It's Not Fair

I'm going to take my ball and go home. You guys don't play fair and I ain't going to put up with it.

The new tool of the democrats seems to be elementary and preschool standards we all grew up with. If you can't get your way, you make sure no one else can either. Play yard tactics seem to be the only thing left for the Democratic party. This is evident in Wisconsin and Indiana. I am sure it will be adopted across the US. It has become clearly evident over the years who are the adults in leadership positions.

Apparently the Democrats don't understand how serious the debt issues are for all areas of government. Their focus is only on their dream Utopian ideals that can't be fed the vast sums of cash we don't have to make them happen. They need a reality check and a serious kick in the pants. I hope those of you who have a say over keeping these children in office will make your intentions clear.

We need serious adults who desire the restoration of real American values that work. Sound fiscal disciplines in government and true freedom returned to its citizens will solve much of what ails us. The private sector has demonstrated time and time again that it can and will over come obsticals if government will get out of its way.

Here is a demonstration of that very fact in action today.


So tell the children to get back to the jobs they were sent to do. Stop running and trying to hide. These are real problems that need to be fixed. Yes, there may b e some initial pain but the future for your children is at stake. If you would like to reduce their suffering then cut the spending. It is time for everyone to live within their means, including the government.

Did You See That?

While you were watching the primaries Harry Reid was trying to give away your nation.

Reid Adding Amnesty Measure to Defense Bill
Published September 14, 2010 | Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday he wants to attach an amendment to a defense policy bill that would help young people in the United States illegally become legal U.S. residents.

The Nevada Democrat said at a Capitol news conference that the legislation known as the DREAM Act is long overdue. He would not say whether he has the votes for the amendment. The act would allow young people who attend college or join the military to become legal U.S. residents.

Read The Rest.

You can't turn your head away and stop watching. They are hoping your attention is elsewhere. We the people have to constantly intervene to steer this ship called congress. The captain is drunk on power and the leadership pretends to be royalty. It takes a strong act by the average citizen to do the job we sent them there to do.

November is coming. Registar and vote. We need representatives that will take their constitutional oath seriously. We need representatives that want to restore American independence. Don't vote party or name. Let's put quality individuals back in charge.

Learning from the 2008 Vote

I have been reading the exit poll data. If things are going to turn around this November we really need to understand what happened in 2008. Now I will admit that McCain was not a formidable opponent to Obama. Some would even suggest that he all but handed the election to Obama. Even with poor choices there is still things that can be learned from the data.

First let us look at the age demographics.
age 18-29 make up 21.8% of the population with 16% voting and voted 56% Obama
age 58 and older make up 24.7% of the population with 29.3% voting and voted 37% Obama

The age data shows why these two groups are so actively pursued during elections. Both groups fail to vote to the capacity of their members. The youth are both fickle and hard to draw to the polls. The older demand focus on Social Security and Medicare as they look for stability.

Side Note: Obamacare will ration or reduce care to the older group thereby reducing this group of dominately Republican voters.

Workforce Demographics 15.4% of workforce is union
Organized (union) Labor 67% voted Obama
Unorganized (non-union) Labor 51% voted Obama
Union Members over 65 voted Obama 72%
Non Union over 65 voted Obama 46%

Teachers make up 2.7% of workforce
87% of teachers are Union 80% voted Obama

Government Employment (doesn't include education) Makes up 17% of workforce and vote 70% Democrat
Federal Civilian 15.02% percentage of total workforce 2.55%
Post office 5.21% percentage of total workforce 0.89%
Military Enlisted 9.93% percentage of total workforce 1.69%
Military Officers 1.95% percentage of total workforce 0.33%
State Government 20.52% percentage of total workforce 3.49%
Local Government 47.36% percentage of total workforce 8.05%

Side Note: People who have Post-Graduate degrees were 16% less likely to vote Democrat.

Voter Turnout - Sad but true.
Presidential voting years average 55.2% since 1960
Non-Presidential voting years average 40% since 1960
60% of eligible voters are actually registered to vote.
In 2006 37.1% turned out.
In 2008 56.8% turned out.

Our founders fought desperately to give us the right to vote. Throughout our history we have advanced the right to vote to more of our citizens and yet fewer and fewer are actually exercising this much sought and fought for right.

Given our voting turnout it would only take a highly motivated group to garner 18.5% of the voting block to win an election in a non-presidential year. Local and state issues can suffer a greater fate as the majority fails to take advantage of the election. I hear people complaining about how their state/city/town/country got into the horrible condition it is currently in and I look on voting records like this. It is high time those who were eligible to vote showed up. A great many places have made it even easier with mail in ballots and yet so many don't vote.

Look at the data above. All it takes for another tax hike is for Government Employees, Teachers and union workers to show up at the polls and they take 35%. If we add the brainwashed 18-29s we have 57% of the voting population setting the policy. These are the groups most likely to be motivated to the polls. Looking over their Democrat leaning percentages that would be 36.6% of eligible voters if they turned out in force to vote. The youth and their lack of showing up could cut 10% but even 26.6% is enough to take most mid-term elections.

Overall the need to get eligible voters to the polls has never been greater. Conservative America needs to show up and do their duty as citizens. Notice I didn't include the vast public who are on some government program that may be persuaded to join the other side. Most of this group are too lazy to show up, so the percentage is small but formidable indeed.

Switching Gears -------
When the constitution was being argued the south wanted to count all the black men as part of there representation in order to gain more seats in government. The north realizing that these slaves would take their rightful vote and therefore promote slavery instead of diminish it. The north argued that slaves should not be counted because they had no say in the policies of state. A compromise was achieved to better balance the rolls by counting black slaves as only 60% of a white voter. This was not to say that a black man was only worth 60% of a white man as some would later argue.

