They Don't Get It. They Need To Go.

The Obama Administration has stated that the only reason Americans are dumping the Democrats in Congress is employment. This is the only issue weighing down America. Everything else done by congress and this administration has been welcomed and received with anticipation and excitement.

Let me burst your bubble Mr. President, real unemployment is between 10-20%. I believe it would take more then 20% of America to make the substantial change coming to congress. Let us look at some of the other reasons you have failed to see.

The Healthcare bill you pushed through congress that No One read, is playing a role. Perhaps you haven't noticed that 61% of America wants it repealed. In fact polls have put repeal between 53% and 63% since it was signed. Since no one was willing to do their job and read the bill before voting for it. We have decided to fire our elected representatives for failure to do their job. We told them in mass that we didn't want it and thinking they work for us, we are going to fix the problem.

The vast number of Too Big to Fail bailouts has robbed America of its future. We have increased our debt to such a degree that it will take generations to repay it. We are taking money out of the pockets of people who don't even exist. We are destroying the future of our great great grand children. This is unacceptable and anyone who would encourage such a spending measure should be fired.

The Auto Company bailout has upset us greatly. Your administration dismissed standing rules of bankruptcy and trashed the stock market. Stocks that are high on the scale of debts to be paid under the rules of bankruptcy. If the government can simply snatch your rights as a stock holder then what stocks and investments are safe? How can the market grow and move forward with your administration leaning heavily on all areas? Those, in congress, who have backed your foolishness, need to go.

The now aptly named "Climate Change bill" is sitting in the wings waiting to devastate business and citizen alike. Global Warming has lost its sting with the world suddenly cooling back to pre-warming levels. Yet, regardless of the facts, your administration is still pushing this heavily burdening agenda on its citizenry. Estimates have come in at energy prices being from three to six times higher. Funny thing is, we Americans know that our energy supply is vast, and the high costs is due to your unwillingness to let us use our own resources. Those in government who find this folly acceptable need to go.

The list goes on and on. Let me assure you though of one thing. This isn't about removing Democrats from power. This is about restoring power to the people. Yes, some Republicans may benefit from the current anger, but we aren't going away after this election. We will be watching each and every one of you. As each future election cycle approaches, we will read your sins against this nation and your failures to uphold the constitution that you swore to uphold. We will toss each of you our without regard for party. "We The People" are rising and taking our nation back.

Articles of Interest:
Obama's Policies Drag Down Democratic Governors
Why Obama Is Losing the Political War
Health Care Law Poll

How Dirty?

The same group who overwhelmingly voted in Campaign Finance Reform and them opted out, is now trying to use the power of the federal government to squash the opposition.

Remember this in 2008:

ON the question of public funding of presidential campaigns, we Democrats who strongly support Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy and who previously supported limits on campaign spending and who haven't objected to Obama's opting out of the presidential funding system face an awkward fact: Either we are hypocrites, or we were wrong to support such limitations in the first place.
The next time we speak of the virtue of level playing fields or state our strong belief that democracy can't survive in the modern age unless big money is taken out of campaigns, we'll be counting on our audience's forgetting our silence this year, when the free market was flowing in our direction.

Found Here

Anyone remember the questionable practices used by the Obama team when collection campaign contributions?

No presidential campaign has ever before received such a gargantuan sum of money from unidentified contributors.
The campaign's records reveal big contributors with names like "Doodad Pro" (employer: "Loving," profession: "You") and "Good Will" (same employer and profession). Both donated via credit card. Other reports have suggested that some donations come from overseas - raising the question of whether Obama is accepting donations from foreigners, another violation of federal law.
All of which prompted an enterprising citizen to test the controls put in place to enforce compliance with federal campaign law by the Obama and McCain campaigns. Last Thursday, he decided to conduct an experiment.
He went to the Obama campaign Web site and made a donation under the name "John Galt" (the hero of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged"). He provided the equally fictitious address "1957 Ayn Rand Lane, Galts Gulch, CO 99999."
He checked the box next to $15 and entered his actual credit-card number and expiration date. He was then taken to the next page and notified that his donation had been processed.

The rest of the article makes an excellent read as well.

What we see is the financial blessings now on the other side and poor sports who have decided that they are the only ones worthy, crushing those who donate to the opposing team. Now that they aren't getting their way, we see the power of the federal government being mobilized.

