News Ticker powered by Fox News

Friday, December 18, 2009

Harry Reid Isn't Quite Helping Hold Up Obama's Promise to Cut Earmarks

During the campaign and after , Obama promised to cut down on the number of earmarks coming out of Washington. However, his fellow Democrats aren't cooperating with the President on this. In fact, Harry Reid has increased his pork requests:

President Obama may have asked Congress to reduce the number of earmarks in its spending bills, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, isn't cutting back on his pork.

The Senate's most powerful Democrat secured 36 earmarks worth more than $89 million in the fiscal year 2010 Defense Appropriations bill, according to information provided by his office---a slight increase over the number of earmarks Mr. Reid secured in the fiscal year 2009 Defense Appropriations bill. That year, he secured 33 earmarks worth more than $83 million.

Despite pledges from Mr. Obama that his Congress would reduce the number of earmarks slipped into spending bills, Mr. Reid’s spokesman Jim Manley said in an email to the Washington Times the Majority Leader was “proud” of his earmarks.

“We’re proud of each and everyone because this money means jobs for a state that has suffered from this economy like no other,” Mr. Manley said.

He's "proud" of his sizable contribution to the federal government's massive deficit spending. No wonder Reid is having some serious troubles getting support for re-election in Nevada.

Despite Over 10% Unemployment Democratic Rep, SEIU Seek Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants

The Democratic party and Big Labor have, yet again, come together to throw away the rule in this country. With the passing of Ted Kennedy, Luis Gutierrez has stepped up to become a leader in the effort to make America's immigration laws obsolete:

Democrats on Tuesday begin their new push for an immigration bill, hamstrung by the image of legalizing millions of illegal immigrant workers at a time when the unemployment rate stands at 10 percent -- more than twice what it was the last time Congress tried to act.

"It certainly will confuse the debate a lot more, but at the end of the day what we have to understand is fixing this system will be good for American workers," said Eliseo Medina, executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, which is one of the major advocates for legalizing illegal immigrant workers.

Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, the Illinois Democrat who has taken over leadership on the issue after the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, plans to introduce an immigration legalization bill Tuesday, and backers are planning a strategy to avoid repeats of the failed attempts of 2006 and 2007.

To deflect from the conflict between amnesty and the issue of high unemployment, proponents of legalizing the illegal aliens have pushed the idea of legalization is needed in order for them to "pay their fair share" of taxes:

"In these difficult economic times, we must ensure that everyone contributes toward the recovery and prosperity of our nation," they wrote. "To this end, it is imperative that all individuals and employers pay their fair share in taxes."

This is a ludicrous statement. Illegal aliens do pay taxes income, sales, etc. The problem with amnesty lies the fact we are a nation of laws, and we need to enforce said laws, in order to for us to survive.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Shocker: Obama Administration's HHS Report: Senate HCR Bill Would Accelerate Rising Costs, Reduce Medicare

There is more bad news about the Senate's health care reform bill. This time it's coming out of Obama's own Department of Health and Human Services:

Dealing an unexpected blow to Senate Democrat's health care bill, administration economists on Friday predicted the overhaul would accelerate rising costs of health insurance and medical services, and that its proposed Medicare cuts could reduce care for senior citizens.

A report by analysts at the Health and Human Services Department said the bill would increase the nation's annual spending on health care beyond the current $2.5 trillion at a slightly faster rate than if Congress did nothing. It concluded that new taxes on drugs, medical devices and health insurance plans would trigger higher insurance premiums for consumers.

Don't worry. It gets worse:

The report also said the Democrats' plan to pay for about half of the $1 trillion bill with Medicare cuts "may be unrealistic" and could undermine the Medicare program, warning the bill could force out of business one in five hospitals, nursing homes and home care providers.

Great! In a time of over 10% unemployment and a fragile economy, the Democrats want to pass a bill that will kill one-fifth of one-sixth (3%) of the overall US economy.

The report was prepared by the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which specializes in long-range cost evaluations for Medicare. It analyzed the total public and private cost of the health care bill over the next 10 years, in contrast to earlier studies by the Congressional Budget Office that said the measure would minimally lower the record-setting federal deficit over the decade.

The effects plan will have catastrophic consequences for our Medicare system and the quality of care for our senior citizens:

Perhaps the most startling revelation in the report, however, was an assessment that cuts to the Medicare program could undermine it.

"Providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable," the report said. "Absent legislative intervention, [physicians] might end their participation in the program, possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries."

Of course, Republicans jumped all over this report:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said the bill got a "failing grade." He said the report, coupled with a CNN poll on Friday that showed 61 percent of Americans oppose the health care bill, was a seminal moment in the debate.

"How much more do we need to hear before we stop this bill and start over?" Mr. McConnell said.

While the report claims that the bill will marginally reduce the deficit and insure many more Americans, it, also, concedes that it will cripple Medicare and kill one-fifth of one-sixth (3%) of the entire US economy by forcing many hospitals, clinics, etc to close. The closures will throw many doctors, nurses, pharmacists into the unemployment line and cause longer wait times as a result of a lack of qualified medical centers and professionals.

This doesn't seem like progress. We would just be exchanging one crisis with another. Then again, it is Rahmbo's motto to never waste a good crisis. Maybe, it is what they want.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Hmmm Change: PPP: Who Do Want to Be President: Obama 50%, Bush 44%

Considering that Bush's final approval rating was a beyond dismal 22%, this is an amazing turnaround:

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama’s declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they’d rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that’s somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country’s difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.

Hat/tip: Allahpundit of Hot Air

Biden: Dodd Needs Help He's Getting "Living Bejesus Beat Out of Him"

In another moment of candor with the Vice President, he said opined about Senator Dodd's trouble in his 2010 re-election bid:

ABC News' Karen Travers and David Chalian report:

The always-loquacious Vice President Biden today gave an assessment of his good friend Chris Dodd's Senate race in Connecticut – and he didn't mince words.

"Chris is getting the living hell beat out of him, the living bejesus beat out of him," Biden said at a fundraiser Hartford, Conn.  "Why? Because he's being a leader."

"This is going to be a hell of a race and it's an uphill race,'' Biden said, "but Chris Dodd will prevail.''

Apparently, Biden has forgotten about his healthcare reform scandals, Senate ethics investigation, or his gift to AIG.

Biden doubled down on his praise for the endangered senator:

Biden was effusive in his praise today for Dodd, calling him "the single most gifted legislator in Congress, now that Teddy Kennedy's gone."

Dodd wasn't there to hear the compliments or the stark assessment of his re-election campaign. The Connecticut senator stayed in Washington to handle Senate business. His wife, Jackie Clegg Dodd, attended in his place.

Biden credited Dodd with having "the guts" to stand up to the banking industry and for his work as a leader on health care reform in the Senate.

"Chris Dodd is the first United States senator that has simultaneously chaired two major committees in a moment of genuine national crisis,'' Biden said. And had he got either of those jobs wrong, the consequences for America would be dire. That is not hyperbole, that is a fact."

Dodd is, more than likely, on his way out. No amount of praise from Biden will change that fact. It's not just hyperbole on my part.

So Much For A Free Press: UN Security Told to Silence Film Maker From Asking "Inconvenient Questions"

The global warming advocates are getting very testy, when it comes to getting questioned about the Climategate fiasco:

Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.

McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.

He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate – where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming.

After giving the reporter "no comment" as his only response to the scandal, Schneider proceeded to throw a fit and get Mr. McAleer thrown out:

During some testy exchanges with McAleer, UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistants twice tried to cut short McAleer’s question.

However as the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider’s assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider.

The guard demanded to look at the film crews press credentials and refused to allow them to film until Professor Schneider left the room. McAleer said he was disappointed by Professor Schneider’s behaviour.

“It was a press conference. Climategate is a major story – it goes to the heart of the Global Warming debate by calling into question the scientific data and the integrity of many scientists involved.”

“These questions should be answered. The attempts by UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistant to remove my microphone were hamfisted  but events took a more sinister turn when they called an armed UN security officer to silence a journalist.”

