Polls Apart: Democrats Should Not Bank On Obama In November

This Congress has been under more scrutiny than any other Congress in modern history. That means that Representatives and Senators will not be able to hide their voting records behind rhetoic or spin without the general population being able to identify them as either ignorant or liars. A year ago, the Democrats didn't seem very worried about that. But they better be worried about it now. In fact, it is a wonder that many of the freshmen Dems who won seats from traditionally Republican districts are even bothering to run for re-election after the disaster they have created for themselves by following Barack Obama off of a cliff.

And even though the next Virginia Senate race isn't until 2012, Jim Webb is already beginning his campaign by sending out emails filled with lies about Tea Party supporters and insults towards the Republicans. Apparently Webb knows better than to highlight his own unpopular voting record. But people like me will be there to remind everyone of exactly what type of leftist Jim Webb is. Again, it is a wonder why he is even considering running for re-election since he cannot hide from his voting record which will clearly show how he has helped to run up a debt that our grand-children won't be able to pay and how he is in favor of more unwanted government intrusion into our lives. Warner will be gone two years behind Webb.

Writing for the Weekly Standard, Jonathan V. Last tells us why:

When the president took office in January 2009, Gallup measured his overall job approval at 67 percent, with 86 percent of blacks approving. Since then, blacks have shown an increasingly favorable opinion of him. ... Using Gallup’s data, blacks push Obama’s overall number up by about 5 points; using Rasmussen’s by roughly 7 points. ... The median congressional district has a black population of only 6.41 percent. This uneven dispersal magnifies the disparity of approval between Obama’s base and the rest of the country. If relatively few congressional districts look like America, then in most congressional districts Obama’s job approval is likely to be lower—anywhere from 2 to 7 points lower—than the national average.

That will spell major difficulties for the Dems this November. They might want to seriously rethink that thunderous applause they gave when they shoved Nationalized Health Care down our throats.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Polls Apart: Why Imperiled Congressional Democrats Can Take No Solace From Obama’s Approval Ratings
Jonathan V. Last
The Weekly Standard
March 29, 2010

20 Ways Obamacare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

So, Obama, Pelosi and Reid said that Congress needs to pass the Health Care Bill so that America can see what's really in it? Well, let's get started! Below are 20 items in HR3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee. You will also read how it affects us Americans.

From Investor's Business Daily:

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501) 2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701). 3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711). 4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712). 5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714). 6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care. You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302). 7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A)) 8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A). 9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513). 10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)). 11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i)) 12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)) 13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)). 14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003) 15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)). 16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)). The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405). 17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).) 18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014). 19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015). That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402). 20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

Now, who are those idiots claiming that this isn't socialized medicine?

There's more in this bill that gives the government more power to regulate your lives and spending. But items #2 and #6 are particularly galling since they essentially amount to a welfare system for people who live unhealthy lifestyles. Items #12 and #13 will eventually lead to the same shortage of services that are being experienced in Canada and Great Britain.

And here's a real kicker: Item 14# is designed only to put insurance companies out of business thereby giving the Socialists in the Democrat Party an excuse to go to the disastrous "single payer system."

This bill needs to get tossed out by the courts or repealed by Congress after we toss the Socialist bums out in 2010 and elect a Constitutional Conservative in 2012.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

20 Ways Obamacare Will Take Away Our Freedoms
David Hogberg
Investor's Business Daily
March 21, 2010

Freedom Dies With Thunderous Applause: Democrats Shove Government Health Care Down Our Throats

The vote on a government takeover of Health Care last night was sickening. What was even more sickening was the fact that when the final tally was in, the Democrats stood up and gave themselves a standing ovation.

It reminded me of what Amadala said in Star Wars: Episode III: "So, this is how freedom dies. With thunderous applause."

If this bill is not killed in the courts for it's unconstitutionality, in addition to higher taxes, here is what we will be looking forward to:

Cruel And Neglectful Care Of One Million British Patients Exposed

Man Collapses With Ruptured Appendix ... Three Weeks After It Was Removed

More Reasons Why We Do Not Want Socialized Medicine

Statement From The American College Of Surgeons Regarding Disinformation Being Spread By Barack Obama

Oregon Woman Denied Medicine, Offered Assisted Suicide Instead

Another Look At Socialized Medicine From A Canadian Doctor

A Look At Socialized Medicine Through The Eyes Of A British Oncologist

Another Example Of The Horrors That Socialized Medicine Will Bring Us

Socialized Medicine: Enforcing Your Duty To Die

Another Example Of What Awaits Us In A Socialized Medicine System: Father Dies In Waiting Room While In Intense Pain

What Democrats Think Of The American People

Bill Kristol sums it up in two words: "Not much."

