t lay anyone off so I raise my price to cover the cost of the higher taxes and the consumer pays more for their widgets. I don’t care; I am passing the cost along to the consumer (tax conduit).
Does anyone believe if Congress quadruples the tax levied on oil produced in the U.S., or imported from foreign countries, to 32 cents a barrel, that it won’t raise the price of oil consumers pay? Do people think the company will pay it and not pass the cost on? And if costs for oil rise at the pump, the price to move goods and services around the country will rise and the resultant cost will be passed along. So yes Sen. Reid, the taxpayer will pick up the tab; in increased prices across the board.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
We still control the media
I hate to be the only one pointing out the hypocrisy of the Obama administration but it seems the Lame Stream Media won’t. If you remember, I wrote an Opine about how the White House controls the message. They control the who, what and when the press gets to report. They even denies access so as to control the message. While the White House seems to believe the American people deserve to hear from Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, it has not made her available to reporters. The decision to post an interview with Kagan conducted by a government employee - not a journalist - is in line with the Obama administration's policy of regularly using new media tools to go around traditional media. Doing so allows the administration to better control its message - and, in this case, avoid any uncomfortable questions for their Supreme Court nominee.
But the President is all about freedom of the press. President Obama signed the Press Freedom Act on March 17. The new law expands the State Department's annual human rights reports to include a description of press freedoms in each country. It seemed a good opportunity to showcase press freedom in this country. But, directly after the signing the press "wranglers" began aggressively herding everyone out of the room and President Obama promptly refused to take any questions. One reported shouted, "In the interest of press freedom, would you take a couple questions on BP?" which did elicit a smile, and he told the reporter he was free to ask questions. Someone else shouted, "Will you answer them?" He replied he's not holding a press conference today as they were escorted out the door.
Recall that Friday the 14th, the president refused to take any questions after delivering his angry statement on the oil spill in the Rose Garden. And he has not held a prime-time White House news conference in many months, despite much pleading from pundits and members of the media.
Can anyone else hear that outer limits theme starting up? There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission… For the next four years, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... The Obama Administration.
But the President is all about freedom of the press. President Obama signed the Press Freedom Act on March 17. The new law expands the State Department's annual human rights reports to include a description of press freedoms in each country. It seemed a good opportunity to showcase press freedom in this country. But, directly after the signing the press "wranglers" began aggressively herding everyone out of the room and President Obama promptly refused to take any questions. One reported shouted, "In the interest of press freedom, would you take a couple questions on BP?" which did elicit a smile, and he told the reporter he was free to ask questions. Someone else shouted, "Will you answer them?" He replied he's not holding a press conference today as they were escorted out the door.
Recall that Friday the 14th, the president refused to take any questions after delivering his angry statement on the oil spill in the Rose Garden. And he has not held a prime-time White House news conference in many months, despite much pleading from pundits and members of the media.
Can anyone else hear that outer limits theme starting up? There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission… For the next four years, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... The Obama Administration.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
The sky is falling and the earth is opening up.
March 25, 2010
IOWA CITY, Iowa -- With his healthcare overhaul now enshrined in law, President Barack Obama warned Republicans today that any attempt to repeal the measure would backfire and that Americans will quickly see that the new package of medical benefits they receive will not usher in "Armageddon.''
“So after I signed the bill I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling. Some cracks opening up in the Earth! Turned out it was a nice day!''
April 15, 2010
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Dozens of people called after strange lights lit up the sky over Kansas City Wednesday night. Dashcam video from a patrol car in Iowa captured the event.
April 14, 2010
(CNN) -- Icelandic authorities evacuated about 800 people early Wednesday when a volcano erupted beneath the Eyjafjallajokull glacier, an emergency spokesman said.
So it took a few weeks for it to happen.
IOWA CITY, Iowa -- With his healthcare overhaul now enshrined in law, President Barack Obama warned Republicans today that any attempt to repeal the measure would backfire and that Americans will quickly see that the new package of medical benefits they receive will not usher in "Armageddon.''
“So after I signed the bill I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling. Some cracks opening up in the Earth! Turned out it was a nice day!''
April 15, 2010
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Dozens of people called after strange lights lit up the sky over Kansas City Wednesday night. Dashcam video from a patrol car in Iowa captured the event.
April 14, 2010
(CNN) -- Icelandic authorities evacuated about 800 people early Wednesday when a volcano erupted beneath the Eyjafjallajokull glacier, an emergency spokesman said.
So it took a few weeks for it to happen.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Obama has been good for America
Barack Obama has been great for America! I really mean that.
Prior to the “historic” election of Mr. Obama, how many people knew what “deem and pass” or “reconciliation” was? How about our elected officials; how many people in America knew who their representatives were or anything about the way they voted? How many people called their offices to make their views heard? Who could explain the requirements to be President prior to the campaign? How many people knew the tenth amendment to the constitution (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. “– for those that didn’t know it). How many people paid attention to the bribery, and arm twisting in Congress to get something passed? Who among us was aware of the pork put into bills to buy the vote of one or two members. President Obama has awakened the American public like no other President in recent history and this has been good for the country. Now, if we can only get our elected officials to do what they promise. Oh, to have a law that states that if a politician breaks more than 3 or even 5 campaign promises they could be recalled. Maybe they wouldn’t say one thing to get elected and then do whatever they want and just count on the ignorance of the American voter.