If at first you don't succeed, get some friends in high places to shut your opponents up. That's the latest Washington power play, as Democrats and liberals attack the Chamber of Commerce and independent spending groups in an attempt to stop businesses from participating in politics.

Since the Supreme Court's January decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Democrats in Congress have been trying to pass legislation to repeal the First Amendment for business, though not for unions. Having failed on that score, they're now turning to legal and political threats. Funny how all of this outrage never surfaced when the likes of Peter Lewis of Progressive insurance and George Soros helped to make Democrats financially dominant in 2006 and 2008.

Chairman Max Baucus of the powerful Senate Finance Committee got the threats going last month when he asked Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman to investigate if certain tax exempt 501(c) groups had violated the law by engaging in too much political campaign activity. Lest there be any confusion about his targets, the Montana Democrat flagged articles focused on GOP-leaning groups, including Americans for Job Security and American Crossroads.

How low can you go? OR The failure to remove that plank.

Even Mr. Franken admits in his letter that the Chamber's commingling of funds in its general accounts is not "per se illegal," but apparently he thinks it's fine to unleash federal investigators because the Chamber cash might contribute to the defeat of fellow Democrats.

The outrage over the Chamber is especially amusing considering the role of foreigners in U.S. labor unions. According to the Center for Competitive Politics, close to half of the unions that are members of the AFL-CIO are international. One man's corporate commingling is another's union dues.

Unions and liberal groups are hardly cash poor this year in any case. The Campaign Media Analysis Group looked at the combined spending of candidates, their parties and outside groups and found that Democrats outspent Republicans $47.3 million to $40.8 million in a recent 60-day period.

Democrats claim only to favor "disclosure" of donors, but their legal intimidation attempts are the best argument against disclosure. Liberals want the names of business donors made public so they can become targets of vilification with the goal of intimidating them into silence. A CEO or corporate board is likely to think twice about contributing to a campaign fund if the IRS or prosecutors might come calling. If Democrats can reduce business donations in the next three weeks, they can limit the number of GOP challengers with a chance to win and reduce Democratic Congressional losses.

The strategy got a test drive in Minnesota earlier this year after Target Corporation donated $100,000 cash and $50,000 of in-kind contributions to an independent group that ran ads supporting the primary candidacy of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. MoveOn.org accused the company of being anti-gay, organized a petition, and crafted a TV ad urging shoppers to boycott Target stores. Target made no further donations, and other companies that once showed an interest have since declined to contribute.

Perhaps a full read of this article would help as well.

Dirty politics and power grabs are becoming all too common. Look at the attack ads that are starting to come out. This election in November is getting bigger by the day. I hope you are ready to cast your vote.

Why We Can Say NO to Higher Taxes

Let me First Thank Joe for Pointing out this video.



In multiple blog entries I have discussed the fact that the tax burden on American business and its citizens has been too high. No one seems to want to discuss the fact that the average tax rate prior to 1905 was 5%. Could you imagine your family's condition if your tax burden was back at that level? Can you imagine the growth and expansion of business and industry? We as a nation would be the most desirable place on the planet to locate a business. Rather then companies bolting from our shores, they would be lining up to enter. No longer would employment be a problem of finding a job. It would instead be finding enough employees to fill all the available jobs. (current combined state and federal taxes on business average 42%.)

Don't let the democrats and the ruling elites try to further stifle you and your efforts as a free people. Don't make the assumption that the republicans are looking out for you either. Choose the most conservative, constitution loving candidate who knows what it takes to meet a payroll in a business setting. Stay after them and keep them focuses on serving their constituents and restoring our nation.

If you thought you weren't needed after November, think again. This is going to take four or five election cycles and a lot of input from you and I as citizens, to start seeing things turn around. We can't let them govern without input again.

We're Doing It Again

You now know the problem and the solution. What are you going to do about it this November?

Give Me The Hammer

This song is the center of controversy as he is now unemployed. When you make a song that fails the PC challenge, something bad is bound to happen.

I think this man should be applauded for his dead on lyrics. Novembers coming and we are going to pound home our point.

