Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Obamas Plans "Non-Religious Christmas"

The Obamas were planning a "non-religious Christmas" and intended not to put the traditional White House créche scene on display.

White House Social Secretary Desirée Rogers reportedly told a meeting of former secretaries that the Obamas did not intend to put the manger scene on display - a suggestion that was greeted by an "audible gasp" from her audience.

The White House confirmed that there had been discussion regarding whether to make Christmas more "inclusive."

Despite such discussions, the White House eventually bowed to tradition, reports the NY Times; the creche scene is now on display.

Saturday, December 26, 2009

A Tenth Congressional Seat for Washington Possible

Washington state may get another voice in Congress, if projected Census numbers hold true.

The Washington Secretary of State's Office says Washington is in line to pick up a 10th congressional district. The allotment of the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives is based on Census population data.

According to a report by analysts at Election Data Services, Washington, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina and Utah are in line to gain a seat, while Texas would gain three.

Eight states would lose single seats. They include Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. Ohio is projected to lose two seats.

The data shows that Washington's projected new seat almost went to Oregon, but the Evergreen state won out by a margin of less than 25,000 people.

This report is not official and the results could change when the final Census numbers come in next year.

It would be the first new district for Washington in 20 years.

The U.S. Senate has 100 seats, with each state automatically getting two members.

by KING5

Friday, December 25, 2009

Merry Christmas...Because of Jesus!

Joy to the world ♪♫•*¨*•.¸¸♥ ¸¸.•*¨*•♫♪ the Lord is come ♪♫•*¨*•.¸¸♥ ¸¸.•*¨*•♫♪ Let earth receive her King ♪♫•*¨*•.¸¸♥ ¸¸.•*¨*•♫♪ Let every heart prepare Him room ♥ ♥ ♥ And Heaven and Nature sing ♪♫•*¨*•.¸¸♥ ¸¸.•*¨*•♫♪ And Heaven and Nature sing ♪♫•*¨*•.¸¸♥ ¸¸.•*¨*•♫♪...And heaven, and heaven, and nature sing!♪♫•*¨*•..........¸¸♥ ¸¸.•*¨*•♫♪

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Too Funny

"A clearly exhausted Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid mistakenly voted no...before changing his vote to yes."


Wednesday, December 23, 2009

A Bill of Bribery, Extortion, Secrecy, Fraud, and Corruption

It took a bunch of "sweet deals" made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to secure the 60 votes he needed for his health care bill.

Just when you thought secret deals with the industry, closed-door meetings and Chicago-style backroom politics couldn't get any worse... they did.

According to Reid, "A number of states are treated differently than other states. That's what legislation's all about: compromise".

Really? Rather than thoughtful policy, H.R. 3590 is the result of Democrat desperation and includes countless political handouts. In an effort to meet an artificial holiday deadline, the bill itself has come to look like a Christmas tree with goodies for all Democrat holdouts.

While over 10 states receive special deals, Senators from neglected states should be appalled, as their home state constituents will wind up paying for those "sweet deals" in other states, resulting in higher costs for their already-strapped Medicaid programs.


Click here to read entire message.

Someone Doing Something - Call and Encourage Them!

When someone does something we should do all we can to encourage them.

As the Democrats give us "a gift that keeps on giving" - mandated healthcare - for Christmas, two Senators are raising serious Constitutional questions and need to hear the support of the American people. Here is their contact info and I hope you will contact them.

Sen DeMint - 202.224.6121
Sen Ensign - 202.224.6244

From RedState:

There are serious issues about the constitutionality of the individual mandate portion on the Health Care bill Democrats are about to pass.

The federal constitution sets forth the limited powers of the federal government and not one of those powers seems to suggest that the Congress of the United States can compel the citizens of the nation to buy certain products.

Senators Jim DeMint and John Ensign are going to force a vote on the issue. Democrats will be forced to take a position on whether or not the federal government can force individuals to buy products on pain of criminal penalty.

“I am incredibly concerned that the Democrats’ proposed individual mandate provision takes away too much freedom and choice from Americans across the country,” said Senator Ensign.

“As an American, I felt the obligation to stand up for the individual freedom of every citizen to make their own decision on this issue. I don’t believe Congress has the legal authority to force this mandate on its citizens.”

“Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,” said Senator DeMint.

“This is not at all like car insurance, you can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance.

This is nothing more than a bailout and takeover of insurance companies. We’re forcing Americans to buy insurance under penalty of law and then Washington bureaucrats will then dictate what these companies can sell to Americans.

This is not liberty, it is the tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can.”

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Democrat Switches to Republican

Democratic Rep. Parker Griffith announced Tuesday that he's switching parties – saying he can no longer align himself “with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy and drives us further and further into debt.”

“Unfortunately there are those in the Democratic Leadership that continue to push an agenda focused on massive new spending, tax increases, bailouts and a health care bill that is bad for our healthcare system,” Griffith said in a statement.

“I have always considered myself to be an independent voice and I have tried to be that voice in Congress – but after watching this agenda firsthand I now believe that the differences in the two parties could not be more clear and that for me to be true to my core beliefs and values I must align myself with the Republican party and speak out clearly on these issues.

Griffith’s party switch comes on the eve of a pivotal congressional health care vote and will send a jolt through a Democratic House Caucus that has already been unnerved by the recent retirements of a handful of members who, like Griffith, hail from districts that offer prime pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2010.


Saturday, December 19, 2009

Dems Schedule Unpopular Obamacare Vote for Dead of Night

by Dan Spencer

The Senate version of the Democrats’ so-called health care reform is so unpopular, Nevada’s Harry Reid finds it necessary to vote on it at 1:00 a.m.

David M. Herszenhorn reports the Democrats must conduct six votes to pass their Obamacare — one of the crown jewels of Obamaism:

1 a.m. MONDAY – To end debate on “a manager’s package” that includes all the latest changes to the bill. 60 votes required.

7 a.m. TUESDAY – To approve the manager’s package. Simple majority required.

Also TUESDAY – To end debate on Mr. Reid’s original health care proposal, as amended by the manager’s package. 60 votes required.

1 p.m. WEDNESDAY – To approve Mr. Reid’s original proposal. Simple majority required.

Also WEDNESDAY – To end debate on the finalized health care legislation. 60 votes required.

7 p.m. THURSDAY, Christmas Eve (or anytime after the prior vote if all senators agree) – To approve the final bill. Simple majority required.

Reid’s 400 pages of changes to the Obamacare legislation the Democrats are rushing through the Senate were revealed only this morning, so vote the Democrats scheduled for the middle of the night will come less than 40 hours after the amendments were made available — well short of the 72 hours Democrats promised the bill would be available before any vote:

The Senator mentioned, I note, having in mind the managers’ amendment, which he has not seen and, frankly, this Senator has not seen either. I have some ideas what is in it, but I have not seen it myself. I think as a practical matter this will be available for 72 hours, as the Senator suggests. Why do I say that? I say that because it is my expectation that Senator Reid’s managers’ amendment will be filed very quickly, maybe in a day or two [emphasis added]. (Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Congressional Record, S.13289, 12/16/09)

Obamaism: Worse than socialism.

Nelson's Vote Has Been Bought

Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the final Democratic holdout on health care, announced to his caucus Saturday morning that he would support the Senate reform bill, clearing the way for final passage by Christmas.

"We're there," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), as he headed into a special meeting to outline the deal.

