Congress Porks Out ... Again!

You would think that after the experience with the porkulus/spendulus bill, which enjoyed a favorable rating of over 50% until details of the pork and earmarks attached to it became available after which support fell to barely 37%, that Congress would get the message that we Americans don't want our hard-earned money to be confiscated away and then given to some pet project that doesn't benefit us at all.

But, members of Congress (both Democrat and Republican) seem to never learn. According to the New York Post:

Congress went on a pork-a-palooza yesterday, approving a massive spending bill with big bucks for Hawaiian canoe trips, research into pig smells, and tattoo removal - all while the nation faces an economic crisis.

Clearly, they have not learned. But this isn't all:

The bill also has a whopping 8 percent increase over last year for the numerous federal agencies it funds.

Let's see, the Obama administration has absolutely no clue as to how it is going to provide oversight for the porkulus/spendulus funding towards the Federal Government and Congress is increasing that money already?

And the fact that 40% of this pork came from Republican lawmakers is not good at all. I hope Michael Steele is paying attention so he knows who not to back in the 2010 elections.

More:

The bill, which critics slammed as larded with pork, has big bucks to combat putrid stenches in the heartland, with $1.7 million for "Swine Odor and Manure Management Research." That's on top of $1.9 million in each of the last two years, or nearly $6 million over the last three years. The swine research center, at Iowa State University in Ames, got funds through the Agricultural Research Service, and aims to improve the smell of animals and the lagoons where waste is stored.

Well, God knows we can't live without knowing all there is to know about the smells that come from pigs, now can we?

And this little tidbit, I thought was most telling:

Obama has criticized earmarks and insisted they be kept out of stimulus legislation - a suggestion that drew laughs from Republicans at the president's address to Congress Tuesday night. ... Meanwhile, Obama is set to unveil a proposal today that sets aside $634 billion over the next 10 years for health-care reform. He plans to pay for it, in part, by capping tax deductions for families that earn more than $250,000 a year.

More socialism that we cannot afford, on top of the pork that we cannot afford.

And Obama's comment on earmarks? Whom does he think he is kidding? Why did he bother to say anything about that when it is clear to everyone that he has no intention of ever enforcing such a policy?

Obama and Congress are spending our money like drunken sailors on shore-leave. The only thing they will accomplish is destroy an already fragile economy and bankrupt future generations who will have to pay the bill for all of this fiscal foolishness.

It is time we remembered what Margaret Thatcher said: "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." The way Obama and Congress are spending, that day will be coming much sooner than later.

Obama and congress seem to have no problem spending our money, but I am sure that they take care of themselves pretty well.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Congress' Porky Pols Pig Out On Fine $wine
Geoff Earle and Daphne Retter
New York Post
February 26, 2009

Obama's Backdoor To The Fairness Doctrine Advances

Although Obama has publically stated that he does not endorse a return of the Fairness Doctrine, a policy that effectively censors conservative speech on the radio, he did tell the FCC that he wants to see more "minority ownership" of broadcast outlets.

That is essentially his backdoor to censoring talk radio and the Dems in Congress are going to help him do it.

From Amanda Carpenter at Town Hall:

The Senate overwhelmingly approved a measure to prevent the Fairness Doctrine from being reinstated today, yet also agreed to urge the Federal Communications Commission to increase "diversity" on the airwaves. President Obama wrote a letter to the FCC when he was Illinois senator saying action must be taken to increase minority ownership in print and broadcast media. Conservative watchdogs have argued using government to do this is a "backdoor" version of the Fairness Doctrine. Both actions were attached to a larger bill to grant Washington D.C. voting rights. At this point it is unclear if either measure would be included in the final version of the bill. Conservative Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.) sponsored the amendment to kill the Fairness Doctrine. It passed 87-11. Liberal Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.) sponsored the competing amendment for more media diversity, which passed 57-41.

So, what we have here is an initiative by the Dems to have government step in and shut down any network or stations that they don't think are "diverse" enough.

I'm pretty sure that Durbin and the other socialists who want to see hosts like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham taken off the air are already thinking up ways to claim that outlets who carry conservative talk radio are not "diverse" enough and also thinking up the legal language to be used to have them shut down. I guess you could call it affirmative action for radio.

Nothing like using a back-door to trample on the First Amendment, eh?

You can access the complete entry on-line here:

Obama's Back Door Fairnes Doctrine Advances
Amande Carpenter
TownHall.com
February 26, 2009

Vice-President Joe Biden's Attempted Hit Piece On Bobby Jindal Backfires; VP Tells Big Lie

One thing you can always count on the Democrats for is that whenever someone speaks out against them, the Dems will orchestrate a campaign against that person, usually with the help of the media, in order to somehow discredit that person and the Dems will use half-truths and outright lies when they can.

The list of people that the Dems have done this to is too long to recount here. But, the latest victim is Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Here is what Vice President Joe Biden had to say after Governor Jindal gave the response to Obama's State of the Union address.

According to KSLA News:

Wednesday morning on the CBS Early Show, Vice President Joe Biden asked, "But what I don't understand from Governor Jindal is what would he do? In Louisiana, there's 400 people a day losing their jobs."

But Biden's claim is a lie.

More:

"In December, Louisiana was the only state in the nation besides the District of Columbia, according to the national press release, that added employment over the month," said Patty Granier with the Louisiana Workforce Commission. "The state gained 3,700 jobs for the seasonally adjusted employment," Granier said of the most recent figures. Those numbers are available on Louisiana's employment website, laworks.net.

I can think of only one reason why Joe Biden would tell such a blatent lie. It is the beginning of yet another campaign to discredit a public figure who opoosed the Democrats. I think Joe Biden knew it was a lie but told it anyway knowing that CBS would do nothing to correct him.

If anyone from CBS wishes to defend the actions of the Early Show, please feel free to respond to this post. In a similar manner, if anyone at CBS was able to confirm where Joe Biden got his information from, again, please respond.

You can access the original article on-line here:

Reality Check For Vice President Joe Biden
Fred Childers
KSLA Channel 12
February 25, 2009

Obama's Tax Increases: Heralding The Beginning Of The Second Great Depression

Are you ready for double-digit unemployment and double-digit inflation rates? We haven't seen that since Jimmy Carter. But, they are on their way here again.

Barack Obama's tax-and-spend liberal policies are the same exact policies that Jimmy Carter tried and the same exact policies that took us into the recession of late 70's/early 80's. We got out of that recession by cutting taxes and letting the American economy grow.

Only this time, Obama's policies are Carter's policies on steroids. The results are going to be even more catastrophic than Carter's, and those of us who remember 1979 know exactly how catastrophic they were. It was the first time since the Great Depression that we has a misiery index over 20. (Misery index = inflation rate plus unemployment rate.)