In the rolls of law, if someone has a "dog in the fight" or a interest to gain, they must remove themselves from the legal dispute so it can be settled fairly. We are currently aware of this fact as we look to establish a new supreme court justice. Will Kagen be allowed to serve when Obamacare makes its way before the court? The honorable would remove themselves from the proceedings.

I find it awkward at best that congress is allowed to vote for their own raises and benefits when their bias is so blatant to the outcome.

With all that in mind, should voters who may benefit from a election result be removed from the pool? Should they be allowed to vote or should their vote be reduced to say 60% given the obvious bias?

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. - Benjamin Franklin

Cap and Tax - Here We Go

Back room deals and kickbacks are the standard operating proceedure of those in power. They will do anything to short change the American people and push their agenda.

In an effort to keep the bill in Reid's hands, the sponsors -- Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) won't officially introduce the bill in the Senate when they unveil it to the public next week.

"If we introduce it, it'll get referred to committees," Lieberman said. "We want him to be able to work with it and bring it out onto the floor as a leader whenever he's ready."

Once again transparency is tossed on the ash heap. We, the American people, will be short changed, robbed and beaten to satisfy the progressive and their march to socialism. If the possibility of recovery from this recession is ever going to happen then this is the last thing we should be doing.

Already, some senators also are raising red flags about the committee process, which they warn may be circumvented if the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman proposal moves directly into Reid’s office.

“These bills need to go through committee,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.). “If you’re talking about making major deals on energy policy, it needs to go through the Energy Committee. If you’re making major deals on tax policy, it needs to go through the Finance Committee. I mean, if you want to get it done.”

Budget Committee ranking member Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), a possible swing vote, said he would prefer the committee process remain intact for the energy and climate bill — rather than shifting the debate into Reid’s office. “This concept of going through the leader’s office is a new concept in the legislative flow chart,” Gregg said.

Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) repeated his call to move to floor debate on S. 1462, the “energy only” approach “There are not a lot of weeks left in this legislative session, and my fervent hope is, I would say to those who have been working on climate change and blocking our ability to bring an energy bill to the floor of the Senate, I hope perhaps we could find a way to work together to bring the energy bill to the floor,” Dorgan said. “That’s the way the Senate works. The Senate works by running things through a committee.”

Both sides of the isle are already reeling form Obamacare. The last thing they want is to do energy legislation wrong going into an election period. By wrong, they mean anything like the shady practices the health legislation used.

Reid needs this done and he needs it fast. Why? It is looking like he wont be around after the first of the year, due to a real challenger holding him down in the polls. Reid needs time and energy for the fight of his political life. He also is pushing a bill that is dead against what his constituency wants in Nevada. He needs this measure done and out of sight before the heart of the election campaign swings into full gear.

Well folks another bad bill is coming hard and fast. Maybe some of the Democrats have learned their lesson and will stand fast in hopes of redemption. Perhaps they all know the end is near and they will push it through. Once again we need to write our representatives and push them to make the correct decision.

Links to Quotes

They Brought You Obamacare Without Any Understanding Of Insurance

They don't know what they voted for because no one read the 2600 pages. Now they make a list of so called benefits of the plan and fail to recognize the ultimate outcome. Here is an article that gives you the benefits with a brief explanation

The Top Ten ‘Benefits,’ Seven of Which Aren’t [Avik S. A. Roy]
Democrats, such as Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), say they are eager to campaign against Republicans who seek to repeal their health-care legislation. "The Republicans will have to stand up and say we want to repeal those things and I think that will be hard, because people will begin to realize these are commonsense changes," said Durbin.

Indeed, as Grace-Marie Turner mentioned on these pages, Democrats have posted a list of the "Top Ten Immediate Benefits" that they argue that individuals will gain from the legislation.

But there is no such thing as a free lunch, and many of these "benefits" are accompanied by unmentioned costs. If you require that every restaurant serve Kobe beef instead of USDA Choice, diners might see that as a "benefit" — until their waiter gives them the check.

Let's go through the Democrats' top ten, point-by-point:

Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans. This will increase the cost of insurance for everyone else. Net negative.

Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool. High-risk pools are a good way to improve coverage of those with pre-existing conditions, which is why John McCain advocated them in the 2008 Presidential campaign. Unfortunately, the Democratic bill doesn't do enough to make them feasible. Net neutral to positive.

Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans. Insurers shouldn't drop people when they get sick, unless they have an extremely good reason, such as misrepresentation of a pre-existing condition. The onus should be on insurance companies, therefore, to investigate these things up front before taking consumers' money. This mandate will have the side effect of making applications for insurance more onerous. Net positive.

Lower seniors' prescription-drug prices by beginning to close the donut hole. As a flat-out subsidy, yes, this will appear to seniors to be a straightforward benefit. But it is accompanied by a far larger cut: the obliteration of Medicare Advantage. Net negative.

Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage. The tax credits will not be enough to compensate for two things: (1) an Obamacare-driven acceleration in the rise of the cost of health insurance; (2) the employer mandate, which requires that any small business with more than 50 employees provide health insurance to every employee or pay a fine equal to $2,000 multiplied by the entire number of employees in that company. Net negative.

Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans. Yet another mandated "benefit" that will drive up the cost of health insurance. Net negative.

Require plans to cover an enrollee's dependent children until age 26. See #7, though if this provision increases the number of young people with health insurance, it could improve the risk pool and have a salutary effect on insurance costs. Net neutral to positive.

Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing. See #7. Another clumsy mandate that will drive up the cost of insurance. Most plans already encourage prevention — but prevention has no impact on long-term health care costs, since we all have to eventually die of something. Net negative.

Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions. Yeah, except that a new government agency, the Independent Medicare Advisory Board, is now empowered to bar reimbursement for any insurance claims it deems fit. And its decisions, enacted by unelected bureaucrats, can't even be appealed by Congress, let alone consumers. We know from experience that once Medicare stops reimbursing for something, private insurers usually follow. Net negative.

Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs. Once again, this is a mandate that will only drive up insurance costs. If an insurer is required to spend 85 percent (say $850 of every $1,000) of premiums on patient care (hence $150 in "overhead"), but the company needs to spend $200 on administrative costs to ensure that its plans run effectively, they will simply raise premiums by $333 in order to ensure that the percentage of premiums spent on overhead remains the same. Net negative.

So, of the Democrats' top ten "benefits," seven have direct, opposing costs of an even greater magnitude. The remaining three provisions, if we're lucky, might work out. But we haven't even gotten started with all of the other mandates and tax increases in the law for which there are no upsides.

The Democrats' list demonstrates that we have a long way to go before our political class understands the very basics of how insurance works. One of the projects of conservatism over the next few years must be to rectify this problem.

Those Robber Baron Insurance Companies

I found the following article that confirmed my suspicions.

FACT CHECK: Health Insurers' Profits Not So Fat

WASHINGTON -- In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. Ledgers tell a different reality.

Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would "keep insurance companies honest," says President Obama.

The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.

The insurers may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet.

A look at some claims, and the numbers:

THE CLAIMS:

--"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers' "obscene profits."

--"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants. Their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

--"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.

THE NUMBERS:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better -- drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

I am shocked the Democrats would lie about profits.

Me, Me, ME, It's All About Me.

BO is starting to on everyones nerves. Even our closest allies are starting to worry. I just read an article that brings this into perfect clarity.

The World Wearies of the Narcissist-in-Chief
By Joy Tiz

“The beauty of being a narcissist is that even when disaster stares you in the face, you feel neither doubt nor remorse.” —Carl Vogel, A Field Guide to Narcissism

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are becoming perturbed about the president’s “I - ME” fixation - the manifest hubris of Obama. His opening line at the UN speech was “The world has great expectations of ME…” as though the force of his charisma is enough to tame maniacal despots - that his words are all we need – never mind that they are pure perfidy.

Obama is also causing angst among our allies. French President Nicolas Sarkozy is especially irked with him. On Greta van Susteren, Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that at the UN general assembly, Obama’s advisors told him not to interfere with his “fantasy about global disarmament” by bringing up the incontrovertible fact that the Iranians were cheating. Kelly’s sources, close to Sarkozy, says Sarkozy thinks Obama is “incredibly naive and grossly egotistical - so egotistical that no one can dent his naiveté” which is making everyone jittery about what that means for the West. “The President of the U.S. is the leader of the free world; and if the President isn’t going to lead the free world, it isn’t going to be led.”

Former Senator Rick Santorum added, “The international community now is beginning to become aware that not only is [Obama] naive in his pursuit of a whole bunch of things including complete nuclear disarmament, but that his ego gets in the way of him learning anything about why he’s wrong on these things. That’s a very dangerous combination - to not know anything and to think you know everything.”

This is all seen by our allies as just a president who is incredibly naïve

He went on to describe “the fantasy of Obama foreign policy” in Iran: “Obama, we now know, knew about this other nuclear facility, which in all likelihood is developing a nuclear weapon, and stood on the sidelines and allowed that movement which would have taken away potentially a regime that was going to develop nuclear weapons that can reach Israel and parts of Europe… at the same time they’re doing that, he’s pulling out anti-missile defense shields… inciting further anger among our European allies. This is all seen by our allies as just a president who is incredibly naïve, that somehow his persona, his aura will convince people to do things that are not in their interest or not in their history of doing. This is scaring our allies away and at the same time making our enemies look at us as feeble and weak.”

“I think the ‘narcissist in chief’ is in over his head and is detrimental to our national security.
Former CIA official Michael Scheuer called Obama a perpetual adolescent and a dishonest man. Foreign policy expert Lawrence Eagleburger said he has no faith in Obama as a leader. Lt. Col. Jeff Addicott said Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing, that they need strategic clarity from him in Afghanistan. Another expert on FNC said he wishes Obama would make a decision about Afghanistan, saying, “I think the ‘narcissist in chief’ is in over his head and is detrimental to our national security.

A less qualified presidential candidate would have been hard to find. Yet Obama was not only a serious candidate and ultimate victor, but during his campaign, he pranced around, acting as if he already was president and the election was merely a ceremony to formalize his taking of the crown… even displaying his own seal which looked remarkably like the president’s official seal.

For the narcissist, nothing matters more than maintaining his narcissistic supply. From Obama’s perspective, being chided by a cable news commentator really is a more pressing exigency than the reality of Iran amassing nuclear weapons. Obama is already showing the truculence typical of narcissists when they sense a threat to narcissistic supply.

The current leader of the free world is not in touch with reality. The toady press gleefully accepts his fabrications and denials. And mental health professionals have shown a remarkable lack of curiosity about the mental health of the president of the United States.

***********

This came out of Canada. Few in America are willing to criticize the president. The world has a clear perspective on our leader and nearly half of America seem to be under his spell. No wonder why so many Democrats think the American people are dumb.

Thanks Heavy Handed for Pointing this out to me.

The Political Mood has Changed

It wasn't even a year ago that the nation moved sharply left and placed the liberal leaning Democrats in charge of all the power structures of DC. They took the Executive Branch and secured the Legislative Branch in a pretty convincing election.

Yet not even a year has passed and the political mood has shifted back to the more conservative Republican party. (I openly admit that the republican party is not conservative as I would define it only more conservative then the Democrats.) In every important category except one, the GOP is viewed higher in the poles.