Democratic leaders spent days trying to hammer out a deal with Nelson, and worked late Friday night with him on abortion coverage language that had proved the major stumbling block. Nelson also secured other favors for his home state.
Washington Post

Friday, December 18, 2009

How Cap and Trade Plans to Cripple Our Economy

By Vladimir at RedState

If you can’t understand conceptually why a Cap and Trade system is such a bad deal, how about a concrete example?

The European Union is a signatory of the Kyoto Protocols and have been dealing with a Carbon Cap and Trade system for several years. This article in today’s Wall Street Journal shows how the potential profit from the sale of carbon credits directly led to the loss of 1,700 jobs in a British steel plant.

Usually, we worry about the unintended consequences of new, far-reaching regulation. As the article makes clear, however, crippling the economies of the Western Democracies for the benefit of the “developing world” (read: China and India) is precisely the intent of Cap and Trade.

… Corus, Europe’s second-largest steel producer, is shuttering a giant U.K. steelmaking plant at Redcar, cutting 1,700 jobs. Corus blames the recession that has cut steel demand and says the British government hasn’t done enough to help it.

Whatever the truth of that, there’s little doubt that cap and trade made the closure much easier. The decline in steel production means European steelmakers have surplus carbon allowances. According to Carbon Market Data, a European research firm, in 2008 Corus had the second largest surplus of EU carbon allowances—7.5 million.

… By closing Redcar’s annual capacity of three million tons of steel, Corus will produce six million fewer tons of CO2. That means more carbon allowances, which could translate into about $300 million a year if credits hit $50. Corus is essentially being paid to lay off British workers. …

Corus was bought in 2007 by Tata, India’s largest steel company. The Indian steel industry is set to more than double production to some 124 million tons a year by 2011-2012. Were Corus to move production to a “clean” Indian factory, it could receive hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the Clean Development Fund.

The kicker is that none of this results in fewer carbon emissions. A Corus plant in India might be more efficient by Indian standards, but it will be no more efficient than Redcar. …

To summarize: Cap and trade is a scheme that would impose heavy carbon taxes and allowances on U.S. industries, which would then have an incentive to move overseas themselves, or to sell those allowances to overseas companies that could use them to become more competitive against U.S. companies. Like the 1,700 Brits at Redcar, American workers would be the big losers.

Thursday, December 17, 2009


by Peter Wallsten

Less than a year after Inauguration Day, support for the Democratic Party continues to slump, amid a difficult economy and a wave of public discontent, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

The findings underscored how dramatically the political landscape has changed during the Obama administration's first year. In January, despite the recession and financial crisis, voters expressed optimism about the future, the new president enjoyed soaring approval ratings, and congressional leaders promised to swiftly pass his ambitious agenda.

In December's survey, for the first time, less than half of Americans approved of the job President Barack Obama was doing, marking a steeper first-year fall for this president than his recent predecessors.

Also for the first time this year, the electorate was split when asked which party it wanted to see in charge after the 2010 elections. For months, a clear plurality favored Democratic control.

The survey suggests that public discontent with Mr. Obama and his party is being driven by an unusually grim view of the country's status and future prospects.

Democrats' problems seem in part linked to their ambitious health-care plan, billed as the signature achievement of Mr. Obama's first year. Now, for the first time, more people said they would prefer Congress did nothing on health care than who wanted to see the overhaul enacted.

"For Democrats, the red flags are flying at full mast," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "What we don't know for certain is: Have we reached a bottoming-out point?"

The biggest worry for Democrats is that the findings could set the stage for gains by Republican candidates in next year's elections. Support from independents for the president and his party continues to dwindle.

In addition, voters intending to back Republicans expressed far more interest in the 2010 races than those planning to vote for Democrats, illustrating how disappointment on the left over attempts by party leaders to compromise on health care and other issues is damping enthusiasm among core party voters.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Smoke Pot to Fight Substance Abuse

Six fearless Washington State Democrats have decided to take on the fight to treat and prevent substance abuse...by letting citizens smoke pot legally and become substance abusers. How twisted is that?

This came out in the news today:

Six House Democrats who have prefiled a bill legalize marijuana for those over age 21 want to use nearly all of the money raised for substance abuse treatment and prevention.

Still, the sponsors are a pretty mainstream bunch and there has been some movement in other states to stop treating pot use and possession as a criminal offense. The six are Mary Lou Dickerson and Scott White of Seattle, Roger Goodman of Kirkland, David Upthegrove of Des Moines, Sherry Appleton of Poulsbo and Mary Helen Roberts of Lynnwood.

House Bill 2401 is 78 pages long. But most of that is to find every reference to marijuana in state law and either remove it from criminal codes or add it to liquor laws. They also would regulate the farming, production and distribution. - The News Tribune

Personally, I think they've got way too much time on their hands, and perhaps have smoked a little to much themselves. They certainly are not up for the important job of representing Washington State citizens in our state legislature.

Mark their names people. It's time for us to join with millions of others across our nation who are tired of such nonsense and mobilizing to elect real leaders in 2010.

Monday, December 14, 2009

Democrats Gone Wild

By Leon H. Wolf

In addition to spending hundreds of billions (or trillions) of dollars on a government takeover of healthcare, and in addition to spending hundred of billions of dollars on failed economic stimulus programs, and in addition to implementing worthless environmental regulation that has the effect of a massive tax increase, the Democrats are still wildly in favor of massive increases in government spending on, well… everything!

Senate Democrats overcame a Republican filibuster to clear the way for a vote Sunday on a huge end-of-year $1.1 trillion spending bill that gives budget increases far exceeding inflation to much of the government.

The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 60-34 on Saturday to end the GOP filibuster that threatened to hold up the legislation. The final vote would send the measure to President Barack Obama.

The measure pays for Medicare and Medicaid benefits, and boosts spending for the Education Department, the State Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and others.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Reid Isn't Making History--He's Making It Up!

Yesterday Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stood on the Senate floor and compared health care opponents to the old supporters of slavery.

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans can come up with is this: slow down, stop everything, let's start over," Reid said.

"If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said slow down, it's too early, let's wait, things aren't bad enough."

Today, his office may have defended those remarks, but what they cannot defend is Sen. Reid's distortion of the facts.

It was his party--not the GOP--who stood in the way of American freedom.

Every vote against the Thirteenth Amendment to free the slaves was cast by a Democrat.

Every vote against Lincoln 's Emancipation Proclamation was cast by a Democrat.

In 1922, when Republicans tried to outlaw lynching, Senate Democrats filibustered the bill until it died and continued filibustering against it until it was approved in 1957.

When the great Civil Rights Act of 1964 finally passed, Republicans in the Senate backed it 23-6, but Democrats in the majority approved by only 44-23. Without the Republican Party, it wouldn't have become the law of the land.

Sen. Reid isn't making history--he's making it up!

If his party shows this much disregard for the past, then Americans should be terribly worried about their future. When the Majority Leader is willing to rewrite history to score cheap political points, how can we trust him with something as vital as health care? We can't.

Until then, I have a suggestion. Senators who want to be on the right side of history can start by supporting innocent human life.

And if anyone deserves to be freed, it's U.S. taxpayers who want no part of abortion's bloody business.

Tony Perkins

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Climate Summit Defined

The Copenhagen Climate Summit - where world leaders and celebrities travel in private jets (more than 140 of them) to Denmark where they will be driven around in limos (more than 1200 of them) attending 12 days of meetings to develop a new global treaty on climate change...and decide how best to tax and regulate you into compliance.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Health Care's Poison Pill - Public Option

by Rick Scott

What are we up to now, six different names for the public option?

Let us count the ways desperate Democrats have tried to re-brand, re-tool, re-name or re-invent what is, by all accounts, a plot that will ultimately force millions of Americans into the waiting arms of government health care bureaucrats.