Here is what Barack Obama wants to do to our economy according to Jake Tapper of ABC News:

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals. 1) On people making more than $250,000. $338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire $179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction $118 billion - capital gains tax hike Total: $636 billion/10 years 2) Businesses: $17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes $24 billion - tax carried-interest as income $5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine" $61 billion - repeal LIFO $210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform $4 billion - information reporting for rental payments $5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas $3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs $62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants $49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties $13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies $1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers $882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit Total: $353 billion/10 years

Several things to notice here:

1. Look at all the new taxes on oil and gas companies. How high do you think the price for a gallon of gas will go? How badly do you think that will affect low and middle income families? It is not only the gas that will go up in price but anything that has to be transported will go up in price as well. That includes food, clothing and any other consumer commodity that must be transported by ship, truck or rail.

2. The total revenue on these new taxes is $989 billion. That doesn't even cover the porkulus/spendulus bill (1.3 trillion total in spending and interest) and represents only about half of Obama's proposed $1.75 trillion deficit! Who among you really believes that the Dems are going to stop their tax-and-spend orgy at people making more than $250,000 per year? How long before the proposed new taxes extend downwards towards people making $100,000 per year, or $75,000 per year or $50,000 per year? I'm betting months.

I have historical fact on my side for that last assertion. In 1992, Bill Clinton promised that his new taxes would not affect anyone making less than $90,000 per year. After they added up all the numbers, a new tax law was passed through Congress which levied new taxes on people making as little as $36,000 per year. So much for unkeepable promises.

These new taxes will mark the beginning of the Second Great Depression, just as Smoot-Hawley heralded the onset of the First Great Depression.

When all is said and done, the Democrats will only have themselves to blame for the coming financial disaster, but you can be certain they will be trying to pass the blame off on someone else.

You can access the complete entry on-line here:

Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion In New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
Jake Tapper
ABC News
February 26, 2009

Excellent Dilbert Cartoon: Sums Up The Democrat Controlled Congress Nicely

Normally, Dilbert wouldn't be a political cartoon, but this particular strip is fantastic:



Priceless.

Obama's Deficit: His Gift To Future Generations

Can someone tell me why just a few days ago this guy was bitching about inheriting a budget deficit from the previous administration but then turns around and does this:

President Barack Obama is sending Congress a budget Thursday that projects the government's deficit for this year will soar to $1.75 trillion ...

He was complaining about the deficits left to him by the previous administration. Is he so ignorant that he does not realize that he will be passing along deficits that will be five to ten times larger to the next administration in 2012?

And here is what is going to send us into a new Great Depression:

A senior administration official told The Associated Press that Obama's $3 trillion-plus spending blueprint also asks Congress to raise taxes on the wealthy in 2011 and cut Medicare costs to provide health care for the uninsured. It would raise taxes on wealthy hedge fund managers and corporations ... Obama's budget proposal would effectively raise income taxes and curb tax deductions on couples making more than $250,000 a year, beginning in 2011.

Somehow, Obama and the socialists in Congress have convinced themselves that taking money away from those who provide investment and employment will magically result in more investment and employment. The exact opposite is going to happen and given Obama's track record in his recent speeches, he will come up with any lie to try and blame someone else.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Official: Budget Projects $1.75 Trillion Deficit
NBC News and News Services via MSNBC
February 26, 2009

New York Times Article From September 30, 1999 Showcases Who Is Really Responsible For The Credit Crisis

Despite Barack Obama's bold-faced lie about deregulation being the cause for the mortgage credit crisis, the New York Times, in an article published on September 30, 1999, reveals the truth about what happened and why.

We know that it all began with the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act which required banks and lenders to make risky loans to people who didn't have the credit rating necessary to qualify for those loans.

But, as the NYT article illustrates, it was stepped up and taken to even further extremes. Now, we all know who was President in 1999, right? (Hint: it wasn't a Republican.)

Here are some exceprts from that article:

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Did you read that? "Fannie Mae is easing credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders."

Now, why would they do that?

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people ...

Yes, you read that correctly. "Under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration." This was also the time when Franklin Raines made millions off of Fannie Mae even though he knew it was heading for big trouble.

I wonder if Barack Obama knew about this before he told his bold-faced lie about Republicans being at fault for the credit crisis in his State of the Union Address last night?

More:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's. "From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry."

Again, more history that gets ignored by leftist politicians. It was the conservative American Enterprise Institute that saw the danger and the libs ignored it. And, everytime someone brought up the possibility that Freddie and Fannie would go under, it was libs who blocked any effort at reform.

Finally:

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The push for making all of these subprime loans came first from the 1977 CRA (passed and signed into law by Democrats) and then later from the Clinton Administration.

Now, who is responsible for this economic crisis? (Hint: they were not Republicans.)

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
Steven A. Holmes
New York Times
September 30, 1999

And just in case the New York Times decides to place this article into a memory hole, you can download it in .pdf format here:

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
Steven A. Holmes
New York Times
September 30, 1999

Fact-Checking Obama's Speech: His Words Ring Hollow

A look at a few of Obama's statements from his speech last night. Clearly, as he did with his comments on the deficit, he is trying to lay blame at someone else's feet if the economy gets worse, which under his policies, it most certainly will.

Here they are:

OBAMA: "We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values." THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn't said so. Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it's important to save those who made bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed. "I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed." Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it's not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn't afford. "I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.

In other words, you and I will be working to pay off mortgages for people like Peggy The Moocher.

OBAMA: "And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it." THE FACTS: Depends what your definition of automobiles, is. According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany's Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline engine, in 1885 or 1886. In the U.S., Charles Duryea tested what library researchers called the first successful gas-powered car in 1893. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable.

It's hard to believe that any Ivy League institution would be proud of an alumnus who can't get the facts of history straight.

OBAMA: "We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before." THE FACTS: Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over 5 billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007 was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The nation is on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and government projections are for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades.

Again, scare tactics from the One who wanted to give us "hope and change." What he is basically saying here is that he wants us all to pony up more money for unproven technologies and make his environmentalist friends and lobbyists rich in the process.

OBAMA: "We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade." THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common in government, they don't mean much. And at times, they are a way for a president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House. Obama only has a real say on spending during the four years of his term. He may not be president after that and he certainly won't be 10 years from now.

And don't forget that the price tag of the porkulus package is over $1.3 trillion. If Obama's above statement were true, then there is no deficit right now and our children and grandchildren won't have to work to pay off our debt. I don't know of a single reputable economist who would agree with that. Certainly, the Congressional Budget Office does not agree with that assessment since they are predicting that our economy will shrink as a result of the porkulus/spendulus bill.

OBAMA: "Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day." THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn't only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation.