Two officers corralled the film crew and one officer can be seen on tape threatening the cameraman. The Guard can also be heard warning that if the crew did not stop filming their would seize the equipment and the journalists expelled from the conference.

McAleer says he has made an official complaint tabout the incident.

“I have met Mr Christopher Ankerson the UN’s head of security for the conference and he has confirmed it was Professor Schneider’s staff who asked the security guards to come corral us at the press conference. Mr Ankerson could not say what grounds the security guard had for ordering us to stop filming.”

“This is a blatant attempt to stop journalists doing journalism and asking hard questions. It is not the job of armed UN security officers to stop legitimate journalists asking legitimate questions of senior members of the UN’s IPCC.”

Apparently, this isn't the first time that the global warming gurus have tried to silence him. The Goracle did the same

His microphone was cut off after he asked former vice-president Al Gore about the British court case which found that An Inconvenient Truth had a nine significant errors and exaggerations. Almost 500,000 people have watched the incident on youtube.

McCain: What's In Senate HCR Bill?||Durbin (D): Your Guess Is As Good As Mine

According to Dick Durbin, the he's "in the dark" about what the Senate compromise entails just as much as the rest of America:

The 10 Democratic senators who crafted a healthcare compromise are keeping its details a secret, says Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Friday.

Responding to a complaint by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that Republicans haven't been told what's in the new bill, Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, responded that he's in the same position.

I would say to the senator from Arizona that I'm in the dark almost as much as he is. And I'm in the leadership, Durbin said on the Senate floor.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has submitted the bill to the CBO from scoring, but Durbin said no one involved in the compromise will spill the beans until the score is released.

It makes me wonder what Reid is so afraid of that he won't release it. It couldn't have anything to with his own tanking numbers in Nevada. Could it?

More Bad News For Reid: Trails All Challengers As Obamacare Weighs Him Down

Things are looking bad for Harry's chances to win re-election in November:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid continues to lag behind all potential Republican challengers in next year's U.S. Senate race in Nevada, according to new Rasmussen Reports telephone polling in the state.

For now at least, his championing of the president's health care plan appears to raise further red flags for the Democratic incumbent. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Nevada voters oppose the plan, while 44% favor it.

More significantly, however, those numbers include 49% who strongly oppose the plan while only 23% strongly favor it.

This represents stronger and more passionate opposition to the health care plan than Rasmussen Reports has found nationally.

While Nevadans are extremely displeased with the healthcare plan that Reid helped introduce in the Senate, it is not the only reason why Reid looks to be on his way out:

The numbers in this month's survey suggest that the race at this point is a referendum on Reid, who earns 43% of the vote against each of three GOP candidates. Incumbents who get less than 50% of the vote at this stage of the game are viewed as vulnerable. Reid, who is seeking a fifth term, received 61% of the final vote in 2004.

Forty-nine percent (49%) of Nevada voters have a very unfavorable opinion of Reid. Just 21% offer a very favorable opinion of the senator.

The Republicans remain largely unknown, further confirming the notion that the numbers reflect a referendum on the incumbent rather than a choice between competing candidates.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Obama's Fuzzy Math: He's 1.2 Million Short of the 1.6 Million Jobs He Were Claimed Created by Stimulus

The Obama Administration isn't only liberal with their policies, but they are liberal with their counting, as well:

A private-sector company that tracks government contracts says President Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill has created 407,000 private-sector jobs this year, much less than the 1.6 million jobs the Obama administration has claimed.

At the same time, the company's analysts are finding that many businesses are changing their strategies to take advantage of the government funds being dispersed.

Analysts at Onvia, a Seattle-based company, who monitor the government's contracting activity using specialized software say $37.5 billion of stimulus money has flowed to the private sector to date.

"This is quite different than the government's numbers, which claim as many as 1.6 million jobs already created," Onvia said. "The difference is due to the fact that the feds can track only two layers of stimulus money flow, far short of the full paper trail required. Therefore, a lot of guesswork and extrapolations go into the government's math, and the jobs numbers are forecasts more than anything else."

Onvia Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer Eric Gillespie explained to The Washington Times, "What the federal government is recording is largely dollars that have left the Beltway. They aren't tracking the projects and contracts on the ground."

"They don't know if those dollars landed on the ground because their reporting requirements say they only have to track two layers beyond the federal level," he said. "So if it goes from the state to a county, they will know that. But if it goes from a county to a city or from a county to a contractor there is no legal requirement for them to track that, which is why the federal views are latent and they get it three, six, or 12 months late."

So, Obama is basically guessing on how many jobs have been actually created by his deficit spendapalooza. He doesn't have any proof to back his claims.

This is why we need an investigation on what is really going on with the dispersion of the stimulus money. We can't totally trust this Administration's guestimations and suspect record keeping. We must know for sure whether Obama and the Democrats kept their promises to put America back to work or wasting all of our money of worthless government programs, yet again.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Joe Wilson (R-SC) Plans to Call For Investigation of Where Stimulus Funds Went

Rep. Wilson has had another "you lie" moment. This time he calls them out for misleading the public on the amount of stimulus successes there really are:

The South Carolina Republican who has gained a reputation for his outspokenness is calling for an official government audit of President Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill.

"After several days of reports of stimulus inconsistencies, the administration still hasn't explained where the money is really being spent," Rep. Joe Wilson said in a statement. "Their silence on this important issue is deafening."

He is referring to reports that money is being sent to districts that don't exist and organizations like AARP receiving payoffs for their support.

He delivered this ultimatum to the White House and the Democrats, in response:

He said if a panel is not appointed by Dec. 1, he will call for an independent examination of the "reporting inaccuracies of every stimulus dollar appropriated."

The main problem is the Obama administration promised that the government Web site,, would show exactly where the money was going to "create or save" jobs, but the site is using unreliable data.

I agree that we need to go through their stimulus spending with a fine-toothed comb. In fact, I believe that is what Obama promised to do in the campaign. Isn't it? Alas, this seems to be, yet another, campaign promise broken.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Rev. Jackson: You're Not Black If You Vote Against Healthcare Reform

At the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Foundation, the outspoken preacher, Jesse Jackson, caused a stir by what he said in his speech as part of a series of events revolving around the 25th anniversary of Jackson’s run for president:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Wednesday night criticized Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) for voting against the Democrats’ signature healthcare bill.

“We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill,” Jackson said at a reception Wednesday night. “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”

The Democratic representative from Alabama who is, also, running for governor had this to say in response:

Davis referred to Jackson’s 1988 run for president in a statement, issued through his office, that said he would not engage Jackson on his criticism.

“One of the reasons that I like and admire Rev. Jesse Jackson is that 21 years ago he inspired the idea that a black politician would not be judged simply as a black leader,” Davis’s statement said. “The best way to honor Rev. Jackson’s legacy is to decline to engage in an argument with him that begins and ends with race.”

Jackson said later that he didn't call anybody by name and I won't.

No, he didn't name Davis by name, but he was the only one there to vote against it. So, who else could he have been talking about?

He added that he wasn't saying that black lawmakers must vote a certain way.

Of course not, they can vote any way they want. He just won't consider them black anymore, if they don't vote the way that he feels that they should vote.

Other members of the CBC found no fault in Jackson's words. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) was in the audience. He called Jackson's criticism of Davis accurate, but said he did not hear Jackson say You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard, in a while. Hear no evil; see no evil. I guess.

Look Who's Getting Porkulus Money: AARP Sells Out Seniors For $18 Million

After hesitating to endorse Obamacare because of the majority of its constituents are against it, seniors have been fleeing the left-leaning organization in droves. Now, we have found out why they would throw grandma and grandpa under the bus for Obamacare:

AARP, which has given its full-throated support to Democratic health care legislation even though seniors remain largely opposed, received an $18 million grant in the economic stimulus package for a job training program that has not created any jobs, according to the Obama administration's website.

The Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP), according to the website, is "a work training program for unemployed mature workers who are 55+ and are at or below 125% of the poverty guidelines." So far, $6.5 million has been spent on the program, and it has not reported creating any jobs.