During the 2008 campaign, the public option was described as “government-run plan similar to Medicare.” Whoa…really? The same Medicare plan that cannot now meet its own financial obligations and is projected to be come up short by $38 trillion by the time the youngest Americans will need it? No wonder we haven’t heard that description much lately.

After the presidential inauguration, talk of the public option steadily picked up steam, reaching a fever pitch in August when senior citizens were shouting down their elected officials and canceling their AARP memberships in droves, and while Tea Party activists were getting their fingers bitten off at town hall meetings - all due to strong opposition against any form of government-run health care.

By late October, Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew it was a tough sell. She began slathering lipstick on the public option pig, calling it both the “consumer option” and the “competitive option.” It didn’t stick, and it didn’t matter, because a large number of House Democrats are hell-bent on getting the government’s foot in the door of private health care so they would have voted for it no matter what it was called.

But the Senate is a different ballgame, and that 60-vote hurdle is looming. To clear it, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has some serious sugar-coating to do before his colleagues will choke down any version of the public option. So far, it’s been floated as an “opt-out” public option, an “opt-in” public option, and a “trigger” public option.

Next week, Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) will, as he says, attempt to “thread the needle” by recasting the public option yet again. Thus far he’s been tight-lipped about his plans, but it really doesn’t matter.

A bait-and-switch can only work when it takes the victim by surprise, an opportunity Sen. Carper and the Democrats lost months ago. Even House Finance Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has admitted that the public option will lead to government-run health care and may even be the best way to get there.

They can sugar-coat the public option all they want, but it’s still a poison pill.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Not the Change Americans Were Hoping For

by RedState

A new study shows Obama has fewer advisors who’ve made a living in the private sector than any other American President in the last 108 years — since the turn of the 20th century when the business of America became business.

This is not to say that the Chief Executive should have private sector experience. And this is not to say that the Chief Executive should employ only people from the private sector.

But it is to say that we should not trust a Chief Executive to know how to fix the private sector or “create competition” in health care when there is hardly a person near him who knows anything about job creation.

That is the key. More Americans than every before are on government handouts and the Democrats intend to take over 1/6th of the American economy — health care.

This is an administration that has no understanding of and no commitment to the free market and the private sector, both of which are, at best, academic studies to ninety percent of Obama’s top advisors.

The American people, at the end of the day, believe in, work in, and want to support the private sector. The American people do not want to be dependent on the government for their food, health care, or income.

But that is Obama’s solution.

To every problem, Obama offers government. He can offer no other because he has surrounded himself with no job creators, no producers, no captains of industry, and no free market champions. That’s not the change the American people were hoping for.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Only The Beginning

By Sarah O’Connor

President Barack Obama’s mission to reform US healthcare vaulted another legislative hurdle over the weekend, but the scramble to secure his own party’s votes sheds light on the messy compromises that may be needed to get it to the finish line.

Fissures between liberal and centrist Democrats cracked open on Sunday in the aftermath of a procedural vote, which paved the way for the estimated $848bn (€570bn, £514bn) draft Senate bill to be debated on the floor.

Leaders hope there will be a vote on the bill by Christmas. If passed, the House and Senate versions will have to be mashed together.

If this weekend is anything to go by, it will not be a pretty process. All Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents voted to push the bill forward – creating a filibuster-proof majority of 60 – but some of those votes came far from quietly. A group of centrist Democrats, unhappy about elements of the bill such as a public insurance option, managed to wring concessions from the leadership in return for their acquiescence.

In what wags have already dubbed the “Louisiana Purchase”, Mary Landrieu was offered at least $100m in extra federal money for her state. Ben Nelson won the omission of a provision that would strip health insurers of their anti-trust exemption. Blanche Lincoln won more time.

The group’s disproportionate power in the debate has antagonised some liberal Democrats. “In the end, I don’t want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the country, when the public option has this much support, that it’s not going to be in it,” said Sherrod Brown of Ohio on Sunday on CNN.

“But in the end, I think that all four of our colleagues surveyed this . . . and I don’t think they want to be on the wrong side of history. I don’t think they want to go back and say, ‘You know, on a procedural vote, I killed the most important bill in my political career’.”

As the debate gets going, the centrists will face increased pressure at home, where they are vulnerable to losing their seats if they are seen to let their colleagues in Washington push them too far to the left. Lobbyists on both sides of the debate are well aware of this, and are blitzing their home states with adverts.

Ms Lincoln claimed that groups had spent $3.3m on advertising in her state of Arkansas. She said she would refuse to yield to either side, but was shocked by the “unbelievable type of threats” she had received.

“These ad groups seem to think this is all about my re-election. I simply think they don’t know me very well,” she said on the Senate floor.

The group, which also includes independent senator Joe Lieberman, all said they wanted more changes made to the bill in the coming weeks.
“When I saw the bill I said, ‘This can be amended, this can be improved’,” Mr Nelson said on Sunday on ABC. He said language on federal funding for abortion, which is softer than that of the House bill, was one problem. He did signal he was willing to compromise on a public option, but said it would have to be much weaker than the current version, which has already been watered down to allow states to opt out.

“We could negotiate a public option of some sort that I might look at, but I don’t want a big government, Washington-run operation that would undermine the . . . private insurance that 200m Americans now have,” he said.

Mr Lieberman, though, was more intransigent.

“[A public option] is a radical departure from the way we’ve responded to the market in America in the past,” he told NBC. “We rely first on competition in our market economy. When the competition fails then what do we do? We regulate or we litigate.”

The weekend’s vote was a victory for Harry Reid, Senate leader, but he acknowledged that it was simply an opening skirmish in a battle that is now set to break into full force. Much of that battle will take place within his own party.

“Tonight’s vote is not the end of the debate,” he said on Saturday night. “It is only the beginning.”

Friday, November 20, 2009

Another Saturday Night...

Call Your Senators!

Under the cloak of another Saturday night the US Senate plans to vote on whether or not to continue debate on their health care bill - 8pm to be exact.

They really DON'T want to hear from you, but since you'll be paying for the vote they take tomorrow night I would urge you to call and write them incessantly with the message "NO on cloture".

A successful cloture motion would allow them to proceed to debate. Now consider this, since 1999 the Senate has approved and passed 97.6% of all bills when lawmakers voted in favor of the motion to proceed to debate.

Cloture is the very best place to stop this insidious bill. Call every number they have....and don't forget the incessant part.

Maria Cantwell - 1-888-648-7328
For her local office numbers
click here)

Patty Murray - 1-866-481-9186
For her local office numbers
click here)

10 THINGS ...

Here are ten things10 you should know about Harry Reid's government-run health care experiment :

1. $493 Billion In Tax Increases On Health Insurance, Medical Innovation, Payroll And Small Businesses Would Pay For The Bill. (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

2. Americans Won't See Benefits Of This Health Care Experiment Until 2014, But They Start Paying For It In 2010.(Page 13, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

3. Reid's Bill Allegedly Reduces The Deficit By $130 Billion In Ten Years, But The Obama-Reid-Pelosi Spending Agenda Produced Deficit Of $176 Billion Last Month Alone.(Table 3, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

4. $465 Billion In Medicare And Medicaid Cuts Would Pay For Two New Unsustainable Entitlements.(Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

5. Health Care Costs For The Federal Government - And Your Family - Would Increase, Not Decrease. (Page 16, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

6. A New Medicare Commission Of Unelected Bureaucrats Would Ration Care.(Sec. 3403, H.R. 3590, Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute, "Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act," Introduced 11/18/09)

7. The "Doc Fix" Provision That Would Add $250 Billion To The Deficit Is Not Included In The Democrats' List Price For Their Health Care Experiment.(Page 17, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

8. Taxpayer Dollars Would Fund Abortions.(Sec. 1303(a), H.R. 3590, Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute, "Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act," Introduced 11/18/09)

9. A New Entitlement Program For Long-Term Care That One Democrat Senator Called "A Ponzi Scheme" Would Be Created.(Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09; Shailagh Murray & Lori Montgomery, "Centrists Unsure About Reid's Public Option," The Washington Post, 10/28/09)

10. States Burdened With $25 Billion In Unfunded Mandates From Medicaid That Would Force Them To Increase Taxes.(Page 7, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

View This Research Briefing At GOP.com

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Friday, November 6, 2009

Pay....or Pay

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail.