Trust on Issues			Dem	GOP	Links
National Security			43%	47%	A, C, T
War in Iraq			42%	42%	A, C, T
Health Care			41%	44%	A, C, T
Economy			40%	46%	A, C, T
Social Security			39%	43%	A, C, T
Education			38%	41%	A, C, T
Abortion			36%	46%	A, C, T
Taxes			35%	51%	A, C, T
Immigration			35%	43%	A, C, T
Gov't Ethics/Corruption			34%	31%	A, C, T
Select above: A = Article, C = Crosstabs, T = Trends

With the exception of the tie on Iraq the wrong group is in power based on the opinion of the people. 51% Say Congress is Too Liberal, 22% Say It’s Too Conservative. Wait, I forgot to point out that issues of ethics and corruption are led by Democrats.
With public opinion falling fast the left is still pressing forward as hard and as fast as possible. I am making every effort I can to hold them back and speak out about the poor choices they are making. Often I find people looking to me to lend some reason and possible hope to a very bad economy. I tell them what I think and why. It doesn't look pretty.

I hope you are preparing for the next major housing stumble. With unemployment on the rise and bank bailout fevers hold on the forclosures of many homes, we see a sudden turn coming mid October. The stay on forclosures will have been lifted and something will have to give.

Currently there is good news on the horizon for this winters heating bills. Most of our energy is in a surplus due to the many cut backs over the last six months. This could mean lower energy prices at a ideal time. Congress is looking to mess this up with the cap and tax scheme they have holding on the back burner.

The bottomline is this folks, if the congress will stop mucking up the economy with bad ideas and expensive plans, we should see a gradual turn around occuring about April of next year. If they pass one of these expensive unreadable bills, we will see further drop in confidence and a much longer period before some restoration starts to occur. This hole that they have created will take several years to fill in. Don't expect any maricle tranformations over the next several months.

There is my pridictions based on current info. Do you have any predictions your willing to tell?

You Got To Give Her Credit

I am not a big Ann Coulter fan. We don't need another anger driven political activist further dividing America. With that said, some times she can clearly say what needs saying.

Liberal lies about national health care, Part 1
Posted: August 19, 2009



1) National health care will punish the insurance companies.

You want to punish insurance companies? Make them compete.

As Adam Smith observed, whenever two businessmen meet, "the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That's why we need a third, fourth and 45th competing insurance company that will undercut them by offering better service at a lower price.

Tiny little France and Germany have more competition among health insurers than the U.S. does right now. Amazingly, both of these socialist countries have less state regulation of health insurance than we do, and you can buy health insurance across regional lines – unlike in the U.S., where a federal law allows states to ban interstate commerce in health insurance.

U.S. health insurance companies are often imperious, unresponsive consumer hellholes because they're a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one big insurer will control 80 percent of the market. (Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.)

Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That's what single-payer health care is: "Single payer" means "single provider."

Don't miss the most recent edition of Whistleblower magazine: "Medical Murder: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers"

It's the famous liberal two-step: First screw something up, then claim that it's screwed up because there's not enough government oversight (it's the free market run wild!), and then step in and really screw it up in the name of "reform."

You could fix 90 percent of the problems with health insurance by ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. But when John McCain called for ending the ban during the 2008 presidential campaign, he was attacked by Joe Biden – another illustration of the ironclad Ann Coulter rule that the worst Republicans are still better than allegedly "conservative" Democrats.

2) National health care will "increase competition and keep insurance companies honest" – as President Barack Obama has said.

Government-provided health care isn't a competitor; it's a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer. Consumers may be able to "choose" whether they take the service – at least at first – but every single one of us will be forced to buy it, under penalty of prison for tax evasion. It's like a new cable plan with a "yes" box, but no "no" box.

Obama himself compared national health care to the post office – immediately conjuring images of a highly efficient and consumer-friendly work force – which, like so many consumer-friendly shops, is closed by 2 p.m. on Saturdays, all Sundays and every conceivable holiday.

But what most people don't know – including the president, apparently – with certain narrow exceptions, competing with the post office is prohibited by law.

Expect the same with national health care. Liberals won't stop until they have total control. How else will they get you to pay for their sex-change operations?

3) Insurance companies are denying legitimate claims because they are "villains."

Obama denounced the insurance companies in last Sunday's New York Times, saying: "A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn't known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died."

Well, yeah. That and the cancer.

Assuming this is true – which would distinguish it from every other story told by Democrats pushing national health care – in a free market, such an insurance company couldn't stay in business. Other insurance companies would scream from the rooftops about their competitor's shoddy business practices, and customers would leave in droves.

If only customers had a choice! But we don't because of government regulation of health insurance.

Speaking of which, maybe if Mr. Gallstone's insurance company weren't required by law to cover early childhood development programs and sex-change operations, it wouldn't be forced to cut corners in the few areas not regulated by the government, such as cancer treatments for patients with gallstones.

4) National health care will give Americans "basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable" – as Barack Obama claimed in his op/ed in the Times.

You want to protect consumers? Do it the same way we protect consumers of dry cleaning, hamburgers and electricians: Give them the power to tell their insurance companies, "I'm taking my business elsewhere."

5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The only reason most "pre-existing" conditions aren't already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.

The free market has produced a dizzying array of insurance products in areas other than health. (Ironically, array-associated dizziness is not covered by most health plans.) Even insurance companies have "reinsurance" policies to cover catastrophic events occurring on the properties they insure, such as nuclear accidents, earthquakes and Michael Moore dropping in for a visit and breaking the couch.

If we had a free market in health insurance, it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance for "pre-existing" conditions before they exist, for example, insurance on unborn – unconceived – children and health insurance even when you don't have a job. The vast majority of "pre-existing" conditions that currently exist in a cramped, limited, heavily regulated insurance market would be "covered" conditions under a free market in health insurance.

I've hit my word limit on liberal lies about national health care without breaking a sweat. See this space next week for more lies in our continuing series.