By Now Everyone Knows

Tea Party candidates were taken lightly or ignored by the established big party crowd. Their failure to meet the needs of the people has resulted in their loss. O'Donnell in Delaware, Paladino in New York and Miller in Alaska are just the tip of the iceberg. The American conservative is rising up and they wont be denied.
The winning by each candidate only serves to bolster the movement. It was only months ago that tea party candidates were scorned and told they didn't have a chance. The elitists in power have only begun to feel the sting that was delivered during the primary season. I can't wait for the general election.

The GOP at first reacted out of anger but clear heads have prevailed. They have come to the realization that they better get behind the tea party candidates or risk being tossed aside.

The Democrats are starting to feel their oats thinking the GOP is fractured. Reality is the vast conservative populace is rising up and preparing to toss the establish candidates. We warned them. We told them to not vote for bailouts. They didn't listen. We told them not to vote for the stimulus but they assured us that they know better. We told them we didn't want Obamacare and they cramed it down our throats while we screamed against it.

We Are Coming For Each of You.

"We the People" have had enough.

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.

The American People Already Know the Truth

The media is attempting to tame the angst of the voter. No one wants to blame BO for anything tied to the economy but the electorate isn't buying. Now I find an article that does a fair job at trying to paint Obama into a new era of presidency.

Such powerlessness in the face of economic free fall has emerged as a hallmark of the modern presidency. While Mr. Obama is facing a more acute economic crisis moment than his predecessors, characterized by a near depression, the truth is that every president going back to Jimmy Carter, at one point or another, has had to campaign or govern in an environment dominated by the same cyclical and stubborn factors — recession, unemployment, rising energy costs. And so perhaps Mr. Obama’s presidency, as it reaches its midway point, is best understood not in isolation, but rather as part of a longer and still undefined political moment.

The farther we get from presidencies, after all, the more we tend to view them as belonging to periods rather than individuals, as sometimes overlapping clusters along the country’s historical continuum. We’ve had pre-Civil War-era and Reconstruction-era presidents, Industrial-era presidents and Depression-era presidents. The last discernible era belonged unmistakably to the cold war and can be said to have encompassed every president from Harry Truman through Ronald Reagan, all of whom served under the shadow of Armageddon.

When historians look back 50 years from now, in what era will they place Mr. Obama’s presidency, and what does it say about the challenges he faces?

Projecting his ultimate greatness in the future, they attempt to create a special class or situation that will absolve him from his apparent failures. Oddly they start off calling his current situation part of a normal cycle. They don't bother showing how some of them over came the problems, while others only made them worse.

Historians have different ways of looking at the question. But in interviews, several hit on the same basic theme, which is that Mr. Obama and his immediate predecessors have been forced to contend with the erosion of self-sufficiency. In other words, until the end of the Soviet Union, America’s economic and national security were largely self-determined, thanks to its manufacturing might and its ability to negotiate treaties with other states. But the advent of truly global markets, along with threats from non-state forces like Al Qaeda, changed all that. Now we live in an integrated world where American jobs rely on the economic policies of governments in Asia or Latin America, while our security is subject to the whims of a cleric living in a cave.

In their attempt to confuse and remove blame from their leader, they inadvertently gave away the answer to the whole thing. The key, no one wants to talk about, fell out of their pocket. The Key, "the erosion of self-sufficiency", is the very issue that would be whole heartedly embraced by almost all Americans.
Our power came from self-sufficiency. We really didn't need anyone as much as they needed us. We mined it, made it, and even created it right here in the USA. Through regulation and environmentalism we have given away much of our independence and with it our freedom. Now we give away our wealth to those who don't like us. We negotiate deals with despots who have no intention of honoring them and no fear of penalty.

What we need is to fix the problem. The next election cycle is just the starting place. We want less government and less government regulation. We want to suspend a number of environmental policies and start using our own resources. We have plenty of oil, coal and gas. We have plenty of people who would be willing to start manufacturing if taxes and regulation made it possible again. We have driven business and manufacturing from our shores but we can bring them back as well.

Vote for candidates who are pro capitalism and pro constitution. Vote for candidates who want to restore independence to America. These are the candidates who will give you real "Hope and Change".

Quotes taken from: The Presidency, Chained to the World fm New York Times.