The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail.

This is outrageous and should be stopped immediately.”

Press Release by Ways & Means Republicans

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Look at the Side by Side

Sometimes a picture speaks louder than words, so here it is - a side by side picture of Pelosi Health Care Bill and the GOP Alternative. What do you want - more freedom or more government?

Keep calling (numbers in previous post) and if the line is busy send an e-mail while you wait. Google your Rep and get on it!

And let's all call Pelosi now
(202) 225-0100 and (415)556.4862
and give her a little freedom loving patriot love too!

Right Now!

Right now in Washington DC American citizens, led by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) are giving voice to the millions of us who oppose the Democrat takeover of our healthcare.

We can't be there but we can add our voice to support them!

Right now...call both our Senators and your Representative with your strong message opposing the Democrat takeover of healthcare.

Maria Cantwell - (202) 224-3441
Patty Murray - (202) 224-2621

Your Representative:
1st District: Jay Inslee - (202) 225–6311
2nd District: Rick Larsen - (202) 225-2605
3rd District: Brian Baird - (202) 225-3536
4th District: Doc Hastings - (202) 225-5816
5th District: Cathy McMorris Rodgers - (202) 225-2006
6th District: Norm Dicks - (202) 225-5916
7th District: Jim McDermott - (202) 225-3106
8th District: Dave Reichert - (202) 225-7761
9th District: Adam Smith - (202) 225-8901

Press Release:

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann released the following statement as the House of Representatives approaches a vote on the Democrats’ health care reform proposal:

“The American people spoke loud and clear at town hall meetings all across the country throughout August. But, it would appear that Congress didn’t hear a word they had to say. The Democrats’ latest health care proposal unveiled late last week may be packaged a little differently, but it’s the same old bad bill as before.

“This bill is a trillion-dollar, budget-busting, government takeover of our health care system. It will put bureaucrats between people and their health care. It will lead to rationed care, hurting the most vulnerable amongst us first. It will break the bank, leaving our children to pay the bill with diminished freedoms and dwindling prosperity.

“The American people need to stand up again and make sure that Congress hears them this time. Speaker Pelosi is putting her bill on fast track to a vote – and it remains to be seen if the House will even get a chance to vote on the commonsense Republican alternatives. The people need to make a House Call on Washington this week and tell their Representatives to vote no to a government take-over of one-fifth of our economy. This is gangster government at its worst.

“I urge all Americans to come to Washington this Thursday. Come and meet up with your Representative and tell them that you want to control your health care.”

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

America's Message: Too Far Too Fast!

What Today’s Election Means
November 3rd, 2009
by Saul Anuzis

In my opinion…

The real question and really the only question is does Obama’s aggressive liberal agenda get clipped because moderate Democrats get a real taste of how main street America is not only reacting in polls…but at the polls.

In MI we will pick up State Senate seat that has been held by Democrat Mark Schauer since 2002 until his election last year to the US Congress!
That’s bodes well for MIGOP in the upcoming reapportionment battle and for the potential GOP challenger to Schauer in 2010.

VA is still a win…it’s just that polling shows us it going to be a win, so some are trying to minimize the impact.

NJ is huge…win or close, this spells trouble for the Democrats.

NY is more symbolic and important for the conservative base in our party.
Winning as a conservative vs Republican will have a great impact within the party, more than in DC.

Conservatives can win when they emphasize the right things and don’t allow their message to get co-opted. The Democrats & some of their friends in the media attempt to paint all conservatives as fire breathing cavemen.

But Dede Scozzafava was drubbed, not for being a “moderate” Republican, but for not being a Republican at all. McDonnell was an example on how to do it right.

To some extent American voters like checks & balances – they don’t like one party control – and one party dominance even less. This reflects on Obama’s agenda, Congressional Democrats aggressiveness and the apparent “out of touch” and low approval ratings of Congress in general.

Voters are trying to send the White House and Democrats a message that they’re going too far, too fast, for too many special interests, and if they don’t get the message from tonight, voters will have to send them a louder message in 1 year.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Economy & Government Spending Concerns Trump Health Care & Climate Change

For voters, the economy outpaces all other issues by a wide margin, according to a new Public Strategies Inc./POLITICO poll.

As the nation struggles to climb out of a recession, 45 percent rated the economy as the most important issue in deciding their vote if the congressional election were held today, followed by 21 percent who said government spending, 20 percent who chose health care reform and 9 percent who said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just 4 percent ranked climate change as the top issue.

Economic worries also led a majority of Americans to place jump-starting the economy ahead of concerns about the environment.

Even as the Obama administration is pushing for climate protection legislation, 62 percent of those polled agreed that “economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.”

...Less than half, 45 percent, said regulation of corporations should be increased, while 29 percent preferred that regulation be kept “about the same as it is now” and 26 percent wanted to see regulation of corporations decreased.

...A wide majority, 62 percent, said business will play a larger role in helping the economy recover than the government will, while 38 percent sided with the government. While the majority remains strongly in favor of business, it has actually dropped some since July, when 68 percent chose business and 32 percent said government.

From Politico

Friday, October 16, 2009

$526,610 Per Job - And We Thought a $600 Hammer Was Bad!

Obama’s billions-of-stimulus-dollars-spending-of-your-money created or saved only 30,383 jobs

by Dan Spencer

October 15, 2009

The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the government watchdog which oversees how the stimulus monies are spent reports contractors who received money from President Obama’s failed $787 billion stimulus program created or saved 30,383 jobs by the beginning of October.

According to the Wall Street Journal, this report covers only spending on infrastructure and social programs being carried out by private companies, which were awarded about $16 billion in stimulus funds. That amounts to $526,610 per job created or saved.

Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers claims the stimulus and “other policy actions caused employment in August to be slightly more than one million jobs higher than it otherwise would have been.”

I can’t wait to hear the CEA’s Obama-speak explanation as to how the contractors’ measly 30,383 jobs supports the council’s million plus estimate.

Baucus Health Care - Bad for America:

The Senate Finance Committee voted out the “Baucus Plan” for universal health care on October 13, and the Democratic Leadership in the Senate is now writing a bill which combines the Baucus Plan and a bill reported by the HELP Committee, which they plan to bring to the Senate floor as soon as they can overcome procedural hurdles that will surely be raised by Republicans. There is much to dislike in the Baucus Plan, some of which has been widely discussed.

ACTION: We urge you to contact your Senators and tell them that the Baucus plan is not an acceptable way of reforming healthcare for the reasons outlined below, and to join any of the public rallies & bus tours in your area.

ISSUE-IN-BRIEF: There is much more to dislike in the Baucus Plan than the most obvious. Here are a few:

1. No Bill and no Transparency. The Baucus “Bill” is no bill at all but a 300 page outline and summary of what a bill would look like. The actual bill will contain over 1000 pages and is yet to be written. Democrats have voted down an amendment to make it available for 72 hours before a vote, so when it is brought to the Senate Floor for a vote, no Senator will have read it.