Writing for the Weekly Standard and referencing an article from the Politico, Bill notes the following:

A memo from a top aide to Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen late last week counseled other Democratic staffers to tell their bosses not to worry, that "things like reconciliation and what the rules committee does is INSIDE BASEBALL." Yesterday House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters, "I don't think any American ... is going to make the distinction" between the Slaughter procedure and a straightforward vote on the legislation. "Process is interesting, particularly to all of us around this room. But in the final analysis, what is interesting to the American public is what does this bill do for them and their families."

Actually, what is interesting to us is what this bill will do to us and our families. We already know thanks to examples like Canada and Great Britain. That is why the majority of us are against socializing our health care. But the Dems seem to be completely oblivious to our position.

More:

Here the Democrats betray their contempt for the supposed simple-mindedness and short-sightedness of the American public. They also convey their vision of the American people living under the big government liberalism: We are to be passive consumers of government action, who accept what is done for us and to us in light of our perceived narrow short-term self-interest. We are not to think of ourselves as self-governing citizens with a stake in the process of constitutional self-government and a concern for the good of the whole.

Yep. That is exactly how the Democrats think. They think they know more about our needs from sitting in their taxpayer-financed luxury offices in Washington D.C. than we know about our needs from living out here in the real world.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

What Democrats Think Of The American People
William Kristol
The Weekly Standard
March 16, 2010

And the Politico article on-line here:

Dems: Time To 'Rip The Band Aid Off'
Patrick O'Connor
Politico
March 12, 2010

Pelosi, Slaughter Went To Court Against Self-Executing Rule In 2005

This is basically an extension of my post from yesterday:

Democrats Change The Rules, Set To Trash The Constitution
84rules
March 15, 2010

Not only is Pelosi & Company set to usurp the Constitution in order to ram a Socialized Health Care bill that a majority of Americans do not want down our collective throats, but they were also "friends of the court" in a case back in 2005 when they challenged a piece of GOP legislation that focused on raising the debt limit.

From Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner:

Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase using a self-executing rule similar to the Slaughter Solution. Guess who went to Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the move? The Ralph Nader-backed Public Citizen legal activists.

And their argument went thus:

"Article I of the United States Constitution requires that before proposed legislation may "become[] a Law," U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 2, "(1) a bill containing its exact text [must be] approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate [must] approve[] precisely the same text; and (3) that text [must be] signed into law by the President," Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998). "Public Citizen, a not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization, filed suit in District Court claiming that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) ("DRA" or "Act"), is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute's enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk's error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate. "Public Citizen asserts that it is irrelevant that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate both signed a version of the proposed legislation identical to the version signed by the President. Nor does it matter, Public Citizen argues, that the congressional leaders' signatures attest that indistinguishable legislative text passed both houses."

Note the words in italics. That is the issue here. According to the above argument, it is not constitutional for the House and Senate to pass two different versions of the same legislation and then just arbitrarily choose which version shall become law.

Oh, and who also filed amicus briefs on this case? Read on:

• Nancy Pelosi
  
• Henry Waxman
  
• Louise Slaughter
  

Also note that the Dems were against raising the debt limit 5 years ago while today they are spending our great-grand-children's future.

Democrat, thy name is Chutzpuh!

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Pelosi, Slaughter Went To Court Against GOP's Self-Executing Rule In 2005
Mark Tapscott
Washington Examiner
March 16, 2010

Obama Administration: Hydrocarbon-Deniers

There's a new term for you: Hydrocarbon-Deniers. Those are people who think that we can magically walk away from fossil fuels and everything will be a-okay and all Americans will have good jobs as a result.

That is, until reality kicks in and we see what really happens. The truth is that oil and other fossil fuels are what we need to get our economy back on track. Why the Obama Administration and other leftists are stuck in some fantasy world, I can't even begin to guess.