Time Has Changed But Politics Hasn't

As I sat and listened to Ronald Reagan, it became clear that nothing has changed in almost 50 years. America has advanced in so many ways, yet we haven't learned anything politically. Watch the video and tell me what has changed.

They Want More

We need to stop the spending. Debt Free America Petition can be Sign Here.

We need to get serious about how our money gets spent. We also need to take a serious look at who we allow to spend it. Choose wisely at each election. Your children's children depend on it.

Thanks to Texasfred for pointing this video out.

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

Boldly Spoken

Clear and direct, this is the type of person that needs to be in DC. There is no doubt where he stands on the issues he brought up. Our founders spoke boldly and plainly. So should those who represent us in government.

How is the Stimulus Working Out?

The Obama Administration was in such a rush to do something to turn around our economy. They pushed, coerce and crammed an almost one trillion dollar plan down our throats. There were promises and future expectations.

Have you looked at the results? How did all the predictions and posturing stack up to reality?


Did you get the a trillion dollars of value out of it?

Look closer, do you see the New Projections? These are Timothy Geithner's projections. You know the one who made the other chart. Looks pretty flat until the first quarter of next year. That's right, no recovery for the unemployed until the first quarter of next year.

Does this timeline work for you?
Does it match anything else going on?

Looks like Tim is already planning for the big house cleaning come November.

Stay with Me. Don't go back to sleep now. I'm counting on your vote in November.

Three Years of Wisdom from Joe Biden

-- On June 25, 2010, Vice President Biden was visiting a custard shop outside Milwaukee when the shop manager told him his dessert would be on the house if he lowered taxes.

"Don't worry, it's on us," the manager said. "Lower our taxes and we'll call it even."

Biden replied: "Why don't you say something nice instead of being a smartass all the time?"

-- On May 6, 2010, Vice President Biden said in an address to the European Parliament in Belgium that Brussels could be the "capital of the free world."

The comment came at the top of a speech used to discuss the threats of nuclear proliferation, climate change and international terrorism.


"As you probably know, some American politicians and American journalists refer to Washington, D.C. as the 'capital of the free world,'" Biden said. "But it seems to me that in this great city, which boasts 1,000 years of history and which serves as the capital of Belgium, the home of the European Union, and the headquarters for NATO, this city has its own legitimate claim to that title."

-- On March 23, 2010, Biden stated the obvious when he told President Obama, "This is a big f---ing deal," during the bill-signing ceremony for the health insurance overhaul. Biden apparently thought the exchange was private, but the television microphones picked it up. The president must have realized what happened -- Biden later said in an interview that Obama was "laughing like the devil" after the event.

-- On March 17, 2010, Biden used a St. Patrick's Day celebration at the White House to honor the memory of the Irish prime minister's mother -- though she was alive.

"God rest her soul," Biden said as he introduced Brian Cowen and Obama. Biden quickly corrected his mistake, noting that Cowen's father, not mother, was dead.

"Wait ... your mom's still, your mom is still alive. It was your dad (who) passed. God bless her soul. I gotta get this straight," Biden said.

-- On July 16, 2009, Biden gave a blunt summation of the administration's approach to stimulus spending.

"People, when I say that, look at me and say, 'What are you talking about, Joe? You're telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?" he said at a stop in Virginia. "The answer is yes."

-- On July 5, 2009, in an interview with ABC's "This Week," Biden conceded that the White House team "misread how bad the economy was." His confession came as unemployment hit 9.5 percent, despite the administration's insistence that it would hold to 8 percent with the stimulus plan.

-- On April 30, 2009, Biden gave advice on dealing with swine flu that seemed to contradict President Obama's warning not to panic. Speaking on NBC's "Today," Biden, a longtime Amtrak rider who has commuted for decades daily from Delaware to Washington, D.C., said he wouldn't advise family necessarily against going to Mexico, the source of the H1N1 outbreak, but he wouldn't tell them to get into any small area like a subway car, automobile, classroom or airplane.

"I would tell members of my family, and I have, I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places right now," Biden said. "It's not that its going to Mexico, it's that you are in a confined aircraft when one person sneezes, it goes everywhere through the aircraft. That's me."

-- On March 13, 2009, Biden addressed a former Senate colleague by saying, "An hour late, oh give me a f----ing break," after he arrived on Amtrak at Union Station in Washington, D.C. The vice president's expletive was caught on a live microphone.