2. Higher spending. The Baucus “summary” is a big spending bill rather than health care legislation. The cost has been estimated at $829 billion over ten years (and will surely go much higher), and the legislation would raise taxes on everybody, including the middle class. Plus the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also says that the takeover would still leave 25 million people uninsured.

3. Higher Taxes. The Baucus summary includes at least $327 billion in new taxes -- a tax on high-cost insurance plans ($210 billion), penalties for not having insurance ($27 billion), and "indirect offsets" (whatever they are -- $83 billion). In addition, state taxes will surely rise as costs are fobbed off on state governments in the form of more Medicaid spending.

4. Higher Health Insurance Premiums. According to an independent study done by an actuary and the Council for Affordable Health Insurance: Health insurance rates will almost double for most American families who buy their own policies if Congress passes universal coverage, guaranteed issue and modified community rating! These are all main features in both versions of the Senate bill. On top of this families will be fined $759--$1500 if they do not buy insurance, even if they cannot afford it.

5. Hidden Employer Mandate. The Baucus summary includes an employer mandate -- watered-down, but still there. There is no specific requirement for employers to provide insurance, but any employer who fails to do so would have to pay the cost of all subsidies that the government provides his or her workers to help them pay for insurance on their own, up to $400 per worker. Since it will ultimately be the employee who pays the cost of the mandate, through reduced compensation or reduced employment, the government will be giving the worker a subsidy with one hand and taking it back with the other.

6. Tax Dollars for Abortion. Current federal law protects American taxpayers from paying for abortions as part of the health benefits given to federal employees—not one of the insurance plans offered includes abortion coverage. To maintain the “status quo” on abortion any health-care bill would have to explicitly prevent federal dollars from being used for elective abortions. Provisions that would have done that were defeated by all five committees that have handled health-care reform bills this year.
7. Big Cuts in Medicare Advantage. The Baucus summary cuts payments to the Medicare Advantage program. In response, many insurers may stop participating in the program while others could increase the premiums they charge seniors. Millions of seniors (the bulk will be lower income elderly and minorities) will be forced off their current plan and back into traditional Medicare.

8. No More Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). The bills that each committee has approved in the Senate and House would eliminate HSAs as an affordable health insurance option for Americans. The government would determine what each health insurance plan looks like, and after all the requirements, mandates, and regulations, the high deductible health plans that accompany tax-free HSAs would not qualify as an acceptable health insurance product.

9. Invades Patients’ Privacy. The Baucus summary would eliminate patients’ rights to health privacy and a patient’s right to control sensitive health information in electronic systems. Every American would be required to have an electronic health record by 2014 and all electronic health records will be data mined without legal and ethical informed consent.

10. Ignores Tort Reform. Despite the fact that medical malpractice litigation adds billions of dollars to healthcare bills and results in billions (some estimate as much as $100 billion) being spent on defensive medicine, the Baucus summary makes no attempt to fix this curse on our system.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Our Constitution is on Life Support

By Mark AlexanderPublisher, PatriotPost.US,

"Early to bed, early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise." --Benjamin Franklin

That wise old sage, Ben Franklin, was prescient back in 1748, when he issued his simple Rx for success. Unfortunately, the wealth and wisdom of generations of Americans have been progressively supplanted by our central government's exercise of unconstitutional authority.

In regard to wealth, I refer most directly to our government's colossal spending and debt accumulation, and unlawful taxation.

As to wisdom, well, there's not much of that emerging from government-run school systems.

Having already depleted the wealth and wisdom of our great nation, the Obama juggernaut is determined to do likewise to health, that third prong of Franklin's trident. If successful, then we may rightly fear it as a deathblow to the greatest experiment in human history.

Where is Doctor Franklin when we really need him?

Simpletons across the United States and, indeed, the world, are beguiled by the Democrat health scare cacophony. While so much has been said, so too has so little. And, as we approach the seemingly inevitable passage of some such diabolical legislation, almost to a citizen everyone is screaming, "Stop the world, I want to get off!" Indeed, only elitist Democrats are charging full-steam ahead, constituents be damned.

Intentionally lost in all this noise is the Leftist tactic of drowning its opposition in waves of excessive and ever-changing health care minutia. With the devil being so well hidden in the details, this ensures that we remain distracted while Rule of Law is further usurped by the rule of man.

As Patriots, we are summoned to slice through this diversionary blather. And, to obtain proper analysis of this overarching objective, we must seek guidance from our founding documents, the Constitution of the United States of America and its superordinate document, the Declaration of Independence.

In a search of the Constitution, we find that the words "health," "medicine" or "medical" are mentioned -- drum roll please -- not even once: not within the original text, nor within 220 years of amendments. (A search of the Articles of Confederation yields similar results.)

To some, this exclusion indicates that the Founding Fathers were unconcerned about the health of their countrymen. But, supporters of this argument expose their condescension, and it is here mentioned to disabuse them of their disdain. For our Founding Fathers sacrificed so greatly for the birth of our nation -- in both blood and treasure -- that to posit such indifference does a great and grotesque disservice to their honor and their memory.

To others, this exclusion indicates that health care was mercifully omitted since medical care of the 1700s was so "primitive" that the cure often caused more harm than the ailment. They further argue that, given the foresight of modern medicine, our Founders would have surely incorporated universal health care within the Constitution. But, supporters of this argument expose their arrogance, and it is here mentioned to disabuse them of their haughtiness. For the medicine of our Founding Fathers was actually advanced in its day, just as the U.S. medicine of today is advanced, and just as tomorrow it will be thought primitive. This, of course, assumes that we successfully restore Rule of Law.

Alas, we discern seemingly little counsel from the Constitution.

And, as we turn to the Declaration, a search for the words "health," "medicine" or "medical" once more yields exactly zero results.

Furthermore, the itemized grievances therein make nary a hint concerning health, even considering the "primitive" conditions discussed above.

Alas, we also discern seemingly little counsel from the Declaration.

However, neither do the Constitution nor the Declaration counsel us with direct verbiage concerning agriculture, textiles, construction and the whole raft of goods and services upon which those everyday necessities of food, clothing and shelter are stationed.

But, the Declaration does aver that all men are created equal, not of outcome but of opportunity; that they are endowed with the right to Life, not a guaranteed good life, not a guaranteed healthy life, but life with all of its miraculous potential; that they are endowed with a right to Liberty, the fusion of freedom and personal responsibility; and that they are endowed with a right to the pursuit of Happiness, the eclectic amalgamation of hopes and dreams and desires and necessities as defined by each individual -- not by faceless, nameless bureaucrats.

Furthermore, the Constitution's Preamble declares that its purpose is to establish Justice, the even-handed application of law to all citizens; to insure domestic Tranquility, the exclusion of class warfare; to promote (not provide) the general Welfare; and to secure the blessings of Liberty, there again, the fusion of freedom with personal responsibility.

So, our founding documents do guide us to proper health care legislation: for it is that which encompasses equality and liberty for consumers and providers alike; that which promotes life above death panels; that which encourages the medical hopes and dreams as defined by each individual; that which constrains, not magnifies, class warfare; and that which secures "the blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity."

Anything more than this is an affront to constitutional order and Rule of Law. As Thomas Jefferson so keenly observed: "Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread." And, it takes little thought, or even imagination, to extend his estimation to the current health care debate.