Liberal lies about national health care, Part 2
Posted: August 26, 2009


With the Democrats getting slaughtered – or should I say, "receiving mandatory end-of-life counseling" – in the debate over national health care, the Obama administration has decided to change the subject by indicting CIA interrogators for talking tough to three of the world's leading Muslim terrorists.

Had I been asked, I would have advised them against reinforcing the idea that Democrats are hysterical bed-wetters who can't be trusted with national defense while also reminding people of the one thing everyone still admires about President George W. Bush.

But I guess the Democrats really want to change the subject. Thus, here is Part 2 in our series of liberal lies about national health care.

6) There will be no rationing under national health care.

Anyone who says that is a liar. And all Democrats are saying it. (Hey, look – I have two-thirds of a syllogism!)

Don't miss the most recent edition of Whistleblower magazine: "Medical Murder: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers"

Apparently, promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington bureaucrats (for short, "The Death Panel") deny medical treatment wasn't a popular idea with most Americans. So liberals started claiming that they are going to cover an additional 47 million uninsured Americans and cut costs ... without ever denying a single medical treatment!

Also on the agenda is a delicious all-you-can-eat chocolate cake that will actually help you lose weight! But first, let's go over the specs for my perpetual motion machine – and it uses no energy, so it's totally green!

For you newcomers to planet Earth, everything that does not exist in infinite supply is rationed. In a free society, people are allowed to make their own rationing choices.

Some people get new computers every year; some every five years. Some White House employees get new computers and then vandalize them on the way out the door when their candidate loses. (These are the same people who will be making decisions about your health care.)

Similarly, one person might say, "I want to live it up and spend freely now! No one lives forever." (That person is a Democrat.) And another might say, "I don't go to restaurants, I don't go to the theater, and I don't buy expensive designer clothes because I've decided to pour all my money into my health."

Under national health care, you'll have no choice about how to ration your own health care. If your neighbor isn't entitled to a hip replacement, then neither are you. At least that's how the plan was explained to me by our next surgeon general, Dr. Conrad Murray.

7) National health care will reduce costs.

This claim comes from the same government that gave us the $500 hammer, the $1,200 toilet seat and postage stamps that increase in price every three weeks.

The last time liberals decided an industry was so important that the government needed to step in and contain costs was when they set their sights on the oil industry. Liberals in both the U.S. and Canada – presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter and Canadian P.M. Pierre Trudeau – imposed price controls on oil.

As night leads to day, price controls led to reduced oil production, which led to oil shortages, skyrocketing prices for gasoline, rationing schemes and long angry lines at gas stations.

You may recall this era as "the Carter years."

Then, the white knight Ronald Reagan became president and immediately deregulated oil prices. The magic of the free market – aka the "profit motive" – produced surges in oil exploration and development, causing prices to plummet. Prices collapsed and remained low for the next 20 years, helping to fuel the greatest economic expansion in our nation's history.

You may recall this era as "the Reagan years."

Freedom not only allows you to make your own rationing choices, but also produces vastly more products and services at cheap prices, so less rationing is necessary.


8) National health care won't cover abortions.

There are three certainties in life: a) death, b) taxes, and c) no health-care bill supported by Nita Lowey and Rosa DeLauro and signed by Barack Obama could possibly fail to cover abortions.

I don't think that requires elaboration, but here it is:

Despite being a thousand pages long, the health-care bills passing through Congress are strikingly nonspecific. (Also, in a thousand pages, Democrats weren't able to squeeze in one paragraph on tort reform. Perhaps they were trying to save paper.)

These are Trojan Horse bills. Of course, they don't include the words "abortion," "death panels" or "three-year waits for hip-replacement surgery."

That proves nothing – the bills set up unaccountable, unelected federal commissions to fill in the horrible details. Notably, the Democrats rejected an amendment to the bill that would specifically deny coverage for abortions.

After the bill is passed, the Federal Health Commission will find that abortion is covered, pro-lifers will sue, and a court will say it's within the regulatory authority of the health commission to require coverage for abortions.

Then we'll watch a parade of senators and congressmen indignantly announcing, "Well, I'm pro-life, and if I had had any idea this bill would cover abortions, I never would have voted for it!"

No wonder Democrats want to remind us that they can't be trusted with foreign policy. They want us to forget that they can't be trusted with domestic policy.


She contantly took swipes at Democrats but in this case they are well deserved because she is accurate on every point. In this case I am going to side with Ann and say they deserve a little mocking for this travisty.

Article Links:
Liberal lies about national health care, Part 1
Liberal lies about national health care, Part 2

Having Control and Out of Control

The Democrat party is splintering. They have been working hard to tear themselves apart. Americans buy some time to actually look at the healthcare plans before congress, while the Democrats fall apart.

Liberals gag over health deal By GLENN THRUSH

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spent half of Wednesday finalizing a deal with the Blue Dogs — and the other half quelling a brewing rebellion among progressives who think conservatives have hijacked health care reform.

Liberals, Hispanics and African-American members — Pelosi’s most loyal base of support — are feeling betrayed after House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) reached an agreement with four of seven Blue Dogs on his committee who had been bottling up the bill over concerns about cost.

The compromise, which still must be reconciled with competing House and Senate versions, would significantly weaken the public option favored by liberals by delinking reimbursement rates to Medicare.

Read more:

As they fight among themselves, we must press our fellow Americans to become informed of what plans they have against us. This really is a plan that is against everything that has made America great. I see so many people gaga over "Free Healthcare" that they have missed the real cost in life and dollars being placed before us.

Here is a link to a bills summery report. There is a lot of variation to the bills but the bulk of them puts government in charge of your health. Most go so far as to deny you any real say. Your life will be decided by a formulary and making it illegal to go outside the system.

For those of you who want to get a clear idea of the sales pitch so you can avoid the con and get to the facts of the bill, here is a link to the sales pitches coming your way.