-- During a Feb. 25, 2009, interview on CBS' "Early Show," Biden encouraged viewers to visit a government-run Web site that tracks stimulus spending. When asked for the site's web address, Biden could not remember the site's "number."

"You know, I'm embarrassed. Do you know the Web site number?" he asked an aide standing out of view. "I should have it in front of me and I don't. I'm actually embarrassed."

-- At a Jan. 30, 2009, swearing-in ceremony of senior White House staff, Biden mocked Chief Justice John Roberts for his presidential oath blunder on Inauguration Day.

"Am I doing this again?" Biden said, after Obama asked him to administer the oath. When Biden was told the swearing-in was for senior staff -- and not cabinet members -- the vice president quipped, "My memory is not as good as Justice Roberts," prompting a stern nudge from Obama.

-- On Inauguration Day, Jan. 20 2009, Biden misspoke when he told a cheering crowd of supporters, "Jill and I had the great honor of standing on that stage, looking across at one of the great justices, Justice Stewart." Justice John Paul Stevens -- not Stewart -- swore Biden in as vice president.

-- When criticizing former GOP nominee John McCain in Athens, Ohio, on Oct. 15, 2008, Biden said, "Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs."

-- In a Sept. 22, 2008, CBS interview, Biden misspoke when he said Franklin D. Roosevelt was president when the stock market crashed in 1929.

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened," he said.

Herbert Hoover -- not Roosevelt -- was president in 1929, and television had not yet been invented in 1929.

-- During a Sept. 12, 2008, speech in Columbia, Mo., Biden called for Missouri State Sen. Chuck Graham, who is wheelchair-bound, to "stand up."

"Oh, God love ya," Biden said, after realizing his mistake. "What am I talking about?"

-- At a Sept. 10, 2008, town hall meeting in Nashua, N.H., Biden said, "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me."

-- Biden mistakenly referred to Alaska governor Sarah Palin as the "lieutenant governor" of her state during a town hall meeting on Sept. 4, 2008 at George Mason University in Manassas, Va.

"I heard a very, by the way I mean this sincerely, a very strong and a very good political speech from a lieutenant governor of Alaska who I think is going to be very formidable, very formidable not only in the campaign but in the debate," Biden said.

-- Biden said he was running for president -- not vice president -- during a Sept. 1, 2008, roundtable discussion in Scranton, Pa.

"Today is the moment for me as a United States senator running for president to put aside the national politics and focus on what's happening down there," Biden said.

-- Biden referred to John McCain as "George" during his vice presidential acceptance speech on Aug. 27, 2008, at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Co. "Freudian slip, folks, Freudian slip," he explained.

-- Biden confused army brigades with battalions when speaking about Obama's plan for sending troops to Afghanistan.

"Or should we trust Barack Obama, who more than a year ago called for sending two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan?"

-- During his first campaign rally with Obama as his vice presidential running mate on Aug. 23, 2008, Biden introduced Obama by saying, "A man I'm proud to call my friend. A man who will be the next President of the United States -- Barack America!"

-- On Jan. 31, 2007 -- the day Biden announced his presidential bid -- the Delaware Senator was roundly criticized for calling Obama "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."


Remember this is our backup president should something horrible happen to BO. As bad as BO is doing, he is still better then his VP.

LINK

Media Starting to See Past The Love

Panel Plus: 5/16

The video places a different perspective on the media and the administration.

I believe the media is starting to realize they have been manipulated. The tone and cover is less but the love is still apparent. Mistakes that were minor by previous administrations got top viewing. The Obama administration may start to lose the cover of the media. The bloggers have done more to expose the mistakes of the administration then the major media. Perhaps the tide is turning.

If the love is lost or starting to go, will it make a major difference in the November election?

Nullification

Looking for a way out of the "Forced Down Our Throats" Obamacare plan. States and citizens are acting. States are filing suit and citizens are starting to look at nulification.

REBELLION IN AMERICA
Health-care mandates could be 'null and void'
Citizens launch drive to put feds back in their constitutional place

A group of Americans who believe the federal government overstepped its constitutional bounds in passing the recent health-care legislation is rallying allies to a bold and controversial initiative: state nullification of the federal law.