Not only did they benefit from the passage of the Porkulus bill, they, also, seem to benefit Obamacare, as well:

As it turns out, AARP is also in a position to benefit financially if the health care legislation passes, because seniors losing benefits as a result of cuts to Medicare Advantage will be forced to buy Medigap policies, which is the main source of AARP revenue.

The chief executive of the AARP, Byron Rand, definitely as an ulterior motive behind his organization's endorsement of a plan that raises costs and lowers the quality of care for seniors, the people that he is supposed to represent and do what is in their best interest.

White House Goes Into Shoot the Messenger Mode: Chastises Fox for Mammogram Rationing Controversy

There was a big controversy yesterday about a report that came out, at the behest of the Department of Health & Human Services, that discouraged women from getting mammograms, a potentially life-saving procedure, after the same organization released a report 6 months before decrying the importance of women over 40 getting mammograms.

Critics claimed that this was the start of healthcare rationing that many were worried about as a government-run system tries to save money.

In vintage Obama style, White House Deputy Communications Director Daniel Pfeiffer attacked Fox News, yet again:

White House Deputy Communications Director Daniel Pfeiffer blasted critics of the guidelines in a blog posted to the administration's Web site late Tuesday, taking particular aim at an article posted on

"One of the hallmark tactics from opponents of health insurance reform has been to grab onto any convenient piece of information and twist it into some misguided attack on reform -- no matter how unrelated it may actually be," wrote Pfeiffer. "Today they're going back to that playbook again, and Fox News obliges them."

The White House lamely tried to spin the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the people that released the recommendation, had no direct power over whether or not Obamacare will cover mammograms for women 40-50.

While this is true, who doesn't think that government bureaucrats will use this as an excuse to cut financial corners. With the national debt and deficit at record numbers, there will be tremendous pressure on those that do have the power to keep costs down.

Republican women, led by Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, have begun to take a stand on this important women's health issue:

"This is the way rationing, which my colleagues and I have warned about, will begin to enter the market place -- slowly, imperceptibly and lethally," Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn said in an e-mail to

Blackburn, of Tennessee, joined other Republican women in Congress on Wednesday to speak out in opposition to guidelines that recommend changing when and how women should be tested for the No. 2 cancer killer in women.

This is just another example of how government-run healthcare is not really any better than the insurance companies, when it comes to the quality of healthcare. The only real difference is the government will be telling you that a potentially life-saving procedure is an "elective" procedure or "too experimental" and refuse to pay for it.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

New Poll: After House Passage of Pelosicare: "Tide Has Changed", Now More Unpopular Than '94 Hillarycare

I know that the last thing I want to look at are polls, but there is a couple of things here in their findings that I found really interesting

In one of the first national surveys completed after the House vote on health care reform…things do not look good for President Obama and Democrats in Congress:

Opposition to President Obama’s health care plan is higher after the House vote than our previous tracks (29% favor/40% oppose). Voters’ net opposition to the plan has
increased from -6% in September (31% favor/37% oppose) to -11% today.

Voter opposition to President Obama’s health care plan is higher than ever
measured for President Clinton’s plan in 1993/1994 (35% oppose in June 1994).

Multiple surveys show voters believe President Obama’s health care plan will mean their health care costs will increase (46% increase/11% decrease) and their quality of care willget worse (40% get worse/18% get better). Concerns about cost have trended up since September.

Data continue to show the more people hear about President Obama’s health care plan the less they like it (38% the more I like it/52% the less I like it).

The tide has significantly changed as Americans’ views about government involvement
in health care are shifting. In March 2009, by a one point margin, voters said the federal government had a responsibility to provide government-run health care coverage toall.

Today, this number has significantly shifted as voters now say by a 17 point margin it is not the federal government’s responsibility.

With the 2010 elections right around the corner, this is not the change that the Democrats were hoping for in this country. These types of numbers have made Democrats in more conservative districts very nervous and could lead to the end of this form of healthcare reform. Hopefully, it will force Pelosi, Reid, and company to start over from scratch, so we can get reform that will actually make things better and not worse.

Great News: Says There Are 30K Saved Jobs & $6.4B Sent to 440 Districts That Don't Exist

Do they have no shame or are they really that bad at math? greatly over exaggerated the "success" of the stimulus bill:

The government Web site that promised to show exactly where the $787 billion in stimulus spending was going to "create or save" jobs is allocating billions of tax dollars to hundreds of congressional districts that don’t exist.

Researchers at the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity found 440 “phantom districts” listed on, consuming $6.4 billion and creating or saving nearly 30,000 jobs. Their findings are listed HERE.

For example, shows 12 districts, using up more than $2.7 billion, in Washington, D.C, which only has one congressional district. also shows 2,893.9 jobs created with $194,537,372 in stimulus funding in New Hampshire’s 00 congressional district. But, there is no such thing.

The site also shows $1,471,518 going to New Hampshire’s 6th congressional district, $1,033,809 to the 4th congressional district and $124,774 to the 27th congressional district. In fact, New Hampshire only has two congressional districts; inviting confusion about where the money listed for the 00, 4th, 6th and 27th districts is going.

We don't really have enough money for the districts that we do have. Do we need to be sending it to districts that we don't have? Seriously, where is all the money going to? I guess it was a self-fulfilling prophecy, when Biden said that there would be some mistakes made. With them misspending our money on such at such an obscene level, why do them want them to take control of 1/6th of the economy through the healthcare bill.

Forget Stupak! Here's the Real Slap to the Face to All American Woman: Feds: You Don't Really Need Mammograms? Do You?

Ed Morrisey came out with a post that revealed a possible link in between a recent report from a part of Obama's Department of Health and Human Services and the beginning of healthcare rationing of women:

What a difference six months — and a health-care overhaul proposal — can make! Just six months ago, the U.S Preventive Services Task Force, which works within the Department of Health and Human Services as a “best practice” panel on prevention, sounded a warning signal over a slight decline in annual mammograms among women in their 40s. In fact, they warned women of this age bracket that they could be risking their lives if they didn’t get the annual preventive exam (via HA reader Devil’s Advocate)

But today, that same panel says … never mind:

What changed in six months to change the USPSTF from a sky-is-falling hysteric on a 1% decline in testing to Emily Litella? If the administration gets its way, the government will be paying for a lot more of these exams when ObamaCare passes. That will put a serious strain on resources, especially since many of the providers will look to avoid dealing with government-managed care and its poor compensation rates.

The motivation for HHS will be to cut costs, not to save lives. The sudden reversal in six months of the USPSTF, especially after it made such a stink over a relatively minor decline in screening, certainly makes it appear that they have other priorities than life-saving in mind here.

One final thought. Barack Obama predicated his ObamaCare vision on the notion that increased prevention would save costs. Suddenly, his administration is for decreased screening and prevention. Could that have anything to do with the CBO scoring on screening? And what does that say about how government will make decisions once they control the compensation and care in the US?

First, we see what happens when the government mishandles the release of a life-saving vaccinations with long lines and low supplies. Now we the beginning of the rationing of healthcare. Both of which will cost potentially millions of American lives. Welcome to Obamacare, ladies and gentlemen.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Great News: New Report Shows Pelosicare Will Raise Costs, Lower Quality of Medicare

A new report that studied what impact Pelosicare will have on Medicare has come out, and the finding are not good for granny:

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending — one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system — would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.

This gives "Throw Mama Off the Train" a whole new meaning. This is one reason why many seniors are against the bill, no matter what the AARP thinks.

Not only will it lessen the quality of their own healthcare and quality of life, but it, also, burden their children and grandchildren with the added costs:

In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, "exacerbating existing access problems" in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

"This report confirms what virtually every independent expert has been saying: [House] Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi's health-care bill will increase costs, not decrease them," said Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.), the senior Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee. "This is a stark warning to every Republican, Democrat and independent worried about the financial future of this nation."

When will Pelosi and the Democrats realize or admit that the bill that they created is the worst bill evah and chunk it in the trash? I'm not going to hold my breath.