The bottom line is that Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution, which addresses powers of the legislature, never endowed Congress with authority to regulate or collect taxes for banking, mortgage or automaker bailouts. Neither does it present authority for them to subsidize production or service sectors such as health care. Indeed, James Madison wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents..."

Sadly, not one Democrat bill addresses "health care" so much as it seeks omnipotent centralized government power and control, the currency of the Left. However, the proposals certainly betray the Left's condescension and contempt for Rule of Law, along with their frontal assault upon our Essential Liberty.

Patriot Readers, the U.S. Constitution is on life support. To prevent it from flat-lining, we must exude high dudgeon, we must slice through the Left's onslaught of minutia, and we must surgically endeavor with our every thought and deed to restore a healthy Rule of Law.

Friday, October 9, 2009

For What?

By Gary Bauer

Eyes rolled across America today as the sunrise brought news that our apprentice president had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama’s name is now added to an esteemed list that includes such note-worthies as Jimmy Carter (2002), Kofi Annan (2001) and Yasser Arafat (1994). (Somehow the Nobel Committee never got around to recognizing the achievements of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher or Pope John Paul II, who brought down Soviet Communism and peacefully liberated tens of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain.)

All the commentators are suggesting the prize is premature because President Obama hasn’t actually accomplished anything yet to bring about peace. That view fails to understand the mindset of leftwing elites who run international organizations like the Nobel Committee. To them, America is the real threat to peace, particularly when we are led by men like Reagan and Bush, confident leaders who believed in American exceptionalism and willing to confront tyranny.

It also sends a message of just how much disdain the European elites have for the rest of us who dare to oppose the president’s appeasement and his socialism. George Bush’s efforts to keep America and the world safe from radical Islamic terrorism – the biggest threat to world peace today – were never deserving of recognition. But by electing Barack Obama, America got it “right,” and the liberal elites want to make sure you understand that fact, so they have bestowed Barack with one of the highest honors the international community can offer.

Today America is led by the “anti-Reagan.” In his eight-and-a-half months in office, Obama has made apologizing for America a top priority. He couldn’t find his voice when the Iranian regime crushed skulls. He tells the United Nations that no country or group of countries can be above anyone else. He has turned U.S. policy in the Middle East on its head – reaching out to Syria, Iran and Libya while regularly suggesting too many Jews in Jerusalem are the roadblock to peace. He has dissed our allies, cancelled a defensive missile system and has been silent on human rights abuses in Cuba, Venezuela and around the world.

Just so you know, there were other nominees, including folks like Greg Mortenson, a decorated Army veteran, son of a Lutheran missionary and best-selling author. Mortenson has dedicated more than a decade of his life working in remote regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan building schools and helping to educate tens of thousands of children, especially young girls. You can read more about Greg Mortenson here.

That Mortenson’s incredible record of accomplishment lost out to Obama’s rhetoric is not surprising. If you are a left-wing internationalist who thinks the key to peace is a weaker America willing to take orders from the U.N., who in the world would you give the Nobel Peace Prize to other than Barack Hussein Obama?

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Keeping You Blindfolded With Your Hands Tied Behind Your Back

As the American people become more vigilant at watching Congress, they apparently feel the need to restructure and manipulate the legislative process by any means necessary.

And as opposition to Obamacare grows they continue to advance their dirty work in aggressive but stealth ways, all the while neutralizing their constituents in what can only be described as blindfolded with their hands tied behind their backs.

They want Obamacare, and they are willing to exclude you and anyone else who would stand in their way.

Fix Health Care Policy is an organization on the job for the people, and you need to plug into this resource right away. They released an alarming report today that you need to read "Congress's Secret Plan to Pass Obamacare". As the plot thickens so must our vigilance.

"The San Francisco Examiner published an editorial today that exposed the fact that the American people can't see the bill.

"When then-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised not to sign major legislation until it had been posted on the Internet for public reading at least five days, trusting voters took him at his word. Now they know better.

Not only is the actual language of what is likely to become the main legislative vehicle for Obama's signature health care reform not available on the Internet, it hasn't been given to members of the key Senate committees or the Congressional Budget Office."

The procedure being used, in addition to the exclusion of the American people from the process, should be of grave concern to all who want to participate in democracy and have a say in Congress' health care debate that will touch one-sixth of the U.S. economy."

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

What is Vat? Pelosi's Massive Tax Hike

**Information From The Heritage Foundation

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has joined the growing liberal chorus calling for a massive tax hike through the implementation of a value added tax (VAT).

A VAT is similar to a national sales tax. Businesses would pay it at each stage of the production process and consumers at the cash register. European countries have suffered with VATs for years.

As we pointed out earlier this year, Congress should not pass a VAT to pay for a government takeover of the health care system or expand the size of government. If it does, it will mean a massive tax hike for YOU!

Some suggest the VAT rate should be set as high as 20 percent. At that rate, a VAT that covers all goods and services in our economy – including food, clothing, housing, and health care – would collect an additional $1,260 billion a year and cost every U.S. household $10,680 annually.

Right now the rate being considered is 15%, but know that if Congress passes a VAT at any rate it WILL be pushed higher in the future.

Evidence from other countries that already have VATs prove that once it is implamented it is easy to raise.

The American people would be better off if Congress would stop spending other people's money.

Adding a new entitlement will only make the country’s fiscal situation worse and painful tax hikes more likely. Unfortunately, that might have been the plan all along.

Send Congress Their Pink Slips!

After all the Tea Parties, Townhalls, and the massive demonstration in Washington DC it seems Congress STILL hasn't gotten the message the people are sending.

So it's time to SHOW them just how serious we are, and SEND right to their door a tangible message aimed directly at what they care most about - getting re-elected.

Let's put Congress on notice - all 535 of them - by sending each of them a pink slip. Remind them just WHO it is they work for - WE THE PEOPLE - and WHAT you're willing to do about it - REPLACE THEM!

In the first 10 days alone this campaign to send "pink slips" to Congress has resulted in an unprecedented and historic effort generating 2.25 million individually addressed notices to all members of the House and Senate – and proving, once again, that Americans are mobilized to take action to stop Washington's plans for bigger, more expensive and more intrusive government.

The "pink slips" specifically warn that we will oppose in the next election any member of Congress who votes for more spending, intrusive legislation that restricts personal freedom and more big government programs.

The cost of each message translates to six cents per message – $29.95 - for 535 "pink slips" individually addressed for both the recipient and the sender and shipped by Fed Ex.

Last week, suppliers of paper to the campaign reported the campaign had completely tapped the nation's supply of 8.5 x 11 inch pink paper. As the last full pallet of pink paper was delivered to the printer, new supplies had to be ordered and manufactured.

Click on the link below and join this historic opportunity to SHOUT our message to Congress "If you vote for big government, anti-family legislation your REAL pink slip will be issued in the next election. COUNT ON IT!"


ACTION: They're Voting on the Draft!

Within 48 hours, the Senate Finance Committee is expected to vote on its draft of ObamaCare--complete with the Individual Mandate, the Corporate Mandate and its version of the Public option.

It is a "draft" because the Finance Committee has not published actual legislative text but instead (as is the tradition of this committee) is working off what is called the "Chairman's Mark" of the bill.

Our Senator serves on the Finance Committee, and she needs to hear from Washington State voter right now regarding her upcoming healthcare vote.

We know that Senator Cantwell is preparing to cast a vote that could radically change the face of our nation, and it's critical that you weigh-in before that important vote is cast!

Let Sen. Cantwell know you oppose healthcare reform
and any form of an individual mandate.

Your phone call is critical--especially at this late hour.
What a coup it would be if your phone call motivated your
Senator to cast a NO vote!