"Now that health-care reform has been signed into law, the question people ask most is, 'What do we do about it?'" said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, in a statement. "The status-quo response includes lobbying Congress, marching on D.C., 'voting the bums out,' suing in federal court and more. But the last 100 years have proven that none of these really work, and government continues to grow year in and year out."

Instead, the Center is reaching back into the history books to suggest states take up "nullification," a controversial measure that would essentially involve states saying to the federal government, "Not in our borders, you don't. That law has no effect here."

The Center is partnering with WeRefuse.com to announce release of model nullification legislation for states, called the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, and a call for 100,000 Americans to join a state-by-state petition to prompt legislators into action.

Now you can join nearly 15,000 Americans and 100 members of Congress in declaring your independence from Obamacare by signing Rep. Michele Bachmann's Declaration of Health Care Independence.

"Nullification will allow Americans to stop the overreaching federal government now, not years from now," said Trevor Lyman of WeRefuse.com in a statement. "We can make our biggest waves in local politics. Our state governments understand the impact of a vocal and irate minority, and they simply need to hear from us.

"WeRefuse.com and the Tenth Amendment Center's Federal Health Care Nullification Act give our state legislators their marching orders," he continued.

The question of whether nullification is a legal and permissible step, however, has been battled over since the ink was still wet on the U.S. Constitution.

The controversy stems largely from Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which reads in part: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Many scholars today point to the Article VI "Supremacy Clause" as evidence that federal laws (such as the health-care legislation) override state laws (such as any proposed nullification act).

But not so fast, say nullification advocates, pointing to a different interpretation offered by some of America's Founding Fathers, based on the phrase in Article VI that suggests only federal laws made "in pursuance" of the Constitution are supreme.

In 1788, Alexander Hamilton wrote to the people of the state of New York in Federalist No. 33, arguing that the yet unratified Constitution limited the Supremacy Clause to only constitutional acts, and that federal laws that strayed outside those bounds deserved to be treated by "the smaller societies," meaning states, as "usurpation."

"It will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land," he wrote (all italics in the original). "These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. … It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution."

Ten years later, when faced with the unpopular Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison penned the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, respectively, which asserted that the Acts had infringed on powers reserved "solely and exclusively to the respective states" and were therefore "altogether void and of no force."

In 1822, the General Court of Massachusetts blasted a federal embargo as "usurpation" and "oppression."

Read the rest Here

State Congresses are even getting into the act of Filing suit.

Oklahoma lawmakers to sue over federal health reform

House Speaker Chris Benge and Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee, both Republicans, said they plan to sue the U.S. Congress, president and U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services to prevent provisions of the act Obama signed into law last month from taking effect.

Their announcement follows the refusal earlier this month of Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson to join a multi-state lawsuit led by Florida's attorney general. Edmondson, a Democrat, said he would join the lawsuit if required by legislative action.

"Our concern is that the attorney general's effort would be lackluster, at best. We have an obligation to our citizens to challenge this unconstitutional bill, which will lead to unprecedented control of a large portion of the U.S. economy," Benge said in a statement. "The high taxes required in the law will be a burden that we cannot afford."

A resolution authorizing the legislative leaders to file the lawsuit and allowing Oklahoma residents to opt out of mandated health insurance is heading toward final passage.

Read the rest here

With all that going on, Democrats on the hill are still not happy with the power they have stolen from the people and are now attacking insurance companies directly.

Democrats seek greater control over health insurance rates

Legislation would allow federal regulators to step in to stop premium increases when state agencies fall short.

Congressional Democrats have begun pushing legislation giving government regulators greater authority to block big increases in health insurance premiums, kicking off what is expected to be a years-long process of revising and expanding their major healthcare overhaul.

The move, which comes less than a month after President Obama signed the healthcare legislation, is aimed at giving all states the power to stop premium hikes deemed excessive and allowing the federal government to step in if the states don't act.

"This is a gaping hole in our regulatory system, and it is unacceptable," Senate Health Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Tuesday as he opened a hearing on the proposed change to the healthcare bill, the first since the legislation was enacted.

Responsibility for regulating insurers has traditionally fallen to the states, but insurance commissioners' ability to control rate hikes currently varies widely from state to state. Senior Democrats on Capitol Hill, backed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, are exploring ways to standardize that authority.