UK: Lawmaker Presents Cap-N-Trade Plan Where Individuals Are Issued Carbon Coupons

In a plan that is similar to the Democrats' plan for the US, the British are looking to give out what I call "carbon coupons" for individuals to use whenever they make a mark on their carbon footprint that they must pay extra for, if they go over their allotted amount:

Lord Smith of Finsbury presented a plan earlier in the week in which “individual carbon allowances” would be doled out to Brits in an effort to reduce their “carbon footprints.” If passed by their government, the plan would, “involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity. Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.” If they hit zero, then they have to buy more credits. If they don’t use up all their credits, then they can sell them to others.

The British plan is pretty much the way that cap and trade would work in the US if it were passed by Congress. Not only companies, but individuals would be rationed a “cap” on things such as gas for their vehicles, heating and cooling their homes and businesses, and electricity. And they would be able to “trade” whatever they don’t use. Even if this particular tax isn’t directly applied to individuals at first, it will be passed on indirectly, because businesses will pass on that extra cost to customers. So once individuals start getting hit directly, they will, in effect, be getting hit twice.

Great! More taxes! That is just what this economy needs to rebound. The government needs to suck their citizen's hard-earned money away not just once but twice. They can't just take one bite from the apple. They need two. People won't miss their money. Right? It's such a minute amount that they won't even notice:

Democrats are pushing for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. However, back in March, The Wall Street Journal reported that the congressional budget office, “estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That's about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7.” With unemployment already being over 10 percent (as of this writing) Republicans have expressed a deep concern over the impact of a bill like this on the present economy if it were to pass.

Wow, I could but a lot of Yohoo with $680. Second thought, this may not be the best idea Congress ever had.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Rotten ACORN Sues Uncle Sam For Their Right to Your Hard-Earned Tax Dollars

Since James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles of Big Government caught ACORN workers committing felonies, there has been a big backlash against the liberal organization. It was so bad that a heavily Democratic federal government had to pull their support of the crooked organization. After the House and the Senate voted convincingly to cut off federal funding to ACORN, Bertha Lewis and company have been fuming. Now, they are planning on getting revenge on the US government by suing the US government to get their hands back on our money:

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is hitting back at the federal government with a lawsuit arguing that Congress violated the Constitution when it passed legislation banning federal funding for the group.

What is the basis of their lawsuit? What argument could their lawyers have possibly come up with to even think about using in court?

The lawsuit also says Congress violated the Fifth Amendment right to due process, and the First Amendment right to freedom of association by targeting organizations affiliated and allied with ACORN. It wants the court to issue an injunction to keep the government from re-appropriating funds originally for the group and its affiliates.

"It's not the job of Congress to be the judge, jury, and executioner," said Jules Lobel, cooperating attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights. "We have due process in this country."

The due process argument is asinine. Could they really be implying that they have a constitutional right to our tax money? The right to due process pertains to criminal trials not Congressional debates. Congress has the right to cut funding from any organization at any time for any reason. Congress doesn't nor should it hold "trials" to determine if an organization is able to continue to receive funds or whether it should be pulled for wrongdoing. This would lead to every organization that receives money to expect a full trial, if Congress ever decides to pull funding. This would be pandamonium.

Now, let's get to the other stupid argument. The first admendment's "right to assembly" is not being violated. Congress is not forcing them to disband or close shop. They still have their right to peaceful assembly. ACORN can still dig up the dead and get them to vote or go to daycare to sign up the toddlers.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Gallup: More Americans Want Government Out of Healthcare Than Ever, Gallup Doesn't Know Why...Genius

The debate over government intrusion into our healthcare has brought the issue to the forefront of voters' minds and has forced them to take a real good look at the issue. I don't think what people have concluded is not what Obama and the Democrats had in mind:

More Americans now say it is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%). This is a first since Gallup began tracking this question, and a significant shift from as recently as three years ago, when two-thirds said ensuring healthcare coverage was the government's responsibility.

Gallup has asked this question each November since 2001 as part of the Gallup Poll Social Series, and most recently in its Nov. 5-8 Health and Healthcare survey. There have been some fluctuations from year to year, but this year marks the first time in the history of this trend that less than half of Americans say ensuring healthcare coverage for all is the federal government's responsibility.

Gallup went on to understate the fact that there has been a considerable drop, in the last few years. Ed Morrissey breaks it down:

Significant? I’d say.  In 2006, the survey found a 69%/28% split in favor of it being the federal government’s responsibility, or more than 2-1, the apex for statists on health care.  In 2007 the gap narrowed to 64-33, and when Obama got elected a year ago, it had drifted to 54-41 — still better than Obama’s eventual margin of victory.

They found that ever since America is in the "midst of robust debate on a potentially imminent healthcare reform law" support for government has plummeted, but the truly remarkable thing is that they are still totally clueless as to why this support has fallen so far:

The reason behind this shift is unknown. Certainly the federal government's role in the nation's healthcare system has been widely and vigorously debated over the last several months, including much focus on the "public option." These data suggest that one result of the debate has been a net decrease in Americans' agreement that ensuring all Americans have healthcare coverage is an appropriate role for the federal government.

The pollsters had a couple of huge oversights. First, they didn't ask any follow-up questions like: "Why are you against it?". They only asked about their general feelings about it. Also, they only focused on the difference between the Republicans and Democrats. They didn't seem to care about how independents felt. The loss of independent support is probably a huge reason why it has dropped.

Exit thought: With about 70% Democrats still hanging on to the idea of government-run healthcare but most of the rest of America disagreeing, which party is really out of the mainstream?

Thursday, November 12, 2009

NY23: Was Owens Sworn In Too Soon? Absentee Ballots Keeping Hoffman Victory Within Reach?

On election night, a Hoffman victory looked like it was close but no cigar. After Hoffman conceded, Pelosi wasted no time getting him sworn into office. She needed every vote she could get to ram Pelosicare through. Now that 100% of the polls have reported and all of the absentee ballots are being counted, the race is not just tightening but is turning into a photo finish:

Owens declared victory after Conservative nominee Doug Hoffman conceded the 23rd Congressional District race election night. Now recanvassing shows the special election has narrowed to a 3,000-vote difference, and will be decided by a count of absentee ballots. Washington -- Conservative Doug Hoffman conceded the race in the 23rd Congressional District last week after receiving two pieces of grim news for his campaign: He was down 5,335 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted on election night, and he had barely won his stronghold in Oswego County.

As it turns out, neither was true.

After all of the missing votes were found and tabulated, here is the current count:

Now a recanvassing in the 11-county district shows that Owens’ lead has narrowed to 3,026 votes over Hoffman, 66,698 to 63,672, according to the latest unofficial results from the state Board of Elections.

In Oswego County, where Hoffman was reported to lead by only 500 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted election night, inspectors found Hoffman actually won by 1,748 votes -- 12,748 to 11,000.

The new vote totals mean the race will be decided by absentee ballots, of which about 10,200 were distributed, said John Conklin, communications director for the state Board of Elections.

Out of over 10,000 votes, Hoffman must outnumber the votes that Owens gets by 3,000. It is still a long shot, but it is definitely attainable.

Since most of the ballots were sent in before Dede Scozzofava dropped out, she will play a huge role in the outcome as well. Will she take more away from Owens or Hoffman. Some experts believe that Hoffman would benefit more than Owens, but will it be enough?

I can see why Pelosi rushed him through. She might have know that this might happen and didn't Hoffman taking back his concession before she could get Owens sworn in.

One might wonder how she was able to do this in the first place. Here's how:

"We sent a letter to the clerk laying out the totals," Conklin said. "The key is that Hoffman conceded, which means the race is not contested. However, all ballots will be counted, and if the result changes, Owens will have to be removed."

Would a contested race that would have kept Owens from swearing in kept the healthcare bill from going through? Probably not, it passed with 220 votes two more than they needed. So, one less vote wouldn't killed the bill, but as close as it was, it could have.