Now that you are fully prepared to meet this challenge head on, go out and talk it up. Let's get America fired up so we can defeat this hostile takeover of our nation.

Please visit my Friend Joe at Jo-Joe Politico for a brief look at the 1018 pages they are trying to push off on us. Thanks Joe.

Thought

I ran across a comment that I know you would appreciate.

Traditionally the government of the US runs in cycles where half the time it is controlled by Democrats and half by Republicans. We just came through 8 years where Democrats were claiming that Republicans were complete idiots and currently some Republicans are claiming such of Democrats.
Do You really want to trust healthcare to one group of idiots or the other given the strong winds of politics?

HR 1913 Needs To Be Stopped

The proposal, formally called the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act after a Wyoming homosexual who was killed in a horrific robbery and beating in 1998, creates a special class for homosexuals and others with alternative sexual lifestyles and provides them protections against so-called "hate."

It specifically denies such protections to other targeted classes of citizens such as pastors, Christians, missionaries, veterans and the elderly.

H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (so-called "hate crimes" bill), which just passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 249-175, is a bill that would not only criminalize speech, but also give heightened protection to pedophiles. No kidding. And it's about to be railroaded through in the U.S. Senate (with a possible vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow!) unless it's stopped.

The bill was introduced on April 28 in the U.S. Senate as S. 909. Violating equal justice under the law, the bill adds "sexual orientation" to a list of extra-protected groups under federal law.

It would elevate pedophiles as a special protected class – since the term "sexual orientation," which has been added to the "hate crimes" legislation, includes them in the American Psychiatric Association's definition of various "sexual orientations" (30 of these APA "sexual orientations" are listed in a fact sheet provided by the Traditional Values Coalition).

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, offered this very simple amendment to H.R. 1913 in the House Judiciary Committee:

The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia.

It was rejected.

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert's response in committee clarified what that means:

There are only 242 crimes where there is actually some – truly – an assault, and we just rejected an amendment to including pedophilia from being a part of this protected class.

Do you realize what that means?

If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean simple exhibitionism. I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them, and their immediate reaction was to hit them with their purse. Well now, he's committed a misdemeanor, [and] she has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation.

I know my friend said that we have a definition in the law, but there is nothing in this bill that references the definitions in the Hate Crimes Statistical Act … it's not there. We asked that it be added so we could get a specific definition. It is not there.

And having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words. The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse). … It could include urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them – they've committed a misdemeanor; you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong.

Let me summarize. Pushing away an unwelcome advance of a homosexual, transgendered, cross-dresser or exhibitionist could make you a felon under this law. Speaking out against the homosexual agenda could also make you a felon if you are said to influence someone who pushes away that unwelcome advance. And pedophiles and other sexual deviant would enjoy an elevated level of protection, while children, seniors, veterans and churches would not.

My letter to Patty Murry:

The current hate crimes bill H.R. 1913 is not the answer. This bill is designed to protect those who would seek to harm my children. This bill would protect those who would seek to harm my wife. Sexual predictors would be given new freedoms and be emboldened by this bill
Currently, we can discuss and watch sexual offenders in order to keep our neighborhoods safe. After this act is put in play, monitoring sexual offenders would be a hate crime. After this act is put in play, pointing them out to other concerned neighbors would be a hate crime. Running over and removing your child from their lawn when you fear for their life, could be considered a hate crime.

We already have laws that protect all citizens equally for every known act of violence or intimidation. We don't need special rights for the sexually aggressive. We need to protect the children and those who are most vulnerable to these highly aggressive people.

Vote NO on S. 909. Stand up and tell them our children are counting on them for protection. Please use the power of your office to keep my family safe.

Safety of my family is my #1 issue. How I vote will ultimately be based on my families safety. You are up for re-election soon and this issue will be a rallying point. Choose the right side.

If I was writing a Republican or an Independent my message would have been much stronger. Since I am writing a Democrat who claims to champion family issues, I will put there claim to the challenge. Feel free to copy it and send it to yours.

Taking the Death Tax Too Far

Oregon has a bill circling the legislature that has a number of people really upset. The bill is designed to tax widows and orphans at their neediest hour. That's right a loved one dies who may even be the bread winner of the family and you are left with all the final decisions, casket, burial and paying taxes on the insurance and annuities that were left to support you.

This is a heartless proposal by the democrats to attempt to shore up a budget that has gross overspending in many categories. Instead of cutting wasteful spending the Oregon House is looking to steal more money from the citizens of the state.

House Bill 2854 adds life insurance payouts and savings within policies and annuities to the list of what qualifies as taxable income in Oregon these benefits would be taxed at Oregon's highest rate. Value accrual within a policy that is tax-deferred until withdrawal will now be subject to tax collection each year. No state has ever introduced the repeal of these exemptions. More than 2 million Oregonians from every walk of life hold life insurance policies. All would be taxed.

At a time when you need it the most, when your survival may depend on it, count on the Oregon Legislature to take it away from you. You and Your family aren't really important to them. The state has needs you know.

How Low Can You Go As A Democrat?

Impeach Barney Frank

Will the people of Massachusetts stand up and clean house? The man responsible for our current condition continues to destroy our nation and you sit back and do nothing.

Barney Frank’s hypocrisy

Ah, the dirty little secret is out. That $700 billion TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bill was in part simply a variation on congressional pork - except this time the recipients were banks with friends in high places.

One of those powerful friends was Rep. Barney Frank (D-Newton), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. And one of the recipients of a $12 million infusion of federal cash was the troubled OneUnited Bank in Boston - a bank that had already been accused of “unsafe and unsound banking practices.” Its CEO, Kevin Cohee had also been criticized by regulators for “excessive” pay that included a Porsche.

Frank admits he included language in the TARP legislation specifically designed to bail out OneUnited. He also acknowledges contacting officials at the Treasury Department about the bank’s bailout application.