Investor's Business Daily notes the following:

With an economy struggling to regain sound footing, Chu advocated a starvation diet devoid of additional fossil fuels that are to remain under the ground and seabed. Instead, he supports 53% more funding for wind research and a 22% jump for solar research. Subsidizing alternative energy fits the classic definition of insanity. Despite huge subsidies, it has proved to be neither cost-effective nor a reliable, significant contributor to our national power grid. Yet we keep subsidizing it, expecting a different result. "Oil is an ideal transportation fuel, so it will be with us for decades," Chu conceded, even as the administration forbids us from getting more of it here, creating energy jobs, lowering energy costs and cutting our trade deficit. Instead we'll rely increasingly on foreign and often unfriendly suppliers.

How much more money are we going to waste a) researching energy sources that won't fulfill our needs and b) buying oil from Islamic nations so those governments can turn around and give that money to terrorist groups to attack us?

If the left keeps getting its way, we will waste that money forever.

More:

Equally unimpressed with Chu's presentation was another speaker. "Gas is more than a bridge fuel," said James Mulva, CEO of Houston-based ConocoPhillips, noting that huge gas discoveries in recent years in North America in shale and other unconventional rock formations could provide more than a century of supply. "It is part of the long-term energy solution." "We must overcome the opposition of the 'hydrocarbon deniers,'" Mulva said, playing off Al Gore's term for climate-change skeptics. Hydrocarbon deniers, he said, are those who "believe that renewable energy will quickly and easily replace hydrocarbons and cure all that ails us." The headline above a story in the New York Times read, "Oil Execs Chortle as Obama Admin Promotes Renewables." Except that it's not funny; it's tragic. To leave vast stores of domestic energy untapped while Americans are looking for cheap energy and jobs is irresponsible. Unfortunately, this administration has no long-term energy solution, other than hoping for a lot of cloudless and windy days.

But the Obama Administration is set to put a 3 year ban in place for offshore drilling. Such bans will only serve to keep the cost of energy high and the prospect of economic recovery low.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Chortling At Chu
IBD Editorial
March 15, 2010

Democrats Change The Rules, Preparing To Trash The Constitution (Slaughter Solution)

How many times did we Conservatives warn about this during the 2008 election cycle and how many times were we ignored? The Democrats are radicals who want to force the failure of European-style socialism on the United States.

The Dems are now going to try forcing Obamacare through the legislative process using a trick known as the Slaughter Solution that is clearly unconstitutional, but they don't seem to care.

From U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader John Boehner's Blog:

The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter’s scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply “deeming” the Senate bill passed in the House - without an actual vote by members of the House.

This is referencing a Congress Daily story that states:

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday. Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Essentially, The Dems want to "bundle" the Senate bill in with the corrections bill. No debate on the Senate bill will take place in the House at all.

This is the most brazen usurpation of our Constitution in the history of the United States. We Conservatives knew the Democrats were more than capable of pulling tricks like this, but few, if any, seemed to listen to us.

Is anyone listening now?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Prepare “Slaughter Solution” To Ram Unpopular Health Care Takeover Through Congress Without A Vote
Dave Schnittger
Rep. John Boehner's Blog
March 10, 2010's

Virginia's 10th District Congressional Election - Help Get Jim Trautz On The Ballot

We need signatures to get Jim Trautz on the ballot for this year's Congressional elections.

If you are a resident of the 10th District, you can help make this happen by contacting the following:

ctrautz@jimtrautz.com

Remember, signing the petition does not mean you endorse the candidate. It only means you believe the candidate should be put on the ballot for the upcoming election.

To get your signature on the petition, you may go on-line here:

Signatures Needed
JimTrautz.com

Can Gays And Lesbians Drop Their "In Your Face" Politics Long Enough For Military Service?

That is the question that needs to be asked and answered before any serious debate can take place on this issue. Without answering this question, lifting the gay ban in the military will be opening the door to major unrest and frivolous complaints from gay and lesbian activists who may serve in the military.

The reason I say "frivolous" is because I saw quite a few complaints from feminists in the military that turned out to be bogus "gotchas." The really sad part about this is that the truth didn't come out until several careers had already been ruined.