Prior to the “historic” election of Mr. Obama, how many people knew what “deem and pass” or “reconciliation” was? How about our elected officials; how many people in America knew who their representatives were or anything about the way they voted? How many people called their offices to make their views heard? Who could explain the requirements to be President prior to the campaign? How many people knew the tenth amendment to the constitution (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. “– for those that didn’t know it). How many people paid attention to the bribery, and arm twisting in Congress to get something passed? Who among us was aware of the pork put into bills to buy the vote of one or two members. President Obama has awakened the American public like no other President in recent history and this has been good for the country. Now, if we can only get our elected officials to do what they promise. Oh, to have a law that states that if a politician breaks more than 3 or even 5 campaign promises they could be recalled. Maybe they wouldn’t say one thing to get elected and then do whatever they want and just count on the ignorance of the American voter.
Monday, March 22, 2010
interesting timing
How interesting that the bill passed on March 21 and may be signed as early as today March 22, 2010. The Stamp Act was passed by the British Parliament on March 22, 1765. The new tax was imposed on all American colonists and required them to pay a tax on every piece of printed paper they used. Ship's papers, legal documents, licenses, newspapers, other publications, and even playing cards were taxed. The money collected by the Stamp Act was to be used to help pay the costs of defending and protecting the American frontier near the Appalachian Mountains.
The actual cost of the Stamp Act was relatively small. What made the law so offensive to the colonists was not so much its immediate cost but the standard it seemed to set. In the past, taxes and duties on colonial trade had always been viewed as measures to regulate commerce, not to raise money. The Stamp Act, however, was viewed as a direct attempt by England to raise money in the colonies without the approval of the colonial legislatures. If this new tax were allowed to pass without resistance, the colonists reasoned, the door would be open for far more troublesome taxation in the future.
Now we have the Health care reform which, in many ways, is like the stamp act. The people didn’t want it, the people it was imposed on weren’t listened to, it seems to set a standard for how the representatives will govern us.
Few colonists believed that they could do anything more than grumble and buy the stamps until the Virginia House of Burgesses adopted Patrick Henry's Stamp Act Resolves. These resolves declared that Americans possessed the same rights as the English, especially the right to be taxed only by their own representatives; that Virginians should pay no taxes except those voted by the Virginia House of Burgesses; and that anyone supporting the right of Parliament to tax Virginians should be considered an enemy of the colony. The House of Burgesses defeated the most extreme of Henry's resolutions, but four of the resolutions were adopted. Virginia Governor Fauquier did not approve of the resolutions, and he dissolved the House of Burgesses in response to their passage.
How fitting it is that Virginia is suing stating that Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. He said the bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance.
"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"
Colonial resistance to the act led to the repeal of the Stamp Act on March 18, 1766. We can only hope that after the November elections someone will see to it that on March 18, 2011 this bill is also repealed.
More to come.....
The actual cost of the Stamp Act was relatively small. What made the law so offensive to the colonists was not so much its immediate cost but the standard it seemed to set. In the past, taxes and duties on colonial trade had always been viewed as measures to regulate commerce, not to raise money. The Stamp Act, however, was viewed as a direct attempt by England to raise money in the colonies without the approval of the colonial legislatures. If this new tax were allowed to pass without resistance, the colonists reasoned, the door would be open for far more troublesome taxation in the future.
Now we have the Health care reform which, in many ways, is like the stamp act. The people didn’t want it, the people it was imposed on weren’t listened to, it seems to set a standard for how the representatives will govern us.
Few colonists believed that they could do anything more than grumble and buy the stamps until the Virginia House of Burgesses adopted Patrick Henry's Stamp Act Resolves. These resolves declared that Americans possessed the same rights as the English, especially the right to be taxed only by their own representatives; that Virginians should pay no taxes except those voted by the Virginia House of Burgesses; and that anyone supporting the right of Parliament to tax Virginians should be considered an enemy of the colony. The House of Burgesses defeated the most extreme of Henry's resolutions, but four of the resolutions were adopted. Virginia Governor Fauquier did not approve of the resolutions, and he dissolved the House of Burgesses in response to their passage.
How fitting it is that Virginia is suing stating that Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. He said the bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance.
"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"
Colonial resistance to the act led to the repeal of the Stamp Act on March 18, 1766. We can only hope that after the November elections someone will see to it that on March 18, 2011 this bill is also repealed.
More to come.....
Monday, March 15, 2010
Bill Care A common sense to Health Care insurance
According to the CIA world fact book, the United States has 8.38 deaths/1,000 population (2009 est.). The population is 307,212,123 as of July 2009 (estimated). Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published online by the American Journal of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002. That means that of the 2,574,437.59 people that die each year, 2,529,437.59 have health insurance. Another way to put it is that; of the 30 million people that don’t have health insurance (used to be 45 million during the campaign but either 15 million died and we didn’t hear about it or they somehow got insurance) 0.15% of them die each year because they don’t have health insurance but 99.85% live another year.
Please don’t take this the wrong way. I think everyone should have adequate health care available to them. I just don’t believe it is the job of the government to provide health care to everyone. I believe it is personal responsibility. I have been laid off in the past (too many times to mention). I believed then, as I do now, that my first concern is to take care of my family. I secured (sometimes through COBRA, sometimes through purchasing it privately) insurance for my family until I could find employment. Of course, as stated I believe in personal responsibility.