Reading the comments attached to the Boston Herald article give me hope for the state. Now they need to put the words into action.

Sound the Alarm, Prepare to Dive

Looks like another round of Bailouts to further pull down the economy. JB Williams wrote an article that puts it in perspective. Let me quote a small section for you.

Congressional Democrats Bankrupted the Nation

History of Government Sponsored Enterprises
Even though the US congress has been mucking up the banking industry since 1916, few Americans are familiar with GSE’s, (Government Sponsored Enterprises). As a result, the people have hired the same people who destroyed the US economy to begin with, to fix the US economy. Those people are now attempting to save the nation from complete economic collapse via the same failed economic policies that caused the crisis...
History repeats for benefit of those who have not yet learned the lesson
Although the US Constitution affords the federal government no such power whatsoever to engage taxpayer revenue in banking or any other economic enterprise, Congress has been recklessly meddling in private enterprise for almost one hundred years now, with a devastating track record of unparalleled failure.
The 2008-2009 collapse of the US banking system is not the result of failed free market mechanics, but rather a clear demonstration of just how unqualified the federal government is to regulate industry and private enterprise. It is not the result of the last eight years, but rather the last eighty years or more... It was not an accident, but instead a natural end to a bad idea.
The Beginning
The 64th US Congress created the first federal GSE in 1916, with the establishment of the Farm Credit System. Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate at the time and Democrat Woodrow Wilson was president.
The stated objective was to “provide sound and dependable credit to American farmers, ranchers, producers or harvesters of aquatic products, their cooperatives, and farm-related businesses. - We do this by making appropriately structured loans to qualified individuals and businesses at competitive rates and providing financial services and advice to those persons and businesses.”
A noble objective, but the key word in this statement is the word “qualified.” They were not talking about “credit worthy” qualifications, or a borrower’s ability to repay, but rather qualifications tied to a borrower’s “need.”

Read the Rest Of JB Williams Article

I know I have written similar stuff but it is good to hear others profess the same thing. This points to the fact that we are not alone. The problem is visible to others willing to look. Those who are unwilling and blind to the lessons of history are running our nation. Once again I am asking you to help them out by writing and telling them. Use the tool on my side bar to get the names and addresses of your congressional critters.
It took WWII to save us the last time. I hope we don't need WWIII to recover this time. There might not be a planet left.

Are You Ready?

David Limbaugh's new article brings many issues, and fears, to the front. The Obama presidency is about to kick off and there are many questions unanswered.

To Your Battle Stations, Conservatives

The best long-term solutions for our ailing economy are to restore market forces in every possible sector, reduce the crippling tax burden, and restore responsible fiscal practices to the federal government. Sadly, the incoming Obama administration plans on moving in the opposite direction in all these areas and believes it has a mandate to do so. Are conservatives asleep or just worn down?

Too many Americans have succumbed to the propaganda that the market is inherently evil and fraught with excesses fueled by "capitalistic greed" and that such systemic corruption has led to our economic woes. Only large-scale government intervention can rescue us from this pernicious system.

Under Democratic and Republican administrations alike, we have advanced ever more rapidly away from a free market environment and toward a command and control economy. Steadily we have accepted the notion that politicians should pick winners and losers based on their ideas of fairness rather than having market forces be the ultimate arbiter.

We have swallowed the fear mongering admonitions of public officials who insist that even apart from the moral question of picking winners and losers, our government must bail out "essential" segments of the economy, such as the automobile industry, lest the entire economy be doomed for extinction. Indeed, this word "essential" has proved to be an essential tool for the left in these difficult times.

True conservatives out there -- however many remain -- must not forget the ominous words of Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who said: "Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things."

Go Read the rest By David Limbaugh.

There is much truth in this article. I do not see things as bleakly as they are painted here. Conservatives were so enraged by some of the Bush policies that they were willing to vote for anyone who promoted “Change”. It will not be so easy in the next election cycle. The doom and gloom of the recession plus time will make them look more critically at Obama and his cabinet. He really needs to either fix the problem or make changes that show effort toward this end. I don’t think he can fix the problem because I believe everyone has the wrong answer.

The Democrat led congress will be looking at the election of 2010 and will not be as willing to slide over the abyss as many such as Mr. Limbaugh would suggest. Obama has about 200 to 250 days where congress will oblige him. He looks like he will be getting a running start given his pre-inauguration activities. I am really interested to see what his focus is and how willing congress is to follow. I am also interested in how Americans will respond to these suggestions and if they will attempt to strong arm their representatives into not going with the flow. It is going to be a big year for America and a major test of “We the People”. Given the media has fell at the feet of Obama, I don’t know if people will even know they are in a crisis by every suggestion coming out of Washington DC. Talk radio stands in opposition but that too is on the list of things to silence.

The question that has yet to be answered, is Obama looking at being a two term president? If he is, he will be more conservative and less aggressive then his liberal constituents want. He will lean in their direction but probably not move to boldly in his first term. His second term would be a major liberal turn and if he can continue to help congress stay liberal and Democrat, it will be a feast for liberalism. If Obama thinks his programs are going to save America and make him the god figure the media has portrayed him to be than we could be in deep trouble. He can be quite convincing as a speaker and holding the bully pulpit of the president will sway the weak minded. Given our educational system over the last thirty years, many will fall for his charms.

Does Obama have a god complex that his campaign tried so hard to hide? Does congress have the will to go against Obama? Will the people rise up against some of the Anti-American policies being suggested? Will the recession encourage Obama to make major liberal shifts or suggest a waiting period? When will the dream bubble pop and working to solve real problems in America, bringing this nation together?

These are the tough questions that need an answer. In just ten days these answers will start to be revealed. I don’t know if I am ready.