Remember "Tailhook 91" and the bogus charges that Paula Coughlin made in 1991? How many careers were ruined before the truth about what really happened and how Coughlin was a willing participant came out? How much damage was done before someone realized that Coughlin admitted to her fellow Tailhookers that they had made her "see God?" How long did it take before the public was made aware of the fact that Coughlin had fingered people who weren't even at Tailhook?

Therein lies the problem. What happens if some gay or lesbian goes into the military and has a radical political agenda? How long before some false charge of "homophobia" is made and a fabricated scandal ensues which destroys one or more careers? What are the safeguards against this?

TAILHOOK 91 is a prime example of how one person making false accusations can have a major negative impact on the military and its combat effectiveness.

Lt. Col. Oliver North notes the following:

But the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgendered community, which worked so hard to elect Mr. Obama, wasn’t feeling the love. The President wouldn’t let them out of the closet, they argued, and their patience was wearing thin. POTUS had to give them reason to stay in the fold. The payoff came in his State of the Union Address, when Mr. Obama went off on another frolic and diversion in declaring, “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

No, it is because of how they act and how they are trying to force their agenda on America whether it be through secret classes (i.e. telling children not to inform their parents) to school children or by pulling a Coughlin on the U.S. Military.

More:

Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey informed the Senate Armed Services Committee he has “serious concerns” about repealing the law in the midst of war. “We just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness,” Casey testified. A somewhat softer note was sounded by Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton A. Schwartz, who said, “This is not the time to perturb the force that is, at the moment, stretched by demands in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere without careful deliberation.” Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, testified that he endorsed a “study” of the issue because “only with that information can we discuss the force that we have, not someone else’s.” He also resisted a “freeze” on discharges for homosexual behavior, citing duty to “the families that support the force.” The straightest shooting of all was done by General James Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on February 24, he said, “Unless we can strip away the emotion, the agenda, and the politics...and ask...do we somehow enhance the war fighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals to openly serve, then we haven't addressed it from the correct perspective.” Then he reloaded. After observing that proponents of repeal have failed to produce any evidence that openly homosexual individuals serving in uniform will improve combat readiness, Conway unequivocally stated: “At this point...my best military advice to this committee, to the Secretary, and to the President would be to keep the law such as it is.”

Just going forward on someone's political whim is not the way to do it. It is true that gays are allowed to serve in militaries like Great Britain and Isreal, but it is also true that in both cases, gays are counseled to keep it low profile.

Are U.S. gays and lesbians willing to do the same thing? Given the militancy of the gay and lesbian political movement, my first inclination is to answer "no." Anyone who has been forced to take a required "diversity" class from an employer knows why.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Not So Fast
Lt. Col. Oliver North
Human Events
March 5, 2010

Do You Agree With Barack Obama's Statement Of December 20, 2005?

I agree with this:

“The TANF program affects millions of American children and families and deserves a full and fair debate. Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes and the wrong place for the proposed changes to the TANF program. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt.”

The problem is that Obama and other Democrats have flip-flopped and don't agree with their own statements anymore. I guess being a hypocrite is easier than maintaining consistent standards for everyone.

Obama's Chicago Politics: Selling Judgeships To Buy Health Care Votes?

You would think that with all that has gone wrong for Obama over the past year and after all the revelations of corruption in his cabinet and "czar" appointments that Obama would be more careful about things like appointing the brother of an undecided House Dem to the bench on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

From John McCormack of the Weekly Standard:

Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

You can find out who the ten Dems are here:

Chuck Todd Twitter

Now, Scott Matheson may be very qualified to be a judge, but the timing of this appointment couldn't have been any worse, even if Obama had tried to make it worse.

More:

Consider Congressman Matheson's record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he's "undecided" on ramming the bill through Congress.

Very suspicious looking. I guess you can take the boy out of Chicago, but you can't take the gangster-style Chicago politics out of the Community Organizer.

Given all that has happened with appointees like Bill Richardson, Tim Geithner and other corruption tainted players, this looks (on the surface) like another "pay to play" scheme.

You can access the complete news story on-line here:

Obama Now Selling Judgeships For Health Care Votes?
John McCormack
The Weekly Standard
March 4, 2010

Al Gore Should Be Stripped Of His Nobel Prize

This article pulls no punches and leaves no question as to what is being said.