And here you have probably the most glaring example of Obama trying to pass the buck. I can tell you one set of regulations that wasn't gutted: those regulations in the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make bad loans to risky home buyers and ultimately resulted in the credit crisis we are in today. Obama actually tells a bold-faced lie here by making it seem like lenders did this voluntarily. Sorry, but it was the 1977 CRA (passed and signed into law by Democrats) that is to blame, not the Republicans.

OBAMA: "In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them. We'll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn't make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas." THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps. That's all a president can do, because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama's proposals here are a wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress. Second, waste, fraud and abuse are routinely targeted by presidents who later find that the savings realized seldom amount to significant sums. Programs that a president might consider wasteful have staunch defenders in Congress who have fought off similar efforts in the past.

This also shows Obama's ignorance on economic matters. Companies do not outsource jobs because the American tax system gives them a break, they outsource them because the tax system already makes it more expensive to hire American than it does to ship the jobs offshore. If our corporate tax code were not so suffocating, fewer jobs would get shipped overseas. Obama's plans will ensure that more jobs go outside of the United States.

OBAMA: "Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years." THE FACTS: While the president's stimulus package includes billions in aid for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone. In 2007, the U.S. produced 8.4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydroelectric dams, solar panels and windmills. Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take more than two decades to boost that figure to 12.5 percent.

And it will cost more to implement and continue to run these energy production facilities than it costs to use the proven technologies we already have. Plus, you have hypocrits like Ted Kennedy opposing windmills near their vacation homes because it somehow disrupts their view.

OBAMA: "Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs." THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers. The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error."

It also means they will have wiggle room to blame others when their own policies come up severely short.

Obama's entire speech was nothing more than window dressing. He and the Democrats are looking for a pipe dream that simply will not come true. Government cannot magically create jobs and energy sources have these nagging little things like the laws of physics to contend with. Further, taxpayers will not appreciate having to bail out people like Peggy the Moocher and other malcontents waiting for a welfare handout while the rest of us actually get off of our rears and at least try to do work.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

FACT CHECK: Obama's Words On Home Aid Ring Hollow
Calvin Woodward and Jim Kuhnhenn (Tom Raum, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Dina Cappiello also contributed)
Associated press via TownHall.com
February 25, 2009

Time For Americans To Say "NO!"

Laura Hollis began her most recent column with a quote from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Would you like to read it? Here it is:

I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win – and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind … The word [is] ‘No.’” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Why is this so significant? Because we are on our way to a disaster known as socialism, against our wills apprently. And it is looking like the only way we can forstall this transition is to say "No."

How hard is it to say "No?" Pretty hard for most people. Mostly for two reasons: 1) they are not fully informed about what is being done in their name and 2) they rely on the old saying "to get along you have to go along." Wrong. Going along means simply that you have become a sheep and are willing to be led around by the nose, even if it means going in a direction that you don't want to go.

The current economic situation underscores my point. The American taxpayer did not cause any of the current conditions. Government did beginning with the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act. But, the taxpayer is being made to pay for it with things like the recent $1.3 trillion pork-spending package that more than doubled our deficit. And Obama and his socialist allies in Congress are betting on the "go along to get along" mentality to get away with squandering our children's and grandchildren's futures without being called to account on it.

This is where we say "No!"

Read on:

We are having hundreds of billions of our hard-earned tax dollars taken from us and given to the same organizations that got us in this mess, under the advice and counsel of the same irresponsible and deceitful politicians like Barney Frank and others who ignored warnings about the bad lending practices in the first place. And those same politicians now see fit to lecture us about patriotism and fiscal responsibility? This is a travesty so appalling that it should be prompting protests in the streets. As hardworking, tax-paying Americans have watched this Obamadrama play out, they have become increasingly distressed, saying, “But what do we do?” We start saying NO. Obama’s campaign mantra was “Yes, we can.” Here’s the new mantra for the American taxpayer: “No, we won’t.”

And we keep saying "No" right up to the 2010 elections and beyond. We let our government know that we will not go quietly into the night and we will not allow them to destory the American Dream with socialist policies that have failed every single time they were implemented. They failed in the former Soniet Union, they failed in Eastern Europe, they failed in Western Europe and they will fail here too. History is replete with such lessons and we, the people, must remind the government of such lessons by saying "No."

We also need to let the elitists in Congress know that we see through their hypocrisy:

More:

Where’s the “shared sacrifice” if you’re cutting back to make your mortgage payment, and the government hits you up to pay some stranger’s mortgage as well? And it’s hard to call for belt-tightening when Congress clamors to sign the bill within hours of receiving it so that Nancy Pelosi can jet off to Rome for a private audience with the Pope, and President Obama can ride a taxpayer-funded 747 back to Chicago to take Michelle out for a romantic Valentine’s Day dinner. (What, there aren’t any restaurants in D.C.?)

You see, the elistes like Obama and Pelosi believe that they are entitled to whatever they want and we, the plebian class, must pay for it, even if it means taking resources away from our own families.

But, we shouldn't have to take it, and we won't.

You take a page out of the civil rights playbook. Protest. Picket. Storm your representatives’ offices. Use the legal system. Go straight to your county or federal courthouse and file for a temporary restraining order, and then a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the law or regulation. If you are fined, do not pay it. Make the government defend civil litigation in every city and every state across the country. The government cannot possibly do this, anymore than it can possibly shut down every single Christian, conservative, right-wing, Republican or Libertarian show and/or station in the country. More to the point, they won’t want the country to see them try. If you think Santelli’s rant generated public outrage, imagine how the public would react to footage of government agents coming into your studio or station and forcing you to shut down. Imagine that happening all over the country. When blacks marched peacefully through the streets of the south in the 1960s, and they had the water hoses turned on them, and attack dogs unleashed on them, the rest of America saw those governments for what they were. This government is depending upon our complicity in its takeover. Not anymore. This time, we are saying, “No.”

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Taxpayers' Mantra: No We Won't
Laura Hollis
TownHall.com
February 24, 2009

Obama's Lies About Deficits

Okay, how many of you were doubled over with laughter after President Obama made the following remark yesterday:

"We're not going to be able to fall back into the same old habits," Mr. Obama said. "The casual dishonesty of hiding irresponsible spending with clever accounting tricks, the costly overruns, the fraud and abuse, the endless excuses."

This, coming from a President who forced a piece of legislation, crafted behind closed doors and without the input of the opposition party, through Congress and even broke his own promise of openess, transparency and a five-day window for the public to review legislation before he signs it into law.

And how about that "fraud and abuse" part. Did he not see the earmarks going to ACORN, the notorius voter fraud organization? Did he not notice other pork and wasteful spending in his porkulus package? And now, he expects us to believe that he is fiscally responsible? His next spending plan has over 9,000 earmarks in it!

How dumb does Barack Obama think were are? Only the most brain-washed partisan Democrats would believe Obama's remarks.