Looking Ahead to 2010

Looks like another lopsided election year. In the Senate the Republicans must defend and hold 19 seats while the Democrats need to only work 16. If the conservative movement is going to make a come back we better start looking at our options.
Here is a list of the positions up for grabs.
2010
15 – Dems
19 – Rep
Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, Republican
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Republican
Arizona Sen. John McCain, Republican
Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Democratic
California Sen. Barbara Boxer, Democratic
Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, Democratic
Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, Republican
Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson, Republican
Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, Republican
Hawaii Sen. Dan Inouye, Democratic
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Democratic
Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, Democratic
Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Republican
Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning, Republican
Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, Republican
Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Democratic
Missouri Sen. Christopher Bond, Republican
Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, Democratic
New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, Republican
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, Democratic
North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, Republican
North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan, Democratic
Ohio Sen. George Voinovich, Republican
Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, Democratic
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, Republican
South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, Republican
South Dakota Sen. John Thune, Republican
Utah Sen. Bob Bennett, Republican
Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, Democratic
Washington Sen. Patty Murray, Democratic
Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, Democratic

I highlighted the big races that need to be won. We need to locate encourage and fund a viable candidate in each of these states.

2010 Senate Map May Not Be Much Better for the GOP

If focus and drive is good we can take a strong hold of the Senate but a majority is very slim. Our best hope to take the senate and restore government is 2012. There will be 33 seats up for election, Dem – 24 Rep - 9. It will take a lot of work on our part to hold back the flood gates on government spending and socialization over the next four years. You best prepare yourself for the battle ahead.

Saving Big Auto

We seem to have a sudden need to save everything. In our rush to save the world, are we dooming our own society? The land of the free is becoming less free with every passing bailout proposal. Freedom to both succeed and fail seems to be no longer allowed once you get to a curtain size. Capitalism has been reserved for small business only. Or to be more Blunt, small businesses are the only businesses that are allowed to fail. Once you get to be as big as a national bank or a national auto maker, the American tax payer now becomes responsible for keeping you in business. CEOs no longer have to worry about making good or bad decisions because no matter what, the government will step in and save the day on the backs of its people.
I don't know how much available money you have in your budget but I don't recall setting asside billions of dollars for corperate bailouts. If I get in too deep, who will bail me out?
The comical side of this is watching the Democrats try and deal with this. Their liberal philosophies get in the way of their political constituansies. How do you get behind saving the big auto makers when....
autos cause global warming.
Auto makers are corperate robber barons of the people.
Saving big business will save the republicans
Auto Industry supports Big Oil
Yet how do you not.........
Auto Workers Union got you elected
Where are you going to get all those tax dollars you claim you need.

The plain and simple truth is the unions have fleeced the auto makers and they can no longer compete in a world market. Until they can get out from under these contracts they will continue to lose money and fail. Chapter 11 is the answer to the problem. A simple reorganization will restore cash flow and return the auto makers back to the business of making cars. The union workers will have to decide if having a job and a future is important.
Yes, I realize that millions of Americans will take a pay cut and probably have major finacial challenges. They will still have a job and millions of people beyond them who supply all those parts that make up the cars will have jobs as well. Most of them won't take a pay cut only suffer a benifit cut on future pensions and such. Close to one third of the labor costs to the industry falls into this catagory. We can save the many and get our econemy rolling again as well as be able to price American goods comperable to their foreign competition.
The American auto industry has come a long way in making quality cars that can compete in the market place. They can surely accell if some of the finacial burdens can be lifted.

Congress may be looking at the wrong type of bailout for the auto makers.

No On Taxpayer Bailout of Auto Industry, Say Free Market Economists

Something To Ponder

The Obama Presidency

How Wrong Does Biden Have To Be?

What is the deal? The media is supposed to help with pointing out mis-statements and out right lies. They are there to report and investigate the facts and lay them before their audience. Instead we find the news having a greater and greater bias with each passing day.
How many people remember the Dan Quayle mis-spelling? If a republican says something wrong it is front page news across America. If a democrat says something wrong it is buried if mentioned and only as a passing remark because the poor person was simply tired.
Obama had visited all "57" states when campaigning. Didn't get covered too extensively, did it. After all, BO was tired and had been going non stop. Perhaps in his exhaustion he only could remember the 57 Islamic states?

What about the VP debate? The media declared it a tie or a slight edge to Biden, but what really happened? Let's score some of the issues. Which one of the candidates new what the job was they were applying for?

Biden's answer to the question was long winded.

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when
sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to
aggrandize the power of a unitary executive, and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

Palin's answer was a bit shorter.

Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and [I] will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chooses to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.

Wouldn't you like to know who got it right? (The Constitution)

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The issue about Cheney presiding over the senate is only significant by way of the fact that he actually did the full duty of his job, where other vice presidents only showed up once in a while. I guess Biden was taken offense to someone doing the full job they were elected to do.

I find this to be a huge mistake but it has gone almost completely un-noticed, or at least unreported. Let us look at some of the other mistakes.

Under an Obama Administration the middle class will "pay no more than they did under Ronald Reagan"? No, the tax rates will be similar to the higher rates under Clinton.

Did "we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country"? No, one year’s worth of spending in Iraq equaled five in Afghanistan.

Do “Iraqis have an $80 billion surplus”? No. If oil prices had remained high, it might have reached $50 billion by the end of this year.

Amusing point as evidence that Biden is just one of the people he pointed to, inviting anyone to have a beer with him at "Katie's Restaurant" in Wilmington, Del. Unfortunately, people will have a hard time taking him up on his offer, since the restaurant hasn't had that name for probably 15 years. He obviously has stayed in touch with his constituents.


The falsehoods/lies/wrong answers kept coming all night long. The amazing part was how well he can deliver these words. He was straight faced and unchallenged by the media. The Obama/Biden campaign thinks they got away scott free with this.

Help me get the word out and change the publics perspective. Perhaps even change the election.