Read the rest here

Do you need anymore proof that our congress is out of control? They have denied their oath of office and are looking to confiscate even more power. Now they wish to take state authority away.

When will any of these lawmakers actually read the constitution they have sworn to uphold?

This year may drag on forever as we wait to see the clash of epic proportion that ultimately will establish this country on the constitution it was founded on, or make it wholly and completely something different. A new and conservative congress can right the course and toss Obamacare or will the battle be in the courts?

Calculating the Suffrage of Taxes

If you came looking for someone to argue with over the value of our government, today is not the day. I have been robbed and beaten by the ever hungry government. Once again I have given my all to support the needs of my family and to help those who I choose. Yes, I believe it should be a choice. Charity would feed and cloths far more of the needy then our government with its bloated baggage could.

Taxation is a tool used by government to take power from the people. Your money is your vote. Every time you buy something you are voting for that product or service. You are saying I want more of it and I am willing to pay for it. When the government taxes you they are limiting your ability to vote and promote that which you find of value. Often the government takes your money and does things with it that are in direct contrast to your values and interests. We have often seem our money sent to foreign leaders to be wasted as an example. We see government programs that serve to limit and reduce our every effort.

Have you ever sat back and considered how much different this nation would be if you controlled more of what you earned? The government by way of direct and indirect taxes, fees and sir charges removes about 42% of your power. Most American families are so drained by this burden that they need an additional income just to take care of the basic needs.

The awkward side is that so many people have been brought up on the milk of government programs they no longer no how to take care of themselves. This life on the dole serves to further strengthen the power of government over us.

The excerpt below is from pgs 19-20, Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of Finances for 1921:

"But the direct effect of these very high taxes is to hinder and prevent business transactions which would otherwise take place. A man may have property which he has held for years and which has greatly increased in value, and he would like to sell it, but if he does a large part of the gain would have to be paid out in taxes. He would rather keep the property than sell it, pay the tax, and invest what is left in something else. At the same time the party desiring to buy this property, if he obtained it, would improve it with buildings.

What is the result? The transaction does not take place, and the community loses the advantage which would come in the stimulation that would arise from the transactions resulting from the buyer's improvement of the property, and it also loses the advantage of the seller's putting his money into some other form of investment, which in turn would give rise to business transactions. The same thing on a much greater scale is true in manufacturing and mercantile lines. Men have built up enterprises to the point where they are highly successful. They would like to take their profit and turn the business over to younger men to carry on.

These transactions are highly desirable not only for the parties but for the community, yet they are absolutely stopped, because if made the seller would have to pay in one year a tax on a gain which has been the result of perhaps the better part of a lifetime of effort. And in all such cases the Government gets no tax, whereas if the rates were reasonable the transactions would take place and the Government's revenues would benefit accordingly.

The free interchange of property in business transactions is essential to the normal prosperity of the country, and each such transaction has a direct tendency to bring about others of like character with the result of increasing the amount of gain or income available for taxation; but when the tax is so high as to act as a deterrent against usual and desirable business transactions, and the volume of such transactions is thereby lessened, the inevitable result is for the tax to become less and less productive.

It is for these reasons that, particularly in the higher brackets, a lower tax rate will produce more revenue in the long run than excessive rates. So long as the high rate stands in the way of accomplishing bargains and sales, the Government receives no tax; but at a lower rate the transactions proceed and the Government shares in the profits."

It has been obvious for years and yet we are still sitting here taking it. Now we have even greedier government with an even more ravenous appetite for your money. Now is the time to seek out candidates at every level who want to restore our constitution and reduce our obese government. Don't wait till the polls open come November. Get out there and make it happen. Don't forget to vote with a few of the dollars you have left before they come for those as well. Find a good candidate with the right perspective and help them win the election.

Oaths Don't Mean Much in DC

The Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

This apparently means nothing to some.




Notice how offended he becomes when someone challenges his reading the entire bill. He claims to have read it three times. The bill wasn't even available long enough to read it three times.