These "mistakes" could've had a profound impact on the future of this country. Owens shouldn't have been sworn in until all of the votes were counted. If Pelosi wanted his vote, she should have delayed the vote until all the ballots were counted. What was the rush? Maybe she didn't want to give the public more time to read here almost 2,000 page bill. People would might have found more that they didn't like in the bill, if they were actually given a chance to read it.

The chances of a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment is slim, but it is still worthwhile to keep an eye on the count. It could give Hoffman momentum that he would need to try again in November 2010.

Now, this comment by Owens' spokesman had nothing substantial to add, but it was just a brilliant non-answer that I had to add it:

When asked about the tightening race, Owens spokesman Jon Boughtin released a statement without directly addressing the election. "Since being elected, Congressman Owens has remained focused on the issues at hand: working with local leaders to address the Champlain Bridge closure, meeting with commanders at Fort Drum and continuing the work to strengthen Upstate New York," the statement said.


Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Sen. Ben Nelson Won't Vote Yes on Healthcare Bill With Government Option or Federal Funding of Abortions

Democratic support for the healthcare bill has sprung another leak. This time it is Senator Ben Nelson out of Nebraska:

In a warning sign for the White House, Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska tells ABC News that he'll vote to block any health care bill that looks like the bill passed by the House.

Why is he thumbing his nose at Harry Reid, Pelosi, and the millions that are uninsured?

"Well, first of all, it has more than a robust public option, it's got a totally government-run plan, the costs are extraordinary associated with it, it increases taxes in a way that will not pass in the Senate and I could go on and on and on," Nelson said in an interview that is part of ABC News' Subway Series with Jonathan Karl.

"Faced with a decision about whether or not to move a bill that is bad, I won't vote to move it," he added. "For sure."

The $1.1 trillion price tag on the House bill, Nelson said, is "absolutely" too high.

The $1.1 trillion quote is, actually, on the low side, but that is besides the point. This is just another trillion plus government boodoogle that will end up hurting more than it will help.

Consider the stimulus plan, Obama said that we must pass it, or we will reach 10% unemployment without it. He used fear to rush it through. Well, we passed it, and were still at 10% plus

There is one thing about the House bill, however, that Nelson does like: the strict ban on any abortion coverage by insurance plans bought with government subsidies. Unless the Senate bill includes a similar provision, Nelson said, he'll vote against it.

"Federal taxpayer money ought not to be used to fund abortions," Nelson said. "So whether it is subsidies on premiums or whether it is tax credits or whatever it should not be used to fund abortions."

That's another dagger in the bill and NOW's heart.

In response to Bill Clinton's comments earlier, he said something that sounds a bit familiar:

"What I heard him say is that you don't have to let the desire for perfection get in the way of the good," Nelson said. "And that makes a great deal of sense. But I would add the caveat that we have to be sure it is not a bad bill, that it doesn't add to the deficit, that it doesn't increase taxes, and that does, in fact, control the growth in costs."

I think he read my post right before the interview. So, I'm taking all the credit for his Damascus moment.

With the Senate needing 60 votes to pass anything and all 40 Republicans against it at this time, Reid needs all 60 Democrats to pass it. He cannot afford one defection, but he has at least 3 (Lieberman, Landrieu, too) so far and at least three more (McCaskill, Lincoln, Bayh) that could commit to a no vote. This isn't good for Sen. Reid.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Why Can't They Stop? Bill Clinton Calls Opponents of Democratic Healthcare Reform: "Teabaggers"

Why can’t liberals and Democrats stop talking like teenage boys? It is beyond juvenile. It's definitely unpresidential. First, Obama referred to conservatives using juvenile terminology. Apparently, Bill Clinton couldn’t resist, either:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Clinton described the ongoing tea party protests against the Democratic agenda as a sign their party was making progress.

Whitehouse quoted Clinton arguing: "The reason the tea-baggers are so inflamed is because we are winning."

Bill, given your history, don’t you think you’re the last person that should be using sexual metaphors?

Let’s get to his overall point:

"The point I want to make is: Just pass the bill, even if it's not exactly what you want," Clinton told Democrats. "When you try and fail, the other guys write history."

He expounds on this point later in the interview:

Clinton’s overall message was one the Obama administration has tried to make: not passing a bill is worse than passing one that’s not perfect. "So it’s not important to be perfect here, it’s important to act, to move, to start the ball rolling, to claim the evident advantages that all these plans agree with, and whatever they can get the votes for, I’m gonna support,” Clinton said he told the senators. “I think it is good politics to pass this and to pass this as soon as they can. But I think the most important thing is it is the right thing for America. The worst thing to do is nothing.”

Everyone can agree that something has to be done, but I disagree that "nothing" is the worst that can be done. They can pass this bill and make things worse. It'll raise the national debt even higher, lowering the quality of health care by running driving out the competition, not adequately addressing tort reform, etc.

I agree that we must act, move, and start the ball rolling, and do what is the right thing for America, but we can't do something just for sake of doing something. Does the plan have to be perfect? No, but it can't be rushed into without giving all sides adequate consideration. The Democratic leadership hasn't done that, not even from within their own party.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Obama's Keeping the Presidency Classy: Pelosicare Opponents Are "Teabag, Anti-Government People" & Extemists

This is according to one of the Democratic representatives from Oregon:

Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

The New York Times just glossed over it in an obscure blog entry. I haven't found it in another major news outlet, yet. This will probably get swept under the rug by the mainstream media, but it shows the real contempt that Obama has for half of his constituents.

Exit Thought: I wonder how much grief from the liberal Democratic establishment Blumenauer will get for letting the cat out of the teabag.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Abortion Ban Amendment Could Clear Way for Passage of Pelosicare

Pro-Life Democrats have been threatening to kill the bill, if the bill didn't block federal money from funding abortions. However, early this morning, Democrats including Stupak, one of the pro-life Democratic leaders, meet with Pelosi and company to broker a deal between them:

House Democrats reached an agreement on a contentious abortion provision overnight that appears to clear the way for a final vote on health care legislation today.

The agreement will allow a vote on an amendment, authored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., that would bar funds going toward abortion under both the public option and any private plans that participate in the new insurance exchange.

If this amendment passes, it might be barely enough to pass the monstrous bill. With all Republicans voting against it, she only afford to lose 20 Democrats. Since there are at least 15 Democrats that are giving a hard no against the bill regardless of the abortion issue, it is going to be a photo finish. The bill is scheduled to be up for a vote at 6pm, if it isn't delayed until Sunday or beyond.

Proof-Positive That He Is An Idiot: Gibbs: What If They Would of Compared Bush to Hitler?

Was Robert Gibbs on Mars for the last 8 years? That is the only explanation that I can come up with that will explain how he can even say this:

Today, Robert Gibbs lamented some of the offensive signs at Bachmann's anti-health bill rally (of which there were some, but not enough to even fill out HuffPo's 12 Most Offensive slideshow):

"I will continue to say what I've said before. You hear in this debate, you hear analogies, you hear references to, you see pictures about and depictions of individuals that are truly stunning, and you hear it all the time. People -- imagine five years ago somebody comparing health care reform to 9/11. Imagine just a few years ago had somebody walked around with images of Hitler.

Hopefully we can get back to a discussion about the issues that are important in this country that we can do so without being personally disagreeable and set up comparisons to things that were so insidious in our history that anybody in any profession or walk of life would be well advised to compare nothing to those atrocities."

Right? Apparently, he hasn't seen these or these.

I, also, wonder where his outrage was when fellow Democrat Alan Grayson compared healthcare crisis to the Holocaust.

Mary Katherine Ham has many more examples on her post. He isn't entitled to his own set of facts from his own revisionist history.

Friday, November 6, 2009

Former Planned Parenthood Director Says She Had Abortion Quotas

A few days ago, a story came out about a director at a Planned Parenthood location in Bryan, Texas who quit, after she saw an ultrasound of an abortion.

Now, she has been talking to WorldNetDaily that there is more than meets the eye going on at Planned Parenthood, not any pro-life advocate's surprise:

The former Texas-based Planned Parenthood director who recently quit after seeing an ultrasound video of an abortion says high Planned Parenthood officials wanted her center to meet quotas for the number of abortions done. Abby Johnson had been the director of the Planned Parenthood in Bryan/College Station.