Sen. Cantwell 202-224-3441

Please also call Senator Murray and express similar sentiment about ObamaCare. Calls to other key members of the Senate Finance Committee are critical - URGE THEM TO VOTE NO!

Sen. Murray 202-224-2621

Sen. Baucus (Chair): 202-224-2651

Finance Committee: 202-224-4515

**info from Grassfire.org**

Obama's Doctors

Yesterday, President Obama held a press conference at the White House with a backdrop of doctors supportive of his government-run health care plan.

After about 5 minutes of research, we found that Doctors for America, the group to which the doctors belong, was formerly known as the campaign group Doctors for Obama (note how this site instructs you to visit drsforamerica.org), a group that falls under the umbrella of Obama's ongoing community organizing and legislative agenda campaign group, "Organizing for America."

Obama's hosting of this activist group at the White House is a testament to the true lack of support for his health care proposal within the medical profession--Obama had to rely on his community organizing group to supply his health care press conference participants!

An interesting side note - The invited physicians were told to be camera ready in their white lab coats to make the most of this photo op for Obama. However, some apparently forgot and showed up in businesswear. White House staffers quickly rustled up white coats handing them to the suited physicians already seated on the White House lawn. Too funny!

Monday, October 5, 2009

Losing Private Insurance Trumps Public Option

Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters nationwide say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage is a higher priority than giving people the choice of a public option.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 29% take the opposite view. They say it’s more important to give people the choice between private insurance and a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option.

Most liberal voters say giving people the choice of a public option is more important. But, most moderates take the opposite view and Republicans overwhelmingly agree with them.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Taxpayer Alert: YOU Are On Their Mind

Legislators are back in Olympia for the next two days and YOU are on their mind.

It is the annual session known as Committee Days, and joining them in Olympia are a motley crew of tax hike advocates vying for their attention...and your money.

SEIU and others plan to pressure lawmakers to raise YOUR taxes rather than cut THEIR spending to fix the rapidly growing 2011-13 budget deficit.

Even Governor Gregoire has stated that raising taxes is on the table. You can count on it!

So YOU NEED TO CALL to call Olympia tomorrow... and Friday. Yes, call them again. Let the know THEY are on your mind too. Legislative Hotline - 1.800.562.6000

Tell them to get a grip on THEIR spending, and to leave you and your paycheck ALONE. To even think of increasing taxes in this economy is insane.

After you call, check out other candidates running for your legislators seat. Get to know them a bit. Ask them if they will pledge to cut government spending and give taxpaying citizens a break. If they agree, get involved in their campaign immediately.

I don't know about you, but I'm ready for some change in Washington State. I'm so done with this Democrat dominance and their fixation on what I work to earn.

Time for some serious fiscal restraint, and leaders courageous enough to do it. Let's elect some starting right now!

Friday, September 25, 2009

Take America Back

Eagle Forum, a conservative public policy organization founded by Phyllis Schlafly, will host the national How to Take Back America Conference this weekend in conjunction with its 38th Annual Eagle Council on September 25th and 26th at the Hilton Frontenac Hotel in St. Louis.

Eagle Forum will join forces with some of today’s leading conservative activists and media personalities, including radio talk show host and president of Faith2Action Janet Folger Porter, radio mogul Dick Bott, owner of WorldNetDaily Joseph Farah, founder of Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College Michael Farris, dean of Liberty University Law School Mat Staver, and founder of American Family Association Don Wildmon.

Featured speakers will include six Members of Congress: Rep. Steve King (IA), Rep. Tom McClintock (CA), Rep. Tom Price, M.D. (GA), Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN), Rep. Trent Franks (AZ) and Rep. Todd Akin (MO). Other national figures will include three-star General Jerry Boykin, “Joe the Plumber,” former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, and musical guest Sonicflood.

“President Obama and his radical left-wing policies are uniting conservatives all over the country and are motivating people who have never been politically active to pay attention and to get involved,” said Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly. “So, we decided to expand our annual conference this year to bring together experienced grassroots activists and those who might be newly engaged in politics through the Tea Party movement.”

The How to Take Back America Conference is designed to be a crash course in conservative grassroots activism, featuring nearly forty speakers presenting twenty-four “how-to” workshops, including How to use New Media technology, How to defend America from missile attack, How to deal with voter fraud, the Census, and ACORN, How conservatives can win in 2010, How to stop socialism in health care, and How to bring youth into the conservative movement.

“This Conference is designed to encourage and educate conservative activists through knowledgeable speakers and through ahead-of-the-curve strategy sessions,” said Schlafly. “Those who are new to the movement will learn from those of us who have been laboring for many years, but most importantly, we will teach them that conservatives really can win.”

Monday, September 21, 2009

“I Absolutely Reject that Notion.”

President Obama ran into a problem from an unlikely source yesterday during his television marathon of five Sunday talk shows. ABC host George Stephanopoulos confronted the president on whether the large penalties in the bill ($3,800 per family) for those who refuse to buy health insurance constitute a tax.

The president, understandably, was adamant in denying it was a tax. If it is a tax, then he is violating his pledge not to raise taxes on middle class families – a political disaster.

As Stephanopoulos pressed the point, Obama said, “No. That’s not true, George.” A few minutes later, he objected again, and said, “No, but, but, George, you – you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.”

Stephanopoulos then cited a Webster’s dictionary, which defines “tax” as “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

Obama objected again, and told Stephanopoulos that by looking up tax in the dictionary, he was “stretching a little bit right now.” Stephanopoulos gave up and asked, “But you reject that it’s a tax increase?” President Obama responded, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

The president may reject that notion, but right about now Congressman Joe Wilson might again need to yell “You lie!”

Several news outlets took a look at the Senate bill to see what it called the penalties. There it was in black and white on page 29: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.”

According to Politico, the legislation goes on to state that the tax would be collected: “through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of federal tax owed.”

By the way, here is another $1,800 middle class tax increase the administration is pushing and trying its best to deny.

~ Gary Bauer

Friday, September 18, 2009

Millions of Stimulus Dollars For Signs

By Stephen Dinan & Salena Zito

They're spending hundreds of billions of dollars to stimulate the economy, so Senate Democrats said Wednesday they might as well spend millions putting up signs to highlight where the money is being spent.

The road signs, which let motorists know the paving and construction projects they see are being paid for by the $787 billion economic stimulus program, have popped up across the country.

In a 52-45 vote, the Senate decided the signs should stay.

Lori Irving, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Transportation, acknowledged the department strongly encouraged states to use stimulus funding to develop the signs.

"The signs are not required," she said.

Some states, like Virginia, chose not to erect signs.

"Personally I think it is ridiculous that any of the stimulus money is used by government entities to make signs," said Mike Cupp of Morgantown, W.Va.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Another Bizarre Czar

On Thursday, the Senate confirmed, by a vote of 57-40, the nomination of Cass Sunstein to be Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a.k.a. "Regulatory Czar," overseeing all federal regulations. That makes at least 33 or so of these "czars" currently in the Obama administration, most without facing a Senate confirmation hearing, and all with wide-sweeping powers.

Sunstein has some bizarre and frankly scary ideas. Related to health care, he has written: "I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people."

He also believes that animals should be allowed to sue their owners. Sadly, he is not the only bizarre czar at the White House.

The "Science Czar," John Holdren, believes trees should be allowed to sue, that a born baby "will ultimately develop into a human being," and in a 1977 textbook proposed forced abortion and sterilization as potential government methods for population control.

Recently the "green jobs czar," Van Jones, resigned when his radical views became widely known. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) has called for President Obama's czars to testify before Congress.