Let us look at the math. 2600 pages at 1 minute a page and reading it 3 times.
2600 x 3 = 7800 or 7800 minutes
7800 / 60 = 130 equaling 130 hours
130 / 24 = 5.41666 That is 5 days and 10 hours
Now if you slept 6 hours a day showered and dressed each day giving 7 hours for those activities.(discounting bathroom breaks and other interruptions) that would stretch this out to 7 days and 11 hours. Let's toss in an additional 10% for shear board um. That would push this out to 8 days 12 hours.

The bill wasn't even available for a week before the vote was taken. Perhaps the representative from Illinois is a speed reader and he was able to hide from the democratic vote whipping machine.

Another honest representative serving our nation.

Here is a clear reason to vote out all who forced healthcare upon us. Honesty and Americanism needs to be restored to our government. We need the best and the brightest who have high regard for the constitution and those who brought it to us. Let us use our power to vote wisely. Don't choose a party choose a candidate that fits the qualities that will return America to greatness.


Thanks Joe for pointing out this video.

The Doctors Don't Like It

I reported to you long ago that the doctors don't like this plan. Well the doctors are making their opinion loud and clear. Perhaps a lawsuit straight from those who's lives are going to be changed dramatically by a stroke of the pen.

Medical Society Files Lawsuit to Block Health Care Overhaul

First, do no harm. Second, sue the government.

With the president's ink barely dry on the health care overhaul's final fixes, a group of nearly 5,000 American physicians is filing suit to stop the mammoth new law dead in its tracks.

"I think this bill that passed threatens not only to destroy our freedom in medicine but to bankrupt the country," said Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

The Arizona-based medical coalition filed suit on March 26, arguing that congressional reforms illegally coerce individuals into buying insurance from private companies.

Starting in 2014, anyone who chooses not to buy health insurance faces a small federal penalty, but in 2016 the fine jumps to $695 a year per person or 2.5 percent of overall income, whichever is greater. That means that anyone earning more than $27,800 would be subject to increasing penalties, with a maximum fine of $2,085 per family.


Supporters of the law call it a simple tax meant to shore up coverage nationwide; but the AAPS says the mandate is an "unprecedented overreach" — an unconstitutional grab that rewards insurance companies and allows the federal government to seize private property in violation of the 5th Amendment.

Insurers "will have millions of new, unwilling customers that they wouldn't have gotten," said Orient, an internist based in Tuscon. "They're counting on getting all this new money."

Though legal challenges to the new law are popping up nationwide, the conservative-leaning AAPS is the only medical society to file suit against the health care package. The American Medical Association, the largest physicians' group in the U.S., supported the health care overhaul and lobbied on its behalf.

Orient says she hopes more groups will join her suit, and predicts a shortage of doctors as the medical community adjusts to the new law.

"We need to get back to the old-fashioned style of medicine where doctors worked for their patients and patients paid their doctors," she said.

Link

We have only just begun to reap the nightmares that will come with the implementation of this healthcare bill. Nothing has been done to lower the cost, which is what Americans really needed. Plenty has been done to raise the cost Now they plan on taking more and penalizing you if you don't buy what they are selling. We can still get this bill stopped. We need to boot out of office everyone who forced this horrible bill upon us. Start preparing for elections and supporting real conservative candidates.

How Are Your Health Dollars Spent

Since everyone is talking healthcare, why don't we look at how it breaks out.



Let's take the big slices, hospital care and Physician and Clinical Services. The size of these two slices make up 52% of the cost of healthcare. If we can find a small percentage of savings in these areas, we will have significant savings overall.

I pointed out a video when I wrote "The Real Reason Healthcare is so High". We have Illegals flooding our healthcare system. How many hospitals have closed or filed for bankruptcy due to the vast cost of providing Medical care to illegals. Once they are here we become obligated, so keeping them out should be a priority when discussing ways to cut the cost of healthcare.

Doctors and even some of their staff spend large sums of money on malpractice insurance. They lose time and effectiveness by practicing protective medicine as well as battle lawsuits and the large settlements that often result. Instant wealth opportunities and gold diggers are not foreign to any business activity but they are far more prevalent in the medical industry. Simply knowing that doctors have multi-million dollar malpractice policies makes them all the more ripe for the picking. These insurance bodies often settle for large sums to avoid long battles and vast jury awards that ultimately drive up the cost of insurance for all medical personnel.

Increasing the number of doctors would help make healthcare more accessible and