These quotas weren't just for her. Upper management pushed her to push her employees to "keep abortion numbers high."

"There are definitely client goals," she said. "We'd have a goal every month for abortion clients and for family planning clients."

These weren't any "soft" quotas. They were pushing her hard to kill more unborn babies. Why? Hint it's not for their patients' wellbeing:

She said her facility did abortions every other Saturday but began increasing the number of abortions in order to increase revenues. One method involved increasing the number of abortions done with the dangerous mifepristone abortion drug.

"One of the ways they were able to up the number of patients that they saw was they started doing the RU-486 chemical abortions all throughout the week," she said.

Just show how much that Planned Parenthood officials didn't care about the health of the woman, this is what one abortion drug mentioned above has done to women nationwide:

Johnson told WND that abortions using the drug, which has killed 13 women worldwide and injured at least 1,100 in the United States alone according to the FDA, would bring in between $505 and $695 depending on the age of the baby at the time of the abortion.

They push this drug even though they very well know the side-effects.

There are a few supporters of the abortion that claim that Planned Parenthood is not all about abortions, but these stats seem to paint a different picture:

Yet, prenatal care and adoption referrals resulted for only 5 percent of the total services provided to women in 2007 while abortions accounted for 95 percent of the services that year, according to Planned Parenthood's own figures.

This organization is nothing but a baby killing factory. The premise of them being a women's health clinic that is only interested in the health and well-being of women is a joke. It seems to care very little about it. They should pull any and all federal funding for the immoral operation.

Hoyer, 2nd Highest Democrat: Um, Nancy, We May Not Have Voted to Pass Pelosicare After All, Sorry

Just yesterday, Pelosi said that she was confident that she would have the votes to pass her healthcare bill. However, the House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer (D-MD) doesn't have as much confidence about the bill's passage as the Madame Speaker has:

A House leader says Democrats haven't yet lined up enough votes to pass their health care overhaul bill.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland says the vote that House Democrats had scheduled for Saturday could slip to Sunday or early next week.

Hoyer acknowledged to reporters Friday that Democratic leaders don't yet have the 218 votes needed to pass President Barack Obama's historic health overhaul initiative.

He said he still expects passage Saturday night. But he added that some Democrats are still "looking to get a comfort level" with the bill. Republicans are unanimously opposed to the sweeping legislation.

As was reported earlier by various sources, health care funding for abortion and illegal immigrants are the main obstacles to the final passage of the bill in the House.

Since there is unanimous GOP opposition to the bill, Pelosi can only afford to lose 40 Democrats to pass the bill. At this time, there is a large enough pro-life and pro-illegal immigrant faction in the Democratic caucus that might "kill the bill". Apparently, it's large enough the even the 2nd top Democrat in the House doesn't believe doubts Pelosi's vote count.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Hypocrisy Alert: Florida Democrats Uninvited Sen Landrieu Because of Her Skepticism of Pelosicare

Democrats and liberals have been crowing about a GOP "civil war" and a "purge" of moderates out of the Republican party. Valerie Jarrett, White House spokeswoman, said that they are trying to inclusive even if all other evidence has said otherwise. Now, the Democratic Party of Palm Beach County, Florida is showing their inclusive spirit:

Democratic Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu is out as keynote speaker for the Palm Beach County Democratic Party’s annual fund-raising dinner next week because party leaders dislike her stance on health care reform, county Democratic Chairman Mark Alan Siegel said today.

Landrieu, a moderate who recently described herself as “extremely concerned about a government-run, taxpayer-funded, national public plan,” has not committed to voting to cut off a likely Republican filibuster and forcing a vote on the legislation.

Democrats need 60 votes to invoke “cloture” and force a vote.

“We just didn’t want to have a keynote speaker who’s not committed to cloture. It would have just been wrong,” said Siegel, who said party higher-ups and rank-and-file members had voiced displeasure with the choice of Landrieu as a keynote.

The left-wing blogosphere has been a buzz saying that the reason why the Democrats lost the gubernatorial New Jersey and Virginia is because they tried to moderate themselves and not fully endorse all of Obama's liberal policies.

There is hasn't been a lot of love from the left given to Joe Lieberman when he supported the war, spoke at the RNC for McCain, or spoke out against Pelosicare.

They claim that Republicans are becoming more extreme, yet the Democratic party seems to be doing exactly what they chastise the Republicans for doing.

Purge your Blue Dogs. Purge.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Left Wing Conspiracy Confirmed: NJ DSC: Actually We Did Robocalls Promoting Independent Over Christie

I'm not one to buy into conspiracy theories coming from either side, but this one turned out to be true:

The Democratic State Committee now admits paying for a robocall to Somerset County voters that slams Republican Chris Christie and promotes independent gubernatorial candidate Christopher Daggett.

A Democratic spokeswoman says the party’s chairman, Joe Cryan, was not aware of the robocalls when he denied that the state committee had anything to do with them yesterday afternoon.

This is definitely an underhanded move by the Democrats. They are all too obviously playing a little divide and conquer. This type of move reprehensible and shows how scared they are that Corzine will lose:

Before the Democrats owned up to it, Daggett media advisor Bill Hillsman said the call might be a Republican trick to generate a sympathetic newspaper story.

"Yesterday, Jon Corzine's party boss Joe Cryan said that 'No, zero, nada, no,' when asked if he had anything to do with the robocalls," said Kevin Roberts, a spokesman for the Republican State Committee.  "Today, it's clear that Cryan is an outright liar. Corzine's party boss knows what we know - Jon Corzine's record is so dreadful that they feel a need to try to trick voters into a second term."

Is This Really Necessary? Oscar the Grouch Trashes Fox News

In an effort to not so subliminally influence our young, a television show that is geared to toddlers has decided to enter the war against Fox News. Oscar, Big Bird, and company are supposed to be teaching our kids how to count and say their ABC's not what news channel to watch when they come of age. Considering that it is all of our tax dollars that pay for Sesame Street, we are all paying for our kids to be indoctrinated by Oscar the Grouch. This is way over the line, and yet another reason why all federal money should be pulled from PBS, if they continue to include this liberal propaganda in our children's educational programming.

Monday, November 2, 2009

What Gives? Rasmussen: Shows GOP Numbers Dwindling, While Conservative Numbers Are Still High

Democrats believe that the falling numbers of voters that call themselves Republicans and the election of Barack Obama are signs that America is becoming more liberal. However, there are a couple of Rasmussen polls that are very telling on what the real story is behind the GOP decline.

One reason for this is that while Republican voters overwhelmingly consider themselves conservative, only 56% of conservative voters consider themselves to be Republicans. In other words, nearly half of all conservatives nationwide reject the Republican Party label.

I would be included in that group. Whenever I'm asked what party that I'm affiliated with, I just say that I'm a conservative. I do vote for Republicans, most of the time, but I feel that many of them have gone to Washington to change it but Washington changed them. Many conservatives believe that the GOP has lost its Republican roots.

What about the rest of the Americans that don't call themselves Republicans?

Of all the non-Republicans in the nation, 31% consider themselves at least somewhat conservative while 37% say they’re political moderates.

So, it seems that America hasn't moved that far to the left. We are still a center-right nation. People believe that it is the GOP that has moved to the left, and the the rise of the conservative Doug Hoffman and the fall of the liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava in the NY23 race seems to confirm this theory. The people of the 23rd district of New York have picked the conservative over the "moderate". On Tuesday, if the polls hold up, they will choose Hoffman over the Pelosi-backed Bill Owens.

NJ: "Tight Race" Not So Tight, Christie Pulling Ahead As Independents Are "Unhappy" With Gov. Corzine's Job Performance

Many predicted that the New Jersey governor's race would be the closest race of all this year. Corzine evened the numbers in some polls and pulled ahead in others, over the past month. Yesterday, the polls started showing that Christie pulling ahead:

The final Public Policy Polling survey in New Jersey finds Chris Christie (R) pulling ahead of Gov. Jon Corzine (D), 47% to 41%, with independent Chris Daggett at 11%.