Here's some more idoicy from a man who graduated from an Ivy League school:

"If we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road," the president warned, promising to cut the yearly deficit in half by the end of his four-year term. "We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences."

And yet, he had no problem signing into law a package that will have to be paid off by our children and grandchildren. Again, how stupid does he think we are?

More:

"We are paying the price for these deficits right now," Obama said, estimating the country spends $250 billion — one in every ten dollars of taxpayer money — in interest on the national debt. "I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay."

But that is precisely what the President is doing. He is simply trying to lay the blame at someone else's feet. I don't buy it. After that porkulus/spendulus bill passed, the Dems now own this economy. They have no one to blame but themsleves and they know it. That is why Obama and the Dems are scrambling to pass the buck so that their popularity doesn't take too much of a hit.

They say that actions speak louder than words. Right now, Obama's words are being drowned out by his actions and the actions of his socialist allies in Congress. He is lying to us and the Dems are hoping that you and I will buy it hook, line and sinker.

I'm not that blind. I see what is really happening and no amount of spin or lies from the Oval Office and the Democrat controlled Congress will ever change the truth.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Pledges Decrease In Deficit — After Increase (More Than Doubling It)
Associated Press via NewsMax.com
February 23, 2009

Video Shows Third Planned Parenthood Clinic Hiding The Rape Of A Teenager

They say that the third time is the charm. Let's hope so for the sake of future generations.

Lila Rose, leader of the Mona Lisa Project, released another video of another Planned Parenthood clinic breaking the law and hiding the sexual abuse of a 15-year-old. This time is happened in Tucson, Arizona. The first two videos were shot in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Planned Parenthood Caught On Video Covering Up The Rape Of A 13-Year-Old Girl
84rules
December 3, 2008

SECOND Planned Parenthood Hides Rape Of 13-Year-Old Girl
84rules
December 17, 2008

LiveAction.org released this statement back on February 3, 2009:

New hidden-camera footage from Tucson, AZ, implicates a third Planned Parenthood clinic in a multi-state child abuse scandal. In the video, UCLA student Lila Rose and her friend Jackie Stollar enter a Tucson Planned Parenthood clinic where Rose tells the nurse that Stollar, posing as a 15-year-old, is pregnant by her 27-year-old boyfriend. The nurse disregards the age difference and even cautions Stollar not to bring her "boyfriend" before the judicial hearing required in Arizona to waive parental consent for an abortion. This negligence is punishable under Arizona law.

Why would Arizona consider this "negligence?" Read on:

This is not the first time Planned Parenthood of Arizona has failed to report sexual abuse. In 2002, an Arizona judge found the abortion provider negligent for failing to report the sexual abuse of a 13-year-old girl by her 23-year-old foster brother, who brought her to a Phoenix-area clinic for an abortion in 1998. After Planned Parenthood kept silent about the abuse, the sexual relationship continued and led to a second abortion six months later. ... "Our footage gives the Arizona public and law enforcement a rare window into Planned Parenthood's careless abortion-first ideology," Rose stated. "With abortion as their first and only solution for the abused victim, Planned Parenthood assists sexual predators by violating the very Arizona state laws that protect children."

How sick does an organization have to be that it lets child molesters go to molest again?

You can access the complete press release on-line here:

New Undercover Video Shows Tucson Planned Parenthood Hiding Sexual Abuse Of 15-Year-Old Girl
LiveAction.org
February 3, 2009

And you can see the video on-line here:

Undercover Video Shows Tucson Planned Parenthood Ignores Sexual Abuse Of 15-Year-Old Girl
LiveAction.org
February 3, 2009

The Big Media Lie: Mortgage Crisis Is Bush's Fault

Bush derangement syndrome goes far beyond January 20, 2009. Remember that day? When Democrats very disrespectfully and derisively sang "Nan-na-na-na! Hey! Hey! Good-bye!" when the outgoing President and Vice-President came out? Well, a part of that reason is because Old Media would cherry-pick information that was politically expedient for Democrats and use that limited information to write stories for print. In other words, Old Media would deliberately withhold facts that might have painted the Bush Administration in a positive light.

Fortunately, the Internet does not have a "memory hole" like the one used in George Orwell's novel 1984.

One of the lies that Old Media is perpetuating, and Barack Obama is trying to underscore in order to sell his $100 million mortgage bailout plan, is that the current housing mortgage crisis is the fault of George W. Bush. That is simply not true. The current mortgage crisis has its roots in the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act.

In fact, it is the uber-liberal New York Times that debunks this lie with its own archive of stories. In fact, it validates my earlier blog entry about how Barney Frank lied about the who was responsible for the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

From a New York Times article that was published September 11, 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. ... The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Clearly, the Bush Administration knew that there was a big problem with Freddie and Fannie. The New York Times proves this with the above referenced article.

So, why didn't anything get done about it? Because the Democrats, that is the same Democrats who are falsely blaming Bush, stopped it. In fact, the Democrats were saying that there was nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie while they were failing.

Read this:

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing," Mr. Watt said.

Let me repeat what Barney Frank told the New York Times in 2003: "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis." He said this at a time when the Bush Administration was trying to fix the system and avoid the very problem we are facing today! And Barney Frank is one of those trying to Blame Bush!

But, Old Media will never admit the truth. Instead, despite what the archival evidence is, Old Media would rather repeat the lie.

You can access the original New York Times article on-line here:

New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae
Stephen Labaton
New York Times
September 11, 2003

Terrorist Training Camps In America, One Right Here In Virginia

This should be another wake-up call to all Americans. There could be a terrorist training camp right in your backyard. We've got one here in Virginia in a town called Red House.

A documentary movie produced by the Christian Action Network tells the story.

From Robert Spencer at Human Events Online:

“We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are America.” So said the Pakistani Sheikh Muburak Gilani, leader of the jihad terrorist group Jamaat ul-Fuqra. And the way that he and his organization are “dealing with evil at its roots” is to set up jihad terror training camps all over the United States -- often under the noses of government and law enforcement officials who are either indifferent or too hamstrung by political correctness to do anything about it.

According to Gilani, the terrorist group he leads has more than 35 communes and 3,000 members spread across the United States.

More:

The documentary reveals that these compounds are dedicated to the training of Muslims in terrorist activities. Most of these camps are tucked away in remote rural areas -- Hancock, N.Y., Red House, Va. -- as far away from the watchful eye of law enforcement as possible. And what goes on in them is truly hair-raising: a training video that the network obtained shows American Muslims receiving training in how to fire AK-47 rifles and machine guns, and how to use rocket launchers, mortars, and explosives, as well as training in kidnapping, the murder of hostages, sabotage, and subversive operations.

So, why doesn't the government or law enforcement do anything about it?

[T]he State Department doesn’t include Jamaat ul-Fuqra on its Foreign Terrorist Organization Watch List.