While the hearing might need to be held in the House chamber to hold the entire czar army, more people need to know the extremist views of those with whom the President has surrounded himself for counsel.

President Obama's health care plan envisions no less than 53 new federal panels, boards and organizations; if enacted into law, the new Regulatory Czar will have even more to regulate!

Tony Perkins

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Five Things the President SHOULD Say on Health Care


Tonight, President Barack Obama will address a joint session of Congress to discuss health care. While he and his speechwriters are putting their polishing touches on what he will say, I would like to give him some unsolicited advice by reiterating what FRC has been saying for years about what any health care reform should include.

First is portability and accessibility. The national priority should focus on affordable health insurance for insured and uninsured families; not on creating government-controlled programs to ensure all Americans receive a one-size-fits-all insurance policy.

Second, any such plan should, at the minimum, maintain current public protections from forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion -- this can only be done by specifically excluding it, something none of the current plans being discussed do.

The third priority is there should be no government mandates. Families (and businesses) should not be faced with massive fines if they fail to follow the orders of Washington on health insurance. Enough with the Nanny State!

A fourth concern should focus on choice, which would include real portability that is long term portability. Choice also includes the right of parents to be involved with the health decisions of their children and to have access to their medical records. And choice means being able to select physicians and plans based on those benefits deemed most appropriate for a specific family.

Choice also plays into the final criterion--the right of conscience needs to be protected. This means the conscience of health care providers and medical students must be protected as well as the corporate conscience of health insurers and their subscribers.

These principles are what I hear as I travel the nation and as I attended town hall meetings. Is the President listening?

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

UN Wants New Global Currency to Replace Dollar

By Edmund Conway
07 Sep 2009

The dollar should be replaced with a global currency, the United Nations has said, proposing the biggest overhaul of the world's monetary system since the Second World War.

In a radical report, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has said the system of currencies and capital rules which binds the world economy is not working properly, and was largely responsible for the financial and economic crises.

It added that the present system, under which the dollar acts as the world's reserve currency , should be subject to a wholesale reconsideration.

Although a number of countries, including China and Russia, have suggested replacing the dollar as the world's reserve currency, the UNCTAD report is the first time a major multinational institution has posited such a suggestion.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Lawmakers Seek Political Survival

Political survival will be high on lawmakers' minds when the Democratic-led U.S. Congress returns to work on Tuesday amid widespread voter dissatisfaction with its performance.

While the debates over healthcare reform, global warming and banking legislation and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will dominate the airwaves, many incumbents, both Democrats and Republicans, are beginning to worry about holding on to their seats in November 2010 elections.

Polls show only about one-third of Americans approve of how lawmakers are doing, less than a year after President Barack Obama led Democrats to big gains in Congress.

Surveys find voters have a dim view of both parties, but history suggests Obama's Democrats face greater risks because they control Congress and the White House.

"There's a lot of discontent out there and when that's the case the party in power pretty inevitably gets the blame," said Dean Debnam of Public Policy Polling, a private firm.

A recent survey Public Policy Polling underscored the anti-incumbent mood.

It found that only 47 percent of voters say they would vote to reelect their member of Congress. Incumbents have long received upward of 60 percent of the vote.

The poor poll figures frustrate Democrats who have touted the major legislation they passed with Obama's help.

- Reuters

Friday, September 4, 2009

The Obama Depression - Speaking of Hope & Change...

The Administration’s mismanagement of the economy continues to take a heavy toll.

In August the economy lost 216,000 jobs, roughly equivalent to the population of Reno, NV, just in case Harry Reid is interested. Over 5 million Americans had been out of work for over 6 months. Over 9 million were working at part time jobs because that was all they could get. Another three-quarters of a million were no longer bothering looking work.

If workers who have accepted part time employment and discouraged workers were included with the unemployed, the unemployed rate would now be in Jimmy Carter country at 16.8%.

Speaking of Hope and Change, the Change came through in August with average hourly wages increasing by six cents, or $124.80 a year. Woo hoo, time to party like it was 1979.

by Streiff at RedState

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Democrats Plan To Give You A Raise

Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation

Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent

Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent

Raise an average family’s annual energy bill by $1,241

[numbers from Heritage Foundation Study]

That is the devastating raise Obama and the Democrats have in store for you when they pass their Cap & Trade bill. It has already passed the House [how did your Congressman vote?] and is now in the hands of the Senate.

The stimulus has accomplished nothing, and yet the Democrats in Congress are intent on making a bad situation worse by now passing Cap & Trade legislation that will cripple American businesses and devastate families even further.

According to Kevin Holtsberry "Voters need to understand that this bill won’t help the environment and won’t magically lead to a Utopian world of green jobs and renewable powered energy. This is big government, bad science, and terrible economics.

It is not an easy time. Jobs are scarce and there are battles on multiple fronts. But the only way to dig ourselves out of this hole is to stop digging and start making policies that help not hurt.

Cap and Trade is a dagger aimed at the economy of the heartland and it must be stopped."

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Homosexuals, Marriage and Referendum 71

Homosexuals have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us

Referendum 71 has successfully exceeded the 120,577 valid signatures needed to qualify, and Secretary of State Sam Reed has certified Referendum 71 to the Nov. 3 statewide ballot in Washington state.

Barring a successful 11th-hour court challenge, voters will decide the fate of a newly adopted state law that gives state-registered domestic partners the full rights and responsibilities that married couples have.

It is described by state Elections Director Nick Handy as possibly the narrowest margin ever for a measure winning a ballot spot.

From here our resolve to protect marriage in Washington State only intensifies as we will work tirelessly to inform and educate every citizens on this important and pivotal vote in November.

Three important reads:

"Spin a globe and pick virtually any place on earth at any previous time in human history; you will find that they do marriage one way — between men and women. There may be other differences, but marriage has always required a husband and a wife.

Why? Marriage teaches that men and women need each other and that children need mothers and fathers. A loving and compassionate society comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless children, but no compassionate society intentionally deprives children of their own mom or dad. But this is what every same-sex home does — and for no other reason but to satisfy adult desire.

Same-sex marriage advocates want to force everyone to dramatically and permanently alter our definition of marriage and family. The great, historic, cross-cultural understanding of marriage as the union of husband and wife will be called bigotry in the public square. The law will teach your children and grandchildren that there is nothing special about mothers and fathers raising children together, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot."

~ National organization For Marriage

"It is often difficult to determine gay activists' true intentions since, from the beginning, most have been less than honest about their goals or the facts. In addition to their co-opting the Civil Rights Movement as an extension of the gay cause, let us examine some of the other falsehoods they have advanced over the past decade.

Ten years ago, gay activists claimed they had no interest in pursuing gay marriage. They asserted that all they wanted was equal protection under the law, hospital visitation rights and the right to transfer property in the event of a death -- all of which I support.

It is now obvious that their goal all along was the advancement of gay marriage. How else can one explain the methodical way in which they have worked to change marriage laws in small, liberal states initially, and later in as many other states as possible."

By Gwen Richardson

"Back in April, homosexual activists in Montpelier, Vermont's state capital, managed to get 100 votes in the state's House--the bare minimum necessary--to legalize counterfeit "marriages" for homosexuals.

That law took effect today, but the number of same-sex couples who had applied for marriage licenses in Montpelier was--zero. The same for Brattleboro and Manchester. In Burlington , the state's largest city, there had been only three.

Again, we see that the push to legally recognize homosexual unions is not based on any need for the "benefits" of marriage, or desire to "marry." Instead, it's about providing affirmation of homosexuality itself."

by Tony Perkins