Three weeks ago, Christie led by just one point but Corzine's momentum has stalled in the last two surveys.

Analysis: "Christie's advantage is due largely to his support from independents and because he has Republicans more unified around him than the Democrats are around Corzine. Christie leads Corzine 52-29 with indies, as Daggett's support with that group has declined to 16%. Christie is getting 82% of Republicans to Corzine's 72% of Democrats."

Why the sudden support for Christie at the end? Why are independents and former Daggett supporters flocking to the Republican challenger? Apparently, as Election Day looms ahead of us, they have been getting nervous about the chances that Corzine could get re-elected:

“Independent voters are simply unhappy with the job Governor Corzine has done over the past four years. After a brief flirtation with Daggett’s candidacy, many seem to have returned to Christie as their best chance for change,” said (Patrick) Murray(director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute).

That isn't surprising considering that Corzine's apporval are a horrible overall, 35% approve to 55% disapprove, and an abysmal 21% to 69% among Democrats.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Valerie Jarrett: GOP Becoming More Extreme & Marginalized, Dems Reaching Out/ Tell That to Pelosi, Reid

Valerie Jarrett has been very vocal lately. First, she criticized Fox Newsfor being biased while dodging the question about MSNBC’s liberal bias. Today, she said that the conservative revolt that chased the liberal Republican Scozzafava out of the NY23 race shows that the Republican is becoming more extreme and marginalized:

White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that the rise of a Conservative Party challenger in a closely watched upstate New York House election shows that the Republican Party leadership is “becoming more and more extreme, and more and more marginalized.”

“It’s rather telling when the Republican Party forces out a moderate Republican and it says, I think, a great deal about where the Republican Party leadership is right now,” Jarrett said when asked about the GOP candidates’ decision to suspend her campaign, making it more likely the Conservative will win Tuesday’s special election.

I think that this is rather ironic that she is saying that Republicans are becoming more extreme because Hoffman won the heartsof the average conservative more than Scozzafava could ever win them over. However, on the other flip of the coin she said absolutely nothing about the Democratic party becoming more extreme and marginalized, when Pelosi and Reid thumb their noses at more moderate Democrats like Lieberman, Landrieu Stupak, etc, when they express doubts about the health care plans. In fact, she claimed quite the opposite:

“We’re going to try to include as many people to be a part of our governing process — being open, being transparent,” Jarrett continued.

So, basically, she is saying that Democrats are trying to be inclusive and wants to "include as many people" in governing. How inclusive was Pelosi and Reid being when they shut out Republicans during conference of the porkulus bill?

Exit question: I'm going to let Amanda Carpenter ask it this time. She had a very interesting question that I would love to have Valerie Jarrett, White House, and other Democrats answer:

As Valerie Jarrett bashes GOP for becoming "extreme" by pushing out moderate Scozzafava, how much WH is loving Joe Lieberman right now??

Well, Ms. Jarrett?

NY23: Former Republican Candidate Scozzafava Endorses Democrat Owens Over Conservative Hoffman

When the liberal Republican candidate dropped out of the race earlier this week, many thought that she would probably endorse Hoffman for the House seat. Apparently, they were, not that all surprisingly, wrong:

State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (R), who dropped from the special election in Upstate New York yesterday, has now thrown her support to Democrat Bill Owens.

"It's not in the cards for me to be your representative, but I strongly believe Bill is the only candidate who can build upon John McHugh's lasting legacy in the U.S. Congress," said Scozzafava in a statement released moments ago.

The reason why Palin and most other Republicans endorsed Hoffman rather than the actual Republican candidate was that they believed that they didn't see much, if any, difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates. As Palin put it in her endorsement announcement on Facebook:

Political parties must stand for something. When Republicans were in the wilderness in the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan knew that the doctrine of "blurring the lines" between parties was not an appropriate way to win elections. Unfortunately, the Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate who more than blurs the lines, and there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race. This is why Doug Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party's ticket.

Republicans' suspicions were confirmed by the former Republican candidate's endorsement for the Democrat.

Exit thought: One of the main reasons why Gingrich said that he endorsed Scozzafavawas that he didn't wanted to show party loyalty and thought that an endorsement of Hoffman would split the party. So what does he think of Scozzafava's endorsement of the Democrat Bill Owens, today?

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Pelosi's Treat For Trial Lawyers, Trick For Everyone Else

The folks at the Big Government blog have found a provision buried in the almost 2,000 page healthcare bill that is treat for the lawyers and a trick for the rest of us:

Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.

So, you can’t try to seek alternatives to lawsuits if you’ve actually done something to implement alternatives to lawsuits. Brilliant! The trial lawyers must be very happy today!

Is this the type of tort reform that Obama promised back in the September speech in front of Congress, or did Nancy Pelosi try to sneak an Easter egg for her trial lawyer buddies?

There isn’t any specific number that can be attributed to tort abuse, but most believe the savings to be in the billions, if there were actual tort reform included in the health reform bill nationwide. Alas, this is not exactly the kind of reform that will be needed to drive down costs. By taking away the states’ right to limit lawyer fees or to put caps on how much can be won by the plaintiff, if they win the case, it could only raise medical costs and insurance premiums not lower them.

Yet Another Poll That Fails to Ask the Important Question About the Public Option

Liberals are holding up polls like this up as proof of Americans approval of the Democrats’ healthcare plan including the public option:

In our most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll respondents were asked:

"Which of these would you prefer – (a plan that includes some form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can’t get affordable private insurance, but is approved without support from Republicans in Congress); or (a plan that is approved with support from Republicans in Congress, but does not include any form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can’t get affordable private insurance)?"

Fifty one percent said they preferred the public option; 37 percent said they preferred a bill with some support from Republicans in Congress. Six percent said neither and seven percent expressed no opinion.

Many of the polls that they say is proof that the majority of Americans want the current health plan with the public option fail to ask about the potential consequences of such a massive government program, ie bankrupting the country. All they tend to ask about is the their feelings on the public option in more general terms like: Do you like the idea of the public option?

In my post a few days ago, I brought up an interview done with Sen. Mary Landrieu where she hit this problem right on the head:

Asked about polls showing public support for a government plan, Landrieu said the questions should be phrased differently."

I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no," she said.

I know that I’ve used that quote twice, now, but it just seemed so perfect for this post, as well. It is a good example of the type of polls that Sen. Landrieu and I were talking about yesterday.

To me, this poll shows that people definitely want something done, and they don't care about the partisan squabbling. It doesn't necessarily mean that they want the public option at all costs.

NY23: Scozzafava Quits, What Does This Mean for Republican Party?

A bomb just went off in New York. After the latest Siena poll that showed that the Republican candidate was taking a nose dive, the Scozzafava campaign announced that they were suspending:

Dede Scozzafava, the Republican and Independence parties candidate, announced Saturday that she is suspending her campaign for the 23rd Congressional District and releasing all her supporters.

The state Assemblywoman has not thrown her support to either Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate, or Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate."

Today, I again seek to act for the good of our community," Ms. Scozzafava wrote in a letter to friends and supporters. "It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my party will emerge stronger and our district and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations."

This will free up Hoffman to take most of the voters that would of voted for Scozzafava. There really haven’t been any polls that I’ve seen, yet, that say how many of the her supporters will support Hoffman, but I would say that it is more likely that most will support Hoffman rather than support Owens.

On Twitter, Jordan Raynor asked a good question:

Does Scozzafava dropping out diminish the implications of a Hoffman win nationally? #ny23

I don’t think that it does diminish what has be accomplished by the grassroots Hoffman revolution. In fact, it validates all that it was supposed to achieve. The local Republican party made the choice of running someone who is more middle of the road because they believed that voters were looking for candidates that were more like Obama and other more liberal candidates not like Reagan. They had a rude awakening ever since Palin’s endorsement of Hoffman brought the race into the national spotlight even more than it already was. Palin made the people in the NY23 district take a closer look at Hoffman, and they liked what they saw from him much more than Scozzafava.