Old Media has even run hit pieces on the film claiming no evidence to back up the story on the screen. Well, if Old Media actually did good research on Jamaat ul-Fuqra, in addition to the quotes by Gilani noted above, they would have discovered the following:

[T]he Colorado Attorney General’s Office, ... currently has posted on its website a page about Jamaat ul-Fuqra. “In addition to being suspected of committing numerous acts of domestic terrorism,” it says, “FUQRA members in the United States have been suspected of committing fraud against various governmental entitlement programs in an effort to financially support their activities.” And “FUQRA or its members have been investigated for alleged terrorist acts including murder and arson in New York, Detroit, Philadelphia, Toronto, Denver, Los Angeles and Tucson. UL FUQRA is suspected of more than thirteen firebombings and, at least, as many murders within the United States.”

And given that we elected a pro-Muslim President whose sole strategy in the War On Terror is to "listen and learn," it looks like he will only learn about these camps when he listens to reports that domestic terrorist attacks have broken out and killed hundreds or even thousands more innocent Americans.

Do you have a terror training camp in your backyard? I suggest you watch this movie to find out.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Terror Training Camps On American Soil
Robert Spencer
Human Events Online
February 19, 2009

Pope Benedict XVI Reveals Nancy Pelosi's Dishonesty With One Press Release

George Weigel asks: "Were they at the same meeting?" After reading the competing press releases, I wondered that myself. Nancy Pelosi travelled to Rome after voting to load a huge debt on our children and grandchildren and visited with Holy Father. Both Pelosi and Benedict XVI released statements about the meeting, but you would never guess that both releases were referring to the same get-together.

First, Holy Father's press release:

Following the General Audience, the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage. His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception until natural death, which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists, and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of development.

The Holy See of Rome has always been a loggerheads with the Democrats over their support for abortion and their support of abortion groups that have blatently anti-Catholic agendas. So, this press release does not surpise me and, in fact, I welcome it. I'm glad to see that there are still people in this world who are willing to stand up to pro-abortionists like Pelosi and say what needs to be said.

Now, here is Pelosi's version:

It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, today. In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church’s leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming, as well as the Holy Father’s dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel. I was proud to show His Holiness a photograph of my family’s papal visit in the 1950s, as well as a recent picture of our children and grandchildren.

You'll notice that Pelosi took the opportunity to make politcal hay out of issues that the Dems typically make their money off of. But she made no mention of the issues that Holy Father made public about this meeting.

Clearly, Pelosi was making this trip, not to re-affirm herself as a Catholic (she is a Catholic in name only and routinely leads Democrat assaults against the Catholic Church), but more to try and cover up her embarrassment from when she and Joe Biden misrepresented Catholic Church doctrine.

Also of note is the fact that Holy Father did not allow any photographs of the meeting (if any were even taken) to be released. That should clearly show how offended the Holy See is at Pelosi's arrogant chicanery.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Were They At The Same Meeting?
George Weigel
National Review
February 18, 2009

Democrats Propose New Tax On Stock Trades (H.R. 1068)

The Democrats (with the exception of the tax-cutting John F. Kennedy) have the same solution to every problem that comes up: taxes, taxes and more taxes which means that they have not had an original idea since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Pretty soon, they are going to have a tax for everything.

For example, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is actully considering an idea which taxes motorists based on how many miles they drive on roads and highways.

In that style, eight Congressional Democrats have introduced a bill (HR 1068) that will tax transfers of stocks and other securities on the market. They claim it is a vehicle by which Wall Street will pay the taxpayer back for the $700 billion bailout monies, but a look at the bill itself will show otherwise:

SEC. 4475. TAX ON SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS. `(a) Imposition of Tax- There is hereby imposed a tax on each covered securities transaction an amount equal to the applicable percentage of the value of the security involved in such transaction. `(b) By Whom Paid- The tax imposed by this section shall be paid by the trading facility on which the transaction occurs. `(c) Applicable Percentage- For purposes of this section-- `(1) IN GENERAL- The term `applicable percentage' means the lesser of-- `(A) the specified percentage, or `(B) 0.25 percent.

Did you notice the "By Whom" sub-section? These socialist Dems actually think that the trading facility is going to pay those costs out of pocket! The truth is, the trading facility will simply pass that cost on to the stock-holder in the form of higher trading fees.

When will these libs get a clue about economic reality?

Here is another example of the fantasyland that the Democrats live in. The stated objective of this bill is to "pay back" the taxpayer. But what is written in the bill, again, shows something completely different:

(8) All revenue generated by this transfer tax should be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury of the United States, scaled to meet the net cost of these bailouts, and phase out when the cost of the bailouts are repaid.

First of all, sending this money into the "general fund of the Treasury of the Untied States" means that it could get spent on anything that the government wants, and thus, does not have to be spent "paying back" the taxpayer. Knowing the Democrats, their intention was never for any such thing.

Second, the "phase out" is laughable since the Dems will never allow any tax to expire nor will they ever vote to repeal one. Plus, if they keep using this money for something other than the stated intention of this bill (i.e. to "pay back" the taxpayer) they can claim that the goal's of this new tax have not been reached and therefore will be able to spin a reason as to why the tax must remain in place.

Further, the true culprit of the Wall Street financial crisis is the 1977 Community Re-investment Act. Before anything can be done to restore Wall Street, the CRA must be repealed.

This is nothing more than another socialist bill which the Dems want to use as a mechanism for Barack Obama's stated objective of redistributing wealth. It must die before it serves to wreak even more havoc on our economy.

The eight Democrats are: Mr. Defazio, Mr. Welch, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Wu, Mr. Stark, Ms. Delauro, and Ms. Edwards.

You can access the bill on-line here:

Let Wall Street Pay For Wall Street's Bailout Act Of 2009
Library Of Congress
February 13, 2009

Appropriate Cartoons Today

Our children and grandchildren may never forgive us for what Barack Obama is about to sign, nor should they.

Spending Bill To Be Signed Into Law Today Could Make Your Medical Records Public

So much for Doctor-Patient privilege. The mis-nomered Stimulus Package to be signed into law to day by President Barack Obama (making him the first president in history to triple the deficit in a single day), contains provisions that not only will allow government to intercede in medical decisions made by your doctor, but also will make your digital medical records availabel for sale, whether you give your consent or not.

Fred Lucas at CNS News has this:

Though the legislation says there is a “prohibition on sale of electronic health records or protected health information,” there are five pages of exceptions to the prohibition that include research, treatment of an individual, or a decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to wave the prohibition. (See Legislation, PDF pages 391-395.) One exception listed in the legislation is if, “The purpose of the exchange is for public health activities.” Another exception is apparently to ensure the data – if sold – are not for commercial reasons, saying, “The purpose of the exchange is for research and the price charged reflects costs of preparation and transmittal of the data for such purpose.” Another exception is rather broad saying, “The purpose of the exchange is otherwise determined by the secretary in regulations to be similarly necessary and appropriate” in accordance with the other exceptions. Further, one of the exceptions seemingly states the government can obtain an individual’s health information for the purpose of protecting an individual’s privacy. It reads: “The purpose of the exchange is for treatment of the individual, subject to any regulation that the secretary may promulgate to prevent protected health information from inappropriate access, use or disclosure.”

While it may seem like a safeguard has been built into the system, the truth is that such a safeguard is only an illusion.

More:

But the exceptions on exchanging or selling information could be more problematic to privacy if health records are digital, said Sue Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom, a group that advocates health privacy issues. “Digital records without consent is a recipe for invasion of privacy,” Blevins told CNSNews.com Monday. “Consent was gutted with HIPAA, but it is really hard to get out paper records. When they are made electronic, you can share data with a click of a mouse.” Those who could be able to sell the information would be health care providers, insurance companies and other entities that collect the data.

That basically means that the government can collect your information and send in on to entities who pay for it, without your knowledge of the transaction.

But you should be asking yourself certain questions: Why does the government want to keep medical records on you and your family? Why are the politicians even discussing the idea of selling that information? What is to be done with that information? Why is the information not being more aggressively protected?

There should definitely be an "opt-out" for this invasion of privacy. People should be allowed the option of maintaining their own electronic treatment records that they can hand-carry to their providers.

I certainly don't want my medical records in the hands of the government. Given how porrly the Democrats guard information like that (Hillary Clinton's FileGate, Sandy Berger removing Top Secret documents from the National Archives, Patrick Leahy's constant leaks of classified information, etc.), I sure as hell should have the option of keeping those records myself!

You can access the complete article on-line here:

‘Exceptions’ In Stimulus Bill Allow Sale Of Health Records
Fred Lucas
CNS News
February 17, 2009

Democrat Henry Waxman Looks To Censor And/Or Regulate Speech On The Internet

This is no joke, folks! What you are reading right now may come under the heavy-handed regulations of a Federal government controlled by leftists. Here is what Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) had to say:

"This isn't just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven't heard about," says Democrat committee member. "The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we've established that broadband networks -- the Internet -- are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure."

In other words, if those in power in the Federal Government don't like what 84rules or any other blogger or on-line information source is writing, then they want to have the power to come in and delete it, or alter it to something more to their liking.

But it isn't just the Dems in Washington who are pushing for this power of censorship. Others have indicated that they want in on the game as well:

Also involved in "brainstorming" on "Fairness Doctrine and online monitoring has been the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, which has published studies pressing for the Fairness Doctrine, as well as the radical MoveOn.org, which has been speaking to committee staff about policies that would allow them to use their five to six million person database to mobilize complaints against radio, TV or online entities they perceive to be limiting free speech or limiting opinion.

That's right. If Waxman has his way, the 5 to 6 million people from MoveOn.org will be able to shut down what the other 294 to 295 million of us will have available to read and hear.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

In All Fairness
The Prowler
American Spectator
February 16, 2009

Hassan Chop: The Faces Of Those Who Were Killed For 'Honor'

Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs has a blog entry entitled Losing Our Heads ......

Within this blog entry you will find pictures. Pictures of girls and young women who were full of beauty, life, potential and free spirit. These same girls were killed by members of their own families simply because the girls did not want to submit to the sexist, male-dominated restrictions that Islam places on women.

And our so-called mainstream media has not any courage whatsoever to report these killings. They will report so-called hate-crimes, but never would anyone at the likes of NBC, ABC, CBS or CNN nor at the Washington Post or New York Times ever want to "offend" the Muslims.

Look upon their faces here:

Losing Our Heads ................
Pamela Geller
Atlas Shrugs
February 15, 2009

Take for instance, the case of Aasiya Z. Hassan, wife of Muzzammil Hassan who launched the pro-Muslim Brdiges TV network in an effort to promote a positive image of Islam. He beheaded his wife because she "disobeyed him."

I'm sure Islam looks really appetizing to women right now.

From the Buffalo News:

Aasiya Hassan had filed for divorce and obtained an order of protection on Feb. 6, barring her husband from their home in Orchard Park, police said. “There had been problems before — there had been prior incidents of physical abuse,” said Corey Hogan, whose law firm, Hogan Willig, represented Aasiya Hassan in the divorce proceeding. Hogan said discussions were being held about continuing arrangements for the couple’s two children, ages 4 and 6, and two older children, ages 17 and 18, from Muzzammil Hassan’s previous marriage. The family lived on Big Tree Road in Orchard Park. “Obviously, this is the worst form of domestic violence possible,” Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III said Friday.

But you will never hear about this on any of the major networks.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Orchard Park Businessman Charged In Beheading Of Wife
Fred O. Williams and Gene Warner
Buffalo News
February 14, 2009

Socialized Medicine: Enforcing Your "Duty To Die"

As noted earlier, the Porkulus/Spendulus/Stimulus Package passed by the socialist Democrats in Congress and set for signature by our socialist President Barack Obama, contains language that will begin setting up American Health Care in the style of European Health Care (or more accurately, lack thereof if you happen to be one of the unfortunate ones who fall into certain categories). That language will allow the creation fo a Federal Council that will have the power to over-ride your doctor's treatment prescriptions if some faceless bureaucrat with little to no medical traiing decides that you are not worth treating.

Writing for Town Hall, Austin Hill has this:

Western Europe’s utopian ambitions to “insure everybody” and make healthcare “free” have by no means been realized. In fact, the nationalizing of healthcare in Europe has led to worsening government deficits, and increased healthcare costs, and efforts to contain those costs have resulted in the denial of treatment to those persons not expected to live much longer - - that is, the elderly and the seriously ill. This “need” to deny people health care has frequently, in Europe, been cast in terms of one’s “duty to die.” The idea is that, once you have lived “long enough;” after you have consumed your “fair share” of the earth’s resources; and when your combined age and health conditions make it “obvious” that further efforts to prolong your life just simply “aren’t worth it;” you will then have a responsibility to accept these consequences, and to accept that you’ll just have to get along without life-sustaining healthcare. In other words, once a government employee has determined that spending healthcare resources on you will not produce much of a “return on the investment,” you will then have a “duty to die.”

That is precisely what we are heading for. And, in this world of ironies, the American Association of Retired Persons was lobbying Republicans to pass this beast. In essence, the AARP wanted to pass legislation that would make it legally acceptable for the government to withhold medical treat from AARP members!

Moreover, you are about to lose the privilidge of doctor-patient confidentiality:

Forget the notion that the Doctor-patient relationship is “sacred,” or that you will make “private” decisions about your health care, in consultation with your Doctor. If Democrats continue the trend of "Europeanizing" our American health care, the office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology will eventually be overseeing your healthcare, making sure that if your Doctor spends “too much” on you, they will face federal “penalties, ” the likes of which have yet to be fully defined. For over three decades, the Democratic Party has insisted that it is wrong for government to “interfere” with a woman’s medical decisions with respect to the child in the womb. Now, President Obama and congressional Democrats are insisting that government must be involved in everybody’s medical decisions. Worse yet, their proposals threaten human life on yet another front: not only are unborn children threatened by their policies, but so, also, are the ill and the elderly. If Americans continue voting for “more government” as a means to “cure” all our societal ills, we will continue to move closer to the point where anonymous government bureaucrats determine when you have lived “long enough,” when you have consumed your “fair share” of resources, and when it is “obvious” that you won’t live much longer. President Obama and the Democratic Congress are determined to take us to this point.

More double-standards. If that was the "change" you wanted in Washington D.C., I'd say you now have it.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Democrats, Health Care "Reform," And Your "Duty To Die"
Austin Hill
TownHall.com
February 15, 2009

Planned Parenthood CEO Makes $1 Million Per Year

Our socialist president and his socialist allies in Congress have adopted the Marxist policiy of limiting how much money the CEOs of banks that receive Federal money can make per year. But, it shows that they have a double-standard when it comes to their political allies.

Corporate America has one set of very high standards applied (Like the bank CEOs) but anyone who espouses the leftist ideology of Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid gets a much lower set of standards.

For example, Planned Parenthood, the abortion mill outfit that seeks to hide the rapes of 13-year-old girls, gets federal money just like the banking industry. But, the CEO of PP gets to make $1 million per year and has no limits put on his compensation.

From VirtueOnline:

Readers may be surprised to learn that Planned Parenthood nationally has plenty of money and taxpayers are contributing a large part of it. According to its own 2006-07 annual report, Planned Parenthood took in more than a billion dollars, and boasted a surplus of $80 million. One-third of its income--$336 million-came from government subsidies. Its president received about $1 million in compensation. Why pay more of our own money for practices that don't work and some of which involve what most Americans consider to be immoral?

If PP gets one-third of their fundng from American tax dollars, shouldn't their executives face the same compensations limits that are being applied to others that receive federal monies? That would be a fair application of a standard.

Once again, we can see exactly how hypocritical the Democrats are. One set of low standards for themselves and their allies, one set of very high standards for the rest of us.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Planned Parenthood, President Obama, And "Too Many" Abortions
Gerald McDermott and Carol Swain
Virtue Online
February 15, 2009

Democrats Delay Bill Release To Conceal Hidden Agenda, Uploaded It In Non-Searchable Format

Whatever happened to the promise of making bills public for at least 48 hours before a vote so that the bill can be reviewed before debate begins? Apparently, the Dems had no intention of keeping that promise. Nor did they want the public to be able to do key-word searches on the porkulus/spendulus package going before a vote today.

From Connie Hair at Human Events:

Democratic staffers released the final version of the stimulus bill at about 11 p.m. last night after delaying the release for hours to put it into a format which people cannot “search” on their home computers. Instead of publishing the bill as a regular internet document -- which people can search by “key words” and otherwise, the Dems took hours to convert the final bill from the regular searchable format into “pdf” files, which can be read but not searched. Three of the four .pdf files had no text embedded, just images of the text, which did not permit text searches of the bill. That move to conceal the bill’s provisions had not been remedied this morning at the time of publication of this article.

Why did the Democrats go to such lengths to conceal what is in this bill? Why are they making it so difficult for people to research and study its contents? It is almost like a little child trying to hide a piece of food that he/she doesn't want to eat while not knowing that Mom and Dad are watching them search for a hiding place.

There is alot the Dems want to hide. The aforementioned Health Care provisions that allow the Federal government to step in and reverse your doctor's decisions are among them. But, there are some more sinister ones that may even be unconstitutional:

We found one provision that may be a good example of why the Democrats are desperate to stop any exposure of what is in this bill. Like this gem: SEC. 1607. (a) CERTIFICATION BY GOVERNOR -- Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the Governor of the State shall certify that: 1) the State request and use funds provided by this Act , and; 2) funds be used to create jobs and promote economic growth. (b) ACCEPTANCE BY STATE LEGISLATURE -- If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State. This provision -- apparently aimed at conservative governors such as South Carolina’s Mark Sanford who does not want the federal money -- would overturn state laws and constitutions, intervening directly in the state’s government to give the legislature the power to overturn a government’s decision. This provision probably violates the U.S. Constitution, a matter which will be of no concern to Congressional Democrats.

That's right. The Constitution of the United States guarantees each state a "Republican form of government" and the 10th Amendment relegates all powers not enumerated in that document to the several states.

Pretty easy to see why the Dems are trying to slip this one past us hoping that we wouldn't notice.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Delay Bill Release To Conceal Details
Connie Hair
Human Event Online
February 13, 2009

Blog Entry From Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MI)

As Congress readies itself to spend $300 million on golf carts as part of their multi-hundred-billion-dollar stimulus proposal, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has provided some very alarming numbers - and Congress should take heed. According to the CBO, in 2009 and 2010, 98% of the tax cuts in the Democrats' economic "stimulus" package will go into effect, providing for 1.4% growth in our nation's Gross Domestic Product in that time. However, the other 2% of the stimulus tax cuts will go into the economy between 2011 and 2019 - along with about half the spending in the package. The problem with this equation is that the $1.1-trillion price tag (which includes the interest on the total package), our increasing debt and our crowding out of private sector activity will drive down our Gross Domestic Product to .2% less than it is today, prior to the stimulus. So what you want to take away from these numbers is this: Spending $1.1 trillion today will result in a loss of 0.2% of our wealth tomorrow. (Check out the Graph) According to the peer-reviewed research and methodology of Dr. Christina Romer, the President’s head of the Council of Economic Advisors and the nation’s chief economist, The Republican Economic Recovery Plan creates twice the jobs at half the cost. Americans know that tax cuts are a better way to immediately stimulate the economy than wasteful government spending.

You can access this blog entry on-line here:

Spending Money Today To Lose Money Tomorrow
Michele Bachmann
TownHall.com
February 12, 2009

Letters to Senators Web And Warner About The Porkulus/Spendulus Spending Bill

Here is the text of a letter that I will be faxing/emailing this morning to Senators Webb and Warner, both liberal Democrats from Virginia. Feel free to copy/paste the letter and fax or email it in yourself. Contact information is provided below.

Dear [Senator], I am writing this letter to ask you to vote “Nay” on S. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This bill was a bad idea from the beginning. It will cost $1.3 trillion that we do not have, and $1.3 trillion that our children and grandchildren will have to work to pay off. And, given the new revelations of health care provisions (which have nothing to do with stimulating the economy) that were stealthily inserted into this bill, it is even more imperative that you vote against it. In particular, I am referring to Title VII, the subsection titled “Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality.” It states: "That the funding appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative clinical effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies, including through efforts that: (1) conduct, support, or synthesize research that compares the clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of items, services, and procedures that are used to prevent, diagnose, or treat diseases, disorders, and other health conditions and (2) encourage the development and use of clinical registries, clinical data networks, and other forms of electronic health data that can be used to generate or obtain outcomes data: Provided further, That the Secretary shall enter into a contract with the Institute of Medicine, for which no more than $1,500,000 shall be made available from funds provided in this paragraph, to produce and submit a report to the Congress and the Secretary by not later than June 30, 2009 that includes recommendations on the national priorities for comparative clinical effectiveness research to be conducted or supported with the funds provided in this paragraph and that considers input from stakeholders: Provided further, That the Secretary shall consider any recommendations of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research established by section 802 of this Act" This is very dangerous wording and will lead us to the socialized health care systems that have wreaked havoc on the people of Canada and Europe. Essentially, it allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a standard of who and what can be treated by doctors and hospitals and who and what cannot. In other words, it will permit the Federal Government to approve or disapprove of a doctor’s recommended treatment of a patient. It will effectively allow the Federal Government to over-ride a doctor’s decision. Given the fact that these bureaucrats will have little to no medical training themselves, that alone is reason enough to oppose this bill. Further, this provision was hidden in this bill for a specific reason. Tom Daschle, the tax-evading former HHS appointee, wrote in his 2008 book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis, that he supported the failed socialized medicine plan of the Clintons in 1994 and said that its failure was due to delay. (In actuality, the American people do not want the government making medical decisions for them.) Hence, Daschle wrote “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it. The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.” Thus, this socialized medicine provision was written in to the bill during some late-night session when the cameras were not rolling and the Republicans had been locked out of the proceedings. Please vote “Nay.” On this bill and help to preserve quality health care for Virginia and America and to protect our children and grandchildren from a debt that they had no hand in creating. Thank you.

Senator Webb's contact information:

Fax: 202-228-6363
On-line contact: Contact Senator Webb

Senator Warner's contact information:

Fax: 202-224-6295
On-line contact: Contact Senator Warner

Ruin Your Health With The Obama Stimulus Plan: Socialized Medicine Is In The Spending Bill

Not many people talking about this, but we really need to get the word out. The pork spending bill that is now speeding it's way through Congress with the help of three RINO traitors (Specter, Snowe and Collins) contains a socialized medicine provision that we should all be aware of and call our Representatives and Senators about.

In short, this provision will make the federal government the final dicision maker in what treatments your doctor may or may not prescribe. In other words, a bureaucrat will have override authority with the power to say "no" to any treatment even if your doctor says "yes."

Writing for Bloomberg, Betsy McCaughey has this:

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors. But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis. According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

And what happens if doctors and hospitals don't want the government to override their decisions?

Read on:

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541) What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make. The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

In other words, if the government decides that you aren't worth saving, medical treatment will be withheld from you. If the government decides that your children are not worth saving, the government will withhold treatment from them.

Can you imagine the impact this provision is going to have on organizations like St. Jude's Children's Research Centers? How many children will the feds give up on due to what the bureaucrats rule a "hopeless diagnosis?"

For those of you who voted for "change," congratulations! You got it.

But, who will be the hardest hit? In the beginning, it will be the elderly.

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt. Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464). The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis. In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

But the socialists who support this abomination claim that individuals will "benefit in younger years and sacrifice later." Until the inefficiancy that is inherent in federal bureaucracies catches up and the available care needs to be rationed further. Then, the "hopeless diagnosis" will be a death sentence for patients of all ages.

Why was it hidden in this pork-laden spending bill?

Here's why:

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

For an administration that claims to be the most transparent of all time, they sure do seem to be hiding alot.

We need to kill this bill before we get saddled with the nationalized health-care disasters that are Canada and Europe.

Now, some of you may think that you are going to be able to pay for private care to cover what the government denies. But don't count on it. In Europe and Canada, it is illegal to get private care because that makes the system "unfair towards the rich." How long before the socialist Barack Obama and his socialist allies in Congress get that rule passed?

Contact your Representatives and Senators now and ask them to kill this bill before it is too late.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Ruin Your Health With The Obama Stimulus Plan
Betsy McCaughey
Bloomberg.com
February 9, 2009

And you can find your Congressional delegation contact information on-line here:

Congressional Email Directory

Democrat Chuck Schumer: "Americans Don't Care About Pork"

Yep. He really said that. He also referred to those of us criticizing the pork in this spending bill as "the chattering class" that focuses on the pork.

Yes, Chuck, we do focus on things that, especially when we have two-month-old children who are going to have to work to pay off your efforts to reward to your political allies.

From the New York Post:

"And let me say this to all of the chattering class that so much focuses on those little, tiny, yes, porky amendments, the American people really don't care," Schumer said on the Senate floor.

I'll make sure my son remembers this as he enters the work force in eighteen years so that he can pay off his share of a debt that he had no hand in creating.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Senator Charles Schumer: Americans Don't Mind A Little Pork
Post Staff Report
New York Post
February 10, 2009

National Republican Trust Political Action Committee Vows To Oppose Three RINOs

Specifically, Arlen Specter (R-PA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME). Those three have been a traitor to Conservative principles for far too long. It is time to get rid of them.

So, Scott Wheeler of Republican Trust PAC has gone on record and put those three on notice that the GOP Trust PAC will provide support to whomever challenges these three in the Primary Elections when they come up for re-election in their home states.

From the GOP Trust Press Release:

Today, Scott Wheeler, Executive Director, National Republican Trust PAC, announced that his organization would support challengers in primaries of any Republicans who vote for the stimulus bill. The NRT PAC spent the third largest amount of any independent organization in the 2008 campaign; $6 million in advertising through the November election, and $750,000 in the runoff for the U.S. Senate seat in Georgia. “The American people don't want this trillion dollar political payoff that will just line the pockets of non-governmental organizations who supported Obama in the election,” Wheeler said. “Republican Senators are on notice. If they support the stimulus package we will make sure every voter in their state knows how they tried to further bankrupt voters in an already bad economy.”

Specter, Snowe and Collins have rightly earned the ire of the GOP base. With the help of those three, the Dems have effectively mortgaged our childrens' future on a spending package that is more about repaying political allies than it is for getting the economy going.

I wonder what those three were promised in return for their back-stabbing?

You can access the original press release on-line here:

National Republican Trust Pac Will Support Candidates That Challenge Republican Senators Who Support Stimulus Bill
Scott Wheeler
National Republican Trust
February 9, 2009

And you can donate to the efforts to get rid of the three traitor RINOs on-line here:

Donations - National Republican Trust