News Ticker powered by Fox News

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?