As a result, her numbers plummeted, and Hoffman pulled into a virtual tie with the Democrat Bill Owens. Hopefully, the national party is taking notes. We don’t them to run people like John McCain. We need them to realize Reaganism isn’t dead. The liberal agenda of the Obama Administration is awakening people to remember why they don’t want the United States to become a more liberal country.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Lieberman: "Probably Will Support" Future Congressional Republican Candidates

Lieberman is at it again. He must be giving Obama,Pelosi and Reid ulcers by now. He has pretty much gave the finger to the rest of the Democratic establishment especially the liberal wing:

Sounding more like an independent than a Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., tells ABC News he will campaign for some Republican candidates during the 2010 midterm elections and may not seek the Democratic Senate nomination when he runs for re-election in 2012.

"I probably will support some Republican candidates for Congress or Senate in the election in 2010. I'm going to call them as I see them,"

"There's a hard core of partisan, passionate, hardcore Republicans," Lieberman said. "There's a hard core of partisan Democrats on the other side. And in between is the larger group, which is people who really want to see the right thing done, or want something good done for this country and them -- and that means, sometimes, the better choice is somebody who's not a Democrat."

This is, actually, quite refreshing to me. Too many times, politicians blindly endorse someone just because they have a D or a R after their name with no regard to their actual stance on the issues. In the name of party unity, they run the risk of cheapening and watering-down the core beliefs of the party by endorsing someone who doesn't best represent the core beliefs of the party. I'm not saying that they have to believe exactly as every other Republican does, but they should be similar.

I believe this is what big Newt ran into when he endorsed Dede Scozzafava for Congress instead of Doug Hoffman, and then, criticized those that didn't follow suit and endorse the Conservative Party candidate.

That type of blind loyalty is a huge part of what is wrong with politics, today. No one thinks for themselves anymore. They are too afraid of upsetting the "party establishment".

It'll be very interesting to see how Reid, Pelosi, etc will respond to this. He almost lost his Senate seat and chairmanship, when he endorsed McCain and spoke at the Republican National Convention. The only reason why he didn't was, probably, because he is the magic number 60 in the Senate. If he keeps bucking them, they may give up on him even if he is number 60.

Michael Steele Backs Hoffman: Two Republicans Are in the Race

In an interview with Politico, Michael Steele caved to the those who were backing the Conservative Candidate Hoffman. He didn't chastise other Republicans like Palin, Armey, Pawlenty, etc for not endorsing their party's candidate:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said Friday that a victory by Doug Hoffman, the third-party candidate in the Nov. 3 New York special election, is a win for the GOP.

The actual Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava, trails Hoffman, the Conservative Party nominee, and Democrat Bill Owens by double-digits according to a recent poll. But Steele argued during an interview with POLITICO that the GOP doesn’t need to worry about Scozzafava’s lagging ratings because Hoffman is essentially a Republican.

Unlike Newt Gingrich, Steele doesn't feel that going for Hoffman will destroy the party. In fact, he said that he will embrace the third party candidate:

“I don’t split the party into conservative or not,” he said. “I’m looking as the national chairman to walk out of there one way or the other with a win.”

“You’ve got two Republicans running in that race. My upside is that one of them will likely win,” Steele said. “We want to be supporting the one that wins.”

Asked if he would support Hoffman in 2010 if the Conservative Party candidate won the special election and sought re-election, Steele responded: “Why wouldn’t I?”

“Is he a Republican?” Steele asked. “He’s the Conservative Party nominee, but he ran initially as a Republican.”

This is a change from what has been said, so far, not from Steele himself but other state party leaders who nominated the more liberal Dede Scozzafava who were furious with Republicans from outside their state throwing their candidate under the bus.

Apparently, they've seen the writing on the wall, and the decision has been made by New York's 23rd district. The people want a more conservative Republican candidate not a RINO running for office.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Is the White House Bowling Alley the New Lincoln Bedroom?

This actually came out yesterday, but I was busy at my other job and never got around to posting this.

It looks like Obama is taking a page out of the Clinton Administration:

During his first nine months in office, President Obama has quietly rewarded scores of top Democratic donors with VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings.

High-dollar fundraisers have been promised access to senior White House officials in exchange for pledges to donate $30,400 personally or to bundle $300,000 in contributions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to internal Democratic National Committee documents obtained by The Washington Times.

One top donor described in an interview with The Times being given a birthday visit to the Oval Office. Another was allowed use of a White House-complex bowling alley for his family. Bundlers closest to the president were invited to watch a movie in the red-walled theater in the basement of the presidential mansion.

Mr. Obama invited his top New York bundler, UBS Americas CEO Robert Wolf, to golf with him during the president's Martha's Vineyard vacation in August. At least 39 donors and fundraisers also were treated to a lavish White House reception on St. Patrick's Day, where the fountains on the North and South Lawns were dyed green, photos and video reviewed by The Times and CBS News also show.

This highly unethical, if not illegal. Bill Clinton had a similar scandal involving over 800 high-dollar donators that received sleepover parties in the Lincoln Bedroom. So, this is not a new concept.

This very hypocritical of the Obama Administration. On the campain trail, Robert Gibbs took a shot at Hillary for her husband's Lincoln Bedroom scandal back in Feburary:

"We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters. It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom."

Isn't it ironic that a campaign team that chastised Hillary and her husband for a campaign finance scandal involving "renting" time at the White House is now involved in his own scandal?

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Rep Stupak (D-MI) Doubles Down On Vow to Stop Healthcare Reform From Funding Abortions, Will Work With GOP

Back in late September, 183 Democrats sent a letter to Pelosi urging her to allow an up or down vote regarding whether the healthcare plan will fund abortion or not. So far, she has refused.

Now, one of the main architects of that letter, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), has further angered Pelosi in his pursuit to keep federal money from funding abortions:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) on Tuesday threatened that he may work with Republicans to torpedo healthcare reform unless he gets a vote to strip abortion-related provisions out of the House bill.

Stupak wants a floor vote on a measure that would prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions. And in an interview on C-SPAN on Tuesday, he suggested if Democratic leaders don’t give him the vote, he’ll work with Republicans.

I'm sure she is more that "not happy" with you, Bart. She is probably downright livid.

To his credit, he seems to be standing firm on this issue:

The Michigan Democrat said he will not be backing down: “I’m comfortable with where I’m at. This is who I am. It’s reflective of my district. If it costs me my seat, so be it.”

Most of the talk has been about whether Reid can pass the bill in the Senate, but I have some reservations about it passing the House even with heavy Democratic slant. In the end, the House will probably pass it, but it'll pass barely by a slimmer margin than many realize.

Updated: WSJ: Public Option Could Triple Insurance Premiums

Democrats claim that the public option will not increase people's current insurance premiums. However, a new study by Wellpoint shows that some insurance premiums could actually triple under the health reform legislation:

At the request of Congressional delegations worried about their constituents—call it a public service—WellPoint mined its own actuarial data to model ObamaCare in the 14 states where it runs Blue Cross plans. The study therefore takes into account market and demographic differences that other industry studies have not, such as the one from the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans, which looked at aggregate national trends.

In all of the 14 states WellPoint scrutinized, ObamaCare would drive up premiums for the small businesses and individuals who are most of WellPoint's customers. (Other big insurers, like Aetna, focus on the market among large businesses.) Young and healthy consumers will see the largest increases—their premiums would more than triple in some states—though average middle-class buyers will pay more too.

In the spirit of full-disclosure, Wellpoint is an insurance company and has their own agenda in this debate. Democrats made this perfectly clear in their response to this report:

"This is yet another insurance-industry report that twists the facts to produce a skewed result," averred Linda Douglass, the White House communications director on health care. Said a spokesman for the Senate Finance Committee, "This is akin to the tobacco companies commissioning another study claiming nicotine isn't addictive and cigarettes don't cause cancer."

You may have to take this report with a grain of salt, but it is still some pretty damning results. It is a very detailed with a lot of stats and analysis to back it up.