Basically, it is a call for Al Gore to be stripped of his Nobel Prize which was largely based on politics and junk science. But, the author actually goes further and recommends an investigation into Gore's actions and influence peddling.

From the article:

With recent events such as the blizzards and record cold weather taking place not only in the U.S. but the world, the admittance by Phil Jones, a climate scientist, that the world has been in a cooling trend for over the past ten years, and no concrete scientific evidence, only computer generated models of future climate scenarios to prove it by, the time has come to strip Albert Arnold Gore of his Nobel Prize on the grounds that it was awarded to a man who knew nothing at all about anything remotely related to climate and weather and had his own financial gains in mind rather than the good of the world when he accepted it.

It gets even better:

Al Gore is a hypocrite to his own idealism when it comes to his lifestyle of using more energy resources than perhaps anyone in the world. If he were sincere about his own cause, this fact would not be an issue as he would see to it that he lived within the means of his own Global Warming Doctrine of saving as much energy as possible. ... If anything Gore should be sued by every business entity affected by his flawed theory and brought up on charges of fraud and conspiracy for such lies. ... With the prospect of making billions from investments in green energy, Al Gore and his so-called scientists and researchers, which amount to a group of business individuals with similar investment goals, continue to lie to the public in hopes that some form of legislation will be enacted to further their cause of acquiring billions of dollars from a duped public. ... Such GW legislation would have dire consequences for both citizens and businesses here in the U.S. as we are in the worst economic shape since the Great Depression. ... This country simply cannot afford any more taxes, higher utility bills, and overall cost of living rise associated with the false claims of Global Warming. If anyone thinks this country could get along with a permanent unemployment rate of 45%, everything costing three times as much as it does now, lower wages and virtually no industry, you're out of your mind. We are barely able to keep the wolf from blowing the house down now as it is.

And the parting shot:

These individuals such as Al Gore and his band of investors have the devastation of the American way of life in mind and their own financial gains are top priority.

And therein lies the truth about all the lead activists who make bogus claims about Global Warming. It's all about how much money they can make by defrauding the public.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Al Gore Should Be Stripped Of Nobel Prize
Tony Elliot
Cypress Times
March 4, 2010

The Great Hoax Of The 21st Century (Global Warming)

This comes from Patrick Buchanan over at Human Events Online. Given the revelations that British and Australian Media outlets have exposed concerning things like the Univeristy of East Anglia email scandal and the fact that IPCC insiders knew that their Himalayan glacier reports were false, Global Warming is shaping up to be the scientific hoax of the 21st Century.

Oh, and let's not forget the actions of Dr. James Hansen:

Dr. James Hansen: Unethically Manipulating The Data (Global Warming Junk Science)

Dr. James Hansen Admits The True Goal Of Global Warming Alarmists: Socialist Redistribution Of Wealth

Dr. James Hansen Gets It Wrong Again


Buchanan briefly describes the biggest hoaxes of the 20th Century (i.e. Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man) before looking into the newest scientific hoax to date:

But if Piltdown Man and his American cousin Nebraska Man were the hoaxes of the 20th century, global warming is the great hoax of the 21st. In a matter of months, what have we learned: -- In its 2007 report claiming that the Himalayan glaciers are melting, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied on a 1999 news story in a popular science journal, based on one interview with a little-known Indian scientist who said this was pure "speculation," not supported by any research. The IPCC also misreported the supposed date of the glaciers' meltdown as 2035. The Indian had suggested 2350. -- The IPCC report that global warming is going to kill 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields 50 percent has been found to be alarmist propaganda. -- The IPCC 2007 report declared 55 percent of Holland to be below sea level, an exaggeration of over 100 percent. -- While endless keening is heard over the Arctic ice cap, we hear almost nothing of the 2009 report of the British Antarctica Survey that the sea ice cap of Antarctica has been expanding by 100,000 square kilometers a decade for 30 years. That translates into 3,800 square miles of new Antarctic ice every year. -- Though America endured one of the worst winters ever, while the 2009 hurricane season was among the mildest, the warmers say this proves nothing. But when our winters were mild and the 2005 hurricane season brought four major storms to the U.S. coast, Katrina among them, the warmers said this validated their theory. You can't have it both ways. -- The Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University, which provides the scientific backup for the IPCC, apparently threw out the basic data on which it based claims of a rise in global temperatures for the century. And a hacker into its e-mail files found CRU "scientists" had squelched the publication of dissenting views.