If I could write the health care bill it would be quite simple:
1. While you are going to school (up to and including college), and living at home when not in school, you can be covered on your parents policy – provided you are consistently attending and not going for a semester, taking a year off, going, etc. You must maintain a “C” average (This will also help our education system as students will get better grades to not have to pay for their own healthcare).
2.If you are under the age of 18, and not covered under any other plan, your healthcare is free. Expand the public health system to accommodate the need. I don’t mind paying extra taxes for this. This excludes children like mine who are covered under my policy. It also means that if you are eligible to be covered by someone else’s policy you must be. If you are a parent, you must provide insurance for your children if it is available.
3.If you are receiving Social Security, and are not covered under any other plan, you healthcare is free. That is your reward for living to that age. Again, I don’t mind paying extra taxes for this.
4.If you are eligible for government run health care (Medicare and Medicaid as it is run now) you continue on as normal.
5.Once married or a parent (notice I didn’t say pregnant. Pregnancy is covered under the rules above), you are on your own whether in school or not.
6.If you are between the age of 18 and a day and under the age of receiving Social Security, and are not covered under any other provision above, you are responsible for your own health care. If you are able-bodied you must provide for your own health and health care. You must take some personal responsibility.
7.You can purchase health insurance from any company. If I want to purchase Blue Cross Blue Shield from Texas (and they are willing to sell it here) I can. Basic economics tells us that the cost of insurance would go down.
8.Insurance companies cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, though you could be charged up to 10% more for a period of 1 year.
9.Your policy cannot be cancelled by the insurance company once you are covered. Nor could your cost go up more than 1% per year (max 10%).
10.If you are covered under Medicare, Medicaid or any other government program, you cannot sue for more than $250,000 total. If you are covered under a private insurance company, it is limited to 10 times the amount of your total life insurance – 10 times what you make is generally considered enough to keep your family safe. This is 10 times that. Malpractice is not a reason to “win” the lottery. The disparity is because those on government plans are using my tax money anyway. Those on private are not. Trust me, insurance companies would be happy with the provisions as would doctors who would have less malpractice insurance to pay. ---Another cost savings!
I have made this long enough so I will quit here. Does it cover everything? No. Is it better than what I have read in the two bills in Congress? MUCH! Maybe we could run a nationwide contest, give everyone 1 week to submit their best plans and have a panel of 3 doctors, 3 insurance people and 3 average people pick the best plans and we could submit them to our representatives. You know who they are right? The people that are supposed to work for us.
Please don’t take this the wrong way. I think everyone should have adequate health care available to them. I just don’t believe it is the job of the government to provide health care to everyone. I believe it is personal responsibility. I have been laid off in the past (too many times to mention). I believed then, as I do now, that my first concern is to take care of my family. I secured (sometimes through COBRA, sometimes through purchasing it privately) insurance for my family until I could find employment. Of course, as stated I believe in personal responsibility.
If I could write the health care bill it would be quite simple:
1. While you are going to school (up to and including college), and living at home when not in school, you can be covered on your parents policy – provided you are consistently attending and not going for a semester, taking a year off, going, etc. You must maintain a “C” average (This will also help our education system as students will get better grades to not have to pay for their own healthcare).
2.If you are under the age of 18, and not covered under any other plan, your healthcare is free. Expand the public health system to accommodate the need. I don’t mind paying extra taxes for this. This excludes children like mine who are covered under my policy. It also means that if you are eligible to be covered by someone else’s policy you must be. If you are a parent, you must provide insurance for your children if it is available.
3.If you are receiving Social Security, and are not covered under any other plan, you healthcare is free. That is your reward for living to that age. Again, I don’t mind paying extra taxes for this.
4.If you are eligible for government run health care (Medicare and Medicaid as it is run now) you continue on as normal.
5.Once married or a parent (notice I didn’t say pregnant. Pregnancy is covered under the rules above), you are on your own whether in school or not.
6.If you are between the age of 18 and a day and under the age of receiving Social Security, and are not covered under any other provision above, you are responsible for your own health care. If you are able-bodied you must provide for your own health and health care. You must take some personal responsibility.
7.You can purchase health insurance from any company. If I want to purchase Blue Cross Blue Shield from Texas (and they are willing to sell it here) I can. Basic economics tells us that the cost of insurance would go down.
8.Insurance companies cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, though you could be charged up to 10% more for a period of 1 year.
9.Your policy cannot be cancelled by the insurance company once you are covered. Nor could your cost go up more than 1% per year (max 10%).
10.If you are covered under Medicare, Medicaid or any other government program, you cannot sue for more than $250,000 total. If you are covered under a private insurance company, it is limited to 10 times the amount of your total life insurance – 10 times what you make is generally considered enough to keep your family safe. This is 10 times that. Malpractice is not a reason to “win” the lottery. The disparity is because those on government plans are using my tax money anyway. Those on private are not. Trust me, insurance companies would be happy with the provisions as would doctors who would have less malpractice insurance to pay. ---Another cost savings!
I have made this long enough so I will quit here. Does it cover everything? No. Is it better than what I have read in the two bills in Congress? MUCH! Maybe we could run a nationwide contest, give everyone 1 week to submit their best plans and have a panel of 3 doctors, 3 insurance people and 3 average people pick the best plans and we could submit them to our representatives. You know who they are right? The people that are supposed to work for us.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
What hypocrisy??
Most people know that I love to point out hypocrisy in politics, but what exactly is hypocrisy? One of the definitions in Encarta states: “feigned high principles” and gives the example of “it would be sheer hypocrisy for them to turn around and do what they criticize in others.”
The Democrats, desperate to pass a healthcare plan good or bad, have decided that reconciliation is the way to do it. Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus).
In 2005, President Bush wanted to have his judicial nominations given an up or down vote and threatened to use reconciliation. Then Senator Obama stated of this reconciliation, “…hasn’t gotten his way, uh and, that is now prompting, uh you know a, a change in the Senate rules that really I think will change the character of the Senate forever… Uh and what I worry about would be that you essentially have still two chambers of the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritiarian absolute power on either side and uh that’s just not what the founders intended”. Then Senator Clinton stated, “So this President is coming to the majority here in the Senate and basically said change the rules. Do it the way I want it done. And I guess there just weren’t very many voices on the other side of the aisle that acted the way previous generations of Senators have acted and said Mr. President we’re with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far, we can’t go there. You have to restrain yourself Mr. President….
Senator Chuck Schumer talked about a Constitutional crises checks and balances at the core of the Republic evaporating. He stated that it is not right that if you get 51 percent of the vote, you should get your way 100 percent of the time.
Senator Harry Reid said the right to extend the debate was never more important than when one party controls Congress and the Whitehouse. “In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government”… but no, we are not going to follow the senate rules because of the arrogance of the power of this administration.
Other Senators also spoke out about “the nuclear option” including then Senator, now Vice President, Joe Biden who stated clearly, “this nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab”.
Even Senator Chris Dodd, you remember him he put the bonuses for AIG in the “stimulus bill” that was passed along party lines, stated so eloquently, “I’ve never passed a single bill, worth talking about, that didn’t have as a lead co-sponsor, a Republican. And I don’t know of a single piece of legislation that’s ever been adopted here that didn’t have a Republican and a Democrat in the lead. That’s because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. That’s why we exist…. What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood, Mr. President, that there is a tyranny of the majority.”
Now, that the Democrats have control of Congress and the Whitehouse, they want to pass Obamacare despite the wishes of the American public, and the Democrats seem to want to do what they criticized in others. I believe they are going down a slippery slope. Even Senator Robert Byrd, who wrote the original rules for reconciliation, and judging from how long he has been in the Senate I believe parts of the original Declaration of Independence, has stated that it would be wrong to use it for healthcare.
I leave it to you to decide, is this hypocrisy?
The Democrats, desperate to pass a healthcare plan good or bad, have decided that reconciliation is the way to do it. Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus).
In 2005, President Bush wanted to have his judicial nominations given an up or down vote and threatened to use reconciliation. Then Senator Obama stated of this reconciliation, “…hasn’t gotten his way, uh and, that is now prompting, uh you know a, a change in the Senate rules that really I think will change the character of the Senate forever… Uh and what I worry about would be that you essentially have still two chambers of the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritiarian absolute power on either side and uh that’s just not what the founders intended”. Then Senator Clinton stated, “So this President is coming to the majority here in the Senate and basically said change the rules. Do it the way I want it done. And I guess there just weren’t very many voices on the other side of the aisle that acted the way previous generations of Senators have acted and said Mr. President we’re with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far, we can’t go there. You have to restrain yourself Mr. President….
Senator Chuck Schumer talked about a Constitutional crises checks and balances at the core of the Republic evaporating. He stated that it is not right that if you get 51 percent of the vote, you should get your way 100 percent of the time.
Senator Harry Reid said the right to extend the debate was never more important than when one party controls Congress and the Whitehouse. “In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government”… but no, we are not going to follow the senate rules because of the arrogance of the power of this administration.
Other Senators also spoke out about “the nuclear option” including then Senator, now Vice President, Joe Biden who stated clearly, “this nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab”.
Even Senator Chris Dodd, you remember him he put the bonuses for AIG in the “stimulus bill” that was passed along party lines, stated so eloquently, “I’ve never passed a single bill, worth talking about, that didn’t have as a lead co-sponsor, a Republican. And I don’t know of a single piece of legislation that’s ever been adopted here that didn’t have a Republican and a Democrat in the lead. That’s because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. That’s why we exist…. What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood, Mr. President, that there is a tyranny of the majority.”
Now, that the Democrats have control of Congress and the Whitehouse, they want to pass Obamacare despite the wishes of the American public, and the Democrats seem to want to do what they criticized in others. I believe they are going down a slippery slope. Even Senator Robert Byrd, who wrote the original rules for reconciliation, and judging from how long he has been in the Senate I believe parts of the original Declaration of Independence, has stated that it would be wrong to use it for healthcare.
I leave it to you to decide, is this hypocrisy?
Monday, February 1, 2010
Hi, I’m Barack Obama; I will bow to anyone and everyone.
Are you a King, Queen or Emperor? Maybe you are just a small town Mayor. It doesn’t matter anymore.
I thought the cartoon of Mr. Obama bowing to the Burger King was mildly funny.
Good humor is rooted in truth. Unfortunately, I realize now that it may yet come to pass. In the 1980 movie “Superman”, General Zod comes to earth and the White House. What follows is a good example of how other countries saw the United States in 1980:
General Zod: [looking at the Presidential Seal on the floor of the Oval Office] I see you are practiced in worshiping things that fly. Good. Now, rise before Zod. [the "President" stands up]
General Zod: Kneel before Zod. [the "President" kneels]
General Zod: You are not the President. No one who leads so many could possibly kneel so quickly.
Unfortunately, that was then…. Change the word “kneel” to “bow” and you have the current occupant of the Oval Office.
On Thursday, January 28th, you guessed it; The President of The United States bowed to someone again. First it was Kings, Queens and Emperor’s he was bowing to, now Mayor’s of cities. The only bow he won’t give is to the wishes of the people of The United States. He is much too good for that. But if you happen to get elected to be the Mayor of a city, invite him down and you could also get your bow.
I checked Wikipedia to see if I could get some quick background information on the Mayor of Tampa Florida; Mayor Pam Iorio and it had this, “She was present at the opening of the Tampa Bay History Center on January 17, 2009. On January 28, 2010, she met U.S. President Barack Obama at MacDill Air Force Base. President Obama greeted her by bowing to her.” Did you catch that? BOWING TO HER. I know that Wikipedia is editable by many people, and would never use it as a reference in a research paper, but generally it has great information about political leaders.
Mr. President, it is not necessary to bow to everyone you meet. Remember you are a leader. You represent the most powerful nation in the world. And as such, you are the most powerful person in the free world. Please at least attempt to present yourself in that manner. No one who leads so many could possibly bow so quickly (or so often).
I thought the cartoon of Mr. Obama bowing to the Burger King was mildly funny.
Good humor is rooted in truth. Unfortunately, I realize now that it may yet come to pass. In the 1980 movie “Superman”, General Zod comes to earth and the White House. What follows is a good example of how other countries saw the United States in 1980:
General Zod: [looking at the Presidential Seal on the floor of the Oval Office] I see you are practiced in worshiping things that fly. Good. Now, rise before Zod. [the "President" stands up]
General Zod: Kneel before Zod. [the "President" kneels]
General Zod: You are not the President. No one who leads so many could possibly kneel so quickly.
Unfortunately, that was then…. Change the word “kneel” to “bow” and you have the current occupant of the Oval Office.
On Thursday, January 28th, you guessed it; The President of The United States bowed to someone again. First it was Kings, Queens and Emperor’s he was bowing to, now Mayor’s of cities. The only bow he won’t give is to the wishes of the people of The United States. He is much too good for that. But if you happen to get elected to be the Mayor of a city, invite him down and you could also get your bow.
I checked Wikipedia to see if I could get some quick background information on the Mayor of Tampa Florida; Mayor Pam Iorio and it had this, “She was present at the opening of the Tampa Bay History Center on January 17, 2009. On January 28, 2010, she met U.S. President Barack Obama at MacDill Air Force Base. President Obama greeted her by bowing to her.” Did you catch that? BOWING TO HER. I know that Wikipedia is editable by many people, and would never use it as a reference in a research paper, but generally it has great information about political leaders.
Mr. President, it is not necessary to bow to everyone you meet. Remember you are a leader. You represent the most powerful nation in the world. And as such, you are the most powerful person in the free world. Please at least attempt to present yourself in that manner. No one who leads so many could possibly bow so quickly (or so often).
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Keep campaigning Mr. President - for the opponents!
President Obama campaigned for incumbant New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine in 2009. New Jersey is a traditionally Democrat state. In fact, if you were looking for a bluer than blue state, New Jersey is it. Barack Obama won the state by 15 percent in 2008. If there was a state that you would expect to have a Democrat elected again, especially an incumbant, New Jersey. They elected Republican Chris Christie by a 4 percent margin. A state that overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama for President just a year ago voted for Republican Chris Christie for Governor.
President Obama campaigned for Creigh Deed for Virginia Governor in 2009. Virginia went to Obama by 6 percent in the 2008 election. After voters got a taste of Obama politics, Republican Robert McDonnell beat Deeds by a 17 point margin.
The President also campaigned for Martha Coakley (Or Marcia as she is known by “her good friend” Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)). Massachusetts (though I only lived there for a year and a half and not my entire life, I can still spell it –unlike Mrs. Coakley’s campaign) went decidedly for Barack Obama 62 t o 36 percent in 2008. Ted Kennedy, “the lyin’ of the senate” held that Senate seat for 47 years. Massachusetts is also one of the bluest of states. One year of Obama politics is all it took for a state that only has 12 percent registered Republicans and 35 percent are Democrats to vote a Republican by a margin of 7 percent.
If I were running for office as a Republican I would invite the President to campaign for my opponent. Seems whomever he campaigns for loses. Could it be that the American people are having buyer’s remorse? Could it be that the American people don’t want the Socialism that the Obama administration promises? Nah, the Democrats must just be running the wrong candidates – every time!.
As an aside, it was also interesting to see the Nobel Prize winner, and his wife, go to Copenhagen to persuade the International Olympic Committee to send the 2016 Olympics to his home town of Chicago. Chicago was eliminated in the first round. Chicago only garnered 18 of the 94 votes. The President couldn’t even get 20 percent of the IOC vote. It couldn’t have anything to do with Obama.
This can’t be happening; Obama stood for hope and change. Everyone was supposed to love his ideas and just do what he says because he was so smart and well spoken (with the help of the teleprompter –uh, um, um, not uh so good um without uh it). I remember reading just a short while ago about the decline and even death of the Republican Party. With Barack Obama in charge I, for one, am seeing the change; a resurgence of the Conservatives in the Republican party and decline of the Democrats.
President Obama campaigned for Creigh Deed for Virginia Governor in 2009. Virginia went to Obama by 6 percent in the 2008 election. After voters got a taste of Obama politics, Republican Robert McDonnell beat Deeds by a 17 point margin.
The President also campaigned for Martha Coakley (Or Marcia as she is known by “her good friend” Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)). Massachusetts (though I only lived there for a year and a half and not my entire life, I can still spell it –unlike Mrs. Coakley’s campaign) went decidedly for Barack Obama 62 t o 36 percent in 2008. Ted Kennedy, “the lyin’ of the senate” held that Senate seat for 47 years. Massachusetts is also one of the bluest of states. One year of Obama politics is all it took for a state that only has 12 percent registered Republicans and 35 percent are Democrats to vote a Republican by a margin of 7 percent.
If I were running for office as a Republican I would invite the President to campaign for my opponent. Seems whomever he campaigns for loses. Could it be that the American people are having buyer’s remorse? Could it be that the American people don’t want the Socialism that the Obama administration promises? Nah, the Democrats must just be running the wrong candidates – every time!.
As an aside, it was also interesting to see the Nobel Prize winner, and his wife, go to Copenhagen to persuade the International Olympic Committee to send the 2016 Olympics to his home town of Chicago. Chicago was eliminated in the first round. Chicago only garnered 18 of the 94 votes. The President couldn’t even get 20 percent of the IOC vote. It couldn’t have anything to do with Obama.
This can’t be happening; Obama stood for hope and change. Everyone was supposed to love his ideas and just do what he says because he was so smart and well spoken (with the help of the teleprompter –uh, um, um, not uh so good um without uh it). I remember reading just a short while ago about the decline and even death of the Republican Party. With Barack Obama in charge I, for one, am seeing the change; a resurgence of the Conservatives in the Republican party and decline of the Democrats.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Harry Reid owes an apology to the American people
Harry Reid has apologized to the President and that should be enough…..for him. The real people Senator Reid needs to apologize to are the American people.
The authors of a new book, “Game Change,” quote Reid as saying privately that Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." "He [Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' " Halperin and Heilemann say. "Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination," they write.
The Democrats knew they could count on the minority vote if they ran a minority; and in fact got 96% of the black vote and 67%, 63% of the Latino and Asian vote respectively.
But those very words speak volumes about how Harry Reid feels about the American electorate. He essentially was saying that Democrats would not vote for a dark skinned black or a black with a “Negro dialect”. He was saying the Democrats are racist and the only reason they would vote for Obama is because he “wasn’t very black”.
His words were not directed to the party of Lincoln, a Republican, who freed the slaves with the emancipation proclamation. He wasn’t speaking to the party of Martin Luther King Jr. who was also a Republican; look it up. He wasn’t speaking to the Republican Party that championed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 or the party of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who championed civil rights again in the 1950’s and declared racial discrimination a national security issue and subsequently sent elements of the 101st Airborne Division to uphold Brown v. Board of Education.
As a matter of fact he wasn’t speaking to any Republican as the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm
http://www.nifty-fifties.com/Facts/Race.htm
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html
He was speaking to the Democrats who at one time started the Ku Klux Klan and the “Dixiecrats” who blocked the social and political progress of black Southerners for decades after the end of the civil war. It’s the Democrat Party, not the GOP, that boasts an ex-Klansman among its senior leaders. He spoke about the Democrats like Orval Faubus who called out the Arkansas National Guard to stop black Americans from attending Little Rock Central High School as part of federally ordered racial desegregation.
Harry Reid knew exactly what he was saying. He likes and respects Mr. Obama and I believe him when he apologized. He did, however, have malice in his heart for the American voter (particularly the Democrats) because he knew history and he knew that Democrats have a history of racism. The only way they would elect a black man to be President is if he was a “light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,”.
Mr. Reid, you don’t owe an apology to the President. You owe an apology to the American people.
The authors of a new book, “Game Change,” quote Reid as saying privately that Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." "He [Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' " Halperin and Heilemann say. "Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination," they write.
The Democrats knew they could count on the minority vote if they ran a minority; and in fact got 96% of the black vote and 67%, 63% of the Latino and Asian vote respectively.
But those very words speak volumes about how Harry Reid feels about the American electorate. He essentially was saying that Democrats would not vote for a dark skinned black or a black with a “Negro dialect”. He was saying the Democrats are racist and the only reason they would vote for Obama is because he “wasn’t very black”.
His words were not directed to the party of Lincoln, a Republican, who freed the slaves with the emancipation proclamation. He wasn’t speaking to the party of Martin Luther King Jr. who was also a Republican; look it up. He wasn’t speaking to the Republican Party that championed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 or the party of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who championed civil rights again in the 1950’s and declared racial discrimination a national security issue and subsequently sent elements of the 101st Airborne Division to uphold Brown v. Board of Education.
As a matter of fact he wasn’t speaking to any Republican as the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm
http://www.nifty-fifties.com/Facts/Race.htm
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html
He was speaking to the Democrats who at one time started the Ku Klux Klan and the “Dixiecrats” who blocked the social and political progress of black Southerners for decades after the end of the civil war. It’s the Democrat Party, not the GOP, that boasts an ex-Klansman among its senior leaders. He spoke about the Democrats like Orval Faubus who called out the Arkansas National Guard to stop black Americans from attending Little Rock Central High School as part of federally ordered racial desegregation.
Harry Reid knew exactly what he was saying. He likes and respects Mr. Obama and I believe him when he apologized. He did, however, have malice in his heart for the American voter (particularly the Democrats) because he knew history and he knew that Democrats have a history of racism. The only way they would elect a black man to be President is if he was a “light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,”.
Mr. Reid, you don’t owe an apology to the President. You owe an apology to the American people.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Hey hey hey, bye bye
Like rats leaving a sinking ship, so are the Democrats leaving Congress.
I was surprised to hear that Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, a five-term Democrat whose political stock began falling after the financial meltdown and his failed 2008 presidential bid, has decided not to seek re-election in November. How do you go from running for President two years ago to retiring? You don’t often hear of someone with his time in office, experience, and chairmanships talk about retiring. His power on Capitol Hill had reached a height that most legislators only dream of. I wonder what could have prompted it?
As recently as Monday, Dodd brushed aside questions about stepping aside for another Democratic candidate, and insisted he was in the race for good. He acknowledged that some of his fellow Democrats were "antsy" with his low poll numbers, but said things can change quickly in politics. "Clearly I'm glad the race isn't today, and the good news is, it's not," Dodd told reporters as he toured a small manufacturing company in Bristol, Conn. As late as last week, Dodd's campaign sent an e-mail to supporters seeking contributions. "The Republicans have declared my seat as one of the top targets and they intend to spend whatever it takes to win," the e-mail said. Apparently, he won’t need the money anymore.
Could it be the voters, after being stung by the Obama –nation are starting to open their eyes and hold their representatives responsible for their action? For those that don’t know (or choose to forget), Sen. Dodd got the sweetheart VIP deal from Countrywide Mortgage, and wrote the deal for AIG executives to get their multimillion dollar bonuses ($165,000,000) with our money; the money that was supposed to help create jobs and keep the country from slipping into double digit unemployment.
The news that Dodd would not seek reelection capped a day of Democratic retirements. Aside from Dodd and Dorgan, it was revealed that Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter would not run for reelection in 2010. And in Michigan, Lt. Gov. John Cherry announced Tuesday that he would forgo a run for governor.
Easier to retire than face the voters and realize just what they think of you. This gives a good insight to the Democratic Party. They used him up and now that he doesn’t have a “for sure” seat, they are showing him the door- quickly. Just like they did to Cindy Sheehan after she was no longer relevant.
Expect to see Harry Reid announce his “retirement plans” in the next couple of months.
I was surprised to hear that Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, a five-term Democrat whose political stock began falling after the financial meltdown and his failed 2008 presidential bid, has decided not to seek re-election in November. How do you go from running for President two years ago to retiring? You don’t often hear of someone with his time in office, experience, and chairmanships talk about retiring. His power on Capitol Hill had reached a height that most legislators only dream of. I wonder what could have prompted it?
As recently as Monday, Dodd brushed aside questions about stepping aside for another Democratic candidate, and insisted he was in the race for good. He acknowledged that some of his fellow Democrats were "antsy" with his low poll numbers, but said things can change quickly in politics. "Clearly I'm glad the race isn't today, and the good news is, it's not," Dodd told reporters as he toured a small manufacturing company in Bristol, Conn. As late as last week, Dodd's campaign sent an e-mail to supporters seeking contributions. "The Republicans have declared my seat as one of the top targets and they intend to spend whatever it takes to win," the e-mail said. Apparently, he won’t need the money anymore.
Could it be the voters, after being stung by the Obama –nation are starting to open their eyes and hold their representatives responsible for their action? For those that don’t know (or choose to forget), Sen. Dodd got the sweetheart VIP deal from Countrywide Mortgage, and wrote the deal for AIG executives to get their multimillion dollar bonuses ($165,000,000) with our money; the money that was supposed to help create jobs and keep the country from slipping into double digit unemployment.
The news that Dodd would not seek reelection capped a day of Democratic retirements. Aside from Dodd and Dorgan, it was revealed that Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter would not run for reelection in 2010. And in Michigan, Lt. Gov. John Cherry announced Tuesday that he would forgo a run for governor.
Easier to retire than face the voters and realize just what they think of you. This gives a good insight to the Democratic Party. They used him up and now that he doesn’t have a “for sure” seat, they are showing him the door- quickly. Just like they did to Cindy Sheehan after she was no longer relevant.
Expect to see Harry Reid announce his “retirement plans” in the next couple of months.
Would I lie?
C-SPAN is trying to help the Obama administration keep one of its campaign promises. A promise made over 8 times. Candidate Obama promised that health care deliberations with Congress and special interests would be transparent to the extreme.
"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are," Obama said at a debate against Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008. Don’t take my word for it though; http://www.breitbart.tv/the-c-span-lie-did-obama-really-promise-televised-healthcare-negotiations/ shows videos of then Candidate Obama telling lying to (I mean telling) the American people about wanting to have C-SPAN televise the debates.
The president, members of Congress from both parties and special interest groups have indeed all participated in negotiations, but those conversations have not been broadcast. Instead, the president has announced deals with groups like the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry after they were worked out in backroom deals.
C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate Dec. 30 urging them to open "all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings," to televised coverage on his network. "The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of the sessions LIVE and in their entirety," he wrote. In his letter he states, "President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation's editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation's health care system," he wrote. "Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American."
Despite their claims to the contrary, the way that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have handled the healthcare bill has been anything but transparent; the two congressional leaders intend to keep the deliberations secret as they try to merge the House and Senate versions of the legislation into something that will pass both chambers.
Democrats in both the House and Senate are saying the process will likely follow the path of the House taking up the Senate-passed legislation, amending it and sending it back to the Senate, which will have to pass it again. "This process cuts out the Republicans", indicating the congressional majority intended to make sure the Republican minority would "not have a motion to recommit opportunity."
The House passed its version of the bill on a Saturday night. The Senate held its key procedural vote at 1 in the morning, and then provided a lump of coal in our stockings by forcing full passage of its bill on Christmas Eve. The House leadership banned consideration of all but one amendment not offered by leadership itself - forbidding debate on more than 150 of them - then provided just 24 hours for members to study the bill's final text. The Senate leadership inserted so many tawdry last-minute items that analysts are still finding them 11 days later.
I guess I just don’t understand. If this is such a great deal for the American public, why wouldn’t the Democrats want to have all the proceedings televised, written about, shouted from the rooftops? “We are now finally poised to deliver on the promise of real, meaningful health insurance reform that will bring additional security and stability to the American people,” Obama said shortly after the Senate acted. “This will be the most important piece of social legislation since Social Security passed in the 1930s,” said Obama, standing with Vice President Joe Biden in the State Room of the White House. If this is true, they (the Democrats) could easily cripple the Republicans by showing why this is the best thing since the Constitution itself. Unless, as I suspect, this is one of the worst bills in history and will be full of back room deals. Not to worry though, candidate Obama also said healthcare won’t pass with a fifty-plus-one strategy. http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-obama-says-healthcare-wont-pass-with-a-fifty-plus-one-strategy/
Just like I pointed out about Global Warming not really being about Global Warming but more about global redistribution of wealth, the health care bill is not about health care. Senator Tom Harking put it best when he stated, “it has room for expansion and additions in the future. If we don’t start the starter home, we’ll never get there. So this is not the end of health care reform, this is the beginning of health care reform.” It is not about health care reform. It is about power. It is about the power of the government to grant or withhold services if you don’t do/act the way they want.
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. - Barry Goldwater.
"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are," Obama said at a debate against Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008. Don’t take my word for it though; http://www.breitbart.tv/the-c-span-lie-did-obama-really-promise-televised-healthcare-negotiations/ shows videos of then Candidate Obama telling lying to (I mean telling) the American people about wanting to have C-SPAN televise the debates.
The president, members of Congress from both parties and special interest groups have indeed all participated in negotiations, but those conversations have not been broadcast. Instead, the president has announced deals with groups like the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry after they were worked out in backroom deals.
C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate Dec. 30 urging them to open "all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings," to televised coverage on his network. "The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of the sessions LIVE and in their entirety," he wrote. In his letter he states, "President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation's editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation's health care system," he wrote. "Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American."
Despite their claims to the contrary, the way that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have handled the healthcare bill has been anything but transparent; the two congressional leaders intend to keep the deliberations secret as they try to merge the House and Senate versions of the legislation into something that will pass both chambers.
Democrats in both the House and Senate are saying the process will likely follow the path of the House taking up the Senate-passed legislation, amending it and sending it back to the Senate, which will have to pass it again. "This process cuts out the Republicans", indicating the congressional majority intended to make sure the Republican minority would "not have a motion to recommit opportunity."
The House passed its version of the bill on a Saturday night. The Senate held its key procedural vote at 1 in the morning, and then provided a lump of coal in our stockings by forcing full passage of its bill on Christmas Eve. The House leadership banned consideration of all but one amendment not offered by leadership itself - forbidding debate on more than 150 of them - then provided just 24 hours for members to study the bill's final text. The Senate leadership inserted so many tawdry last-minute items that analysts are still finding them 11 days later.
I guess I just don’t understand. If this is such a great deal for the American public, why wouldn’t the Democrats want to have all the proceedings televised, written about, shouted from the rooftops? “We are now finally poised to deliver on the promise of real, meaningful health insurance reform that will bring additional security and stability to the American people,” Obama said shortly after the Senate acted. “This will be the most important piece of social legislation since Social Security passed in the 1930s,” said Obama, standing with Vice President Joe Biden in the State Room of the White House. If this is true, they (the Democrats) could easily cripple the Republicans by showing why this is the best thing since the Constitution itself. Unless, as I suspect, this is one of the worst bills in history and will be full of back room deals. Not to worry though, candidate Obama also said healthcare won’t pass with a fifty-plus-one strategy. http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-obama-says-healthcare-wont-pass-with-a-fifty-plus-one-strategy/
Just like I pointed out about Global Warming not really being about Global Warming but more about global redistribution of wealth, the health care bill is not about health care. Senator Tom Harking put it best when he stated, “it has room for expansion and additions in the future. If we don’t start the starter home, we’ll never get there. So this is not the end of health care reform, this is the beginning of health care reform.” It is not about health care reform. It is about power. It is about the power of the government to grant or withhold services if you don’t do/act the way they want.
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. - Barry Goldwater.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)