Yep. This is what people on the left call "science." To them, "science" is that which agrees with their political philosophy and encompasses nothing that goes counter to their political philosophy. Hence the massive fraud.

You can access the complete essay on-line here:

Hoax Of The Century
Pat Buchanan
Human Events Online
March 2, 2010

Jim Trautz For Congress (Virginia - 10)

Well, I am certainly going to do my part to get the RINOs out of Congress. Here in Northern Virginia, we haven't had much of a chance to do that with Frank Wolf (R-VA) because there haven't been any true Conservatives to challenge him lately ... until now.

Jim Trautz is a Conservative and I am wholly endorsing him for this November's elections.

From Jim's Platform:

Simply put, our representatives have the responsibility to be good stewards of OUR money. Of course, the Federal Government does have a need for a budget, and funds do need to be allocated, but only on those things that are necessary, legal & ethical, Constitutional, and are the will of the people. That said, I can find no constitutional basis for wealth redistribution, bailouts, TARP bills, stimulus packages, or anything of the sort, and I will aggressively oppose any such legislation as a member of Congress. I believe that no one person or group should benefit more than another. ... Leaders lead people – and true leadership requires more than just “playing it safe.” I believe that true leaders do more than simply support a cause – true leaders will be at the tip of the spear for those causes that are near and dear to the hearts of their constituents. They’ll do so without reservation or regard for their own personal gain, not because it’s a “good political move,” but because it’s the right thing to do, because they believe their cause to be just, and because the people they represent look to them for leadership. Leaders lead people – not just when the cameras are on, not just when there’s a political advantage to be gained, and not just at election time, but whenever and wherever they’re called to do so. ... All too often, our representatives forget the idea of accountability. They work for us, they’re elected by us, and they’re accountable to us. Bottom line, they answer to us. I believe that every person has the right to expect a clear and concise understanding of where their Representative stands on the issues of the day, and that he has a responsibility to report his position on those issues, regardless of party affiliation or political ideology.

Jim Trautz is also a 912 Candidate and believes the following:

• America Is Good.
  
• I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
  
• I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
  
• The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
  
• If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
  
• I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
  
• I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
  
• It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
  
• The government works for the people. The people do not answer to the government, the government answers to the people.
  

You can access more information about Jim Trautz on-line here:

Jim Trautz 2010

I hope the people of Virginia's 10th District will join me in supporting a true Conservative candidate.

The New Tax Rebellion Has Begun

So, how have you benefitted from the 67,500 word document known as the U.S. Tax Code? Probably not at all. In fact, just having a job and living here in the U.S. means that it has touched you in multiple negative ways although you may not have realized it. Do you think that the prices you pay for goods and services are not artificially inflated by that tax code? If so, you think wrong.

But there is good news coming from middle America. People everywhere are starting to wake up to the fact that our tax code is destructive to everyday taxpayers while only being beneficial to Congress and a few wealthy people who have enough money to make Congress listen to them. That's why the current rebellion is underway. If you wish to become one of the rebels, just go to the following website:

On-Line Tax Revolt

Here is what Micheal Reagan has to say:

Tea Party patriots, FairTaxers, Flat Taxers, and most Americans of every political persuasion understand that the federal tax system fuels unchecked government spending, hides the cost of government from the American taxpayer and has become corrupted into indecipherability by Congressional profits and power. Citizens are coming together from across the political spectrum and across the nation to wake Washington up to the voice of the American people. Citizens are rejecting the idea that huge government borrowing and debt has been secured by pledging the future earnings of generations of Americans not yet born.

That is where Obama, Pelosi and Reid made their mistake and where charlatans like Jim Webb and Mark Warner exposed themselves for what they really are: Socialists who think nothing of stealing the futures of our children and grandchildren.

I do not recall one single person during the last election cycle who said that they wanted to pass along trillions of dollars worth of debt to succeeding generations. But somewhere in there, the Dems have convinced themselves that this is what they heard.

This November, we need to send a message back to D.C. that our children and granchildren are worht fighting for, and if Congress won't fight for them, then we will replace our Representatives and Senators with people who will.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Next American Tax Rebbellion Has Begun
Michael Reagan
TownHall.com
March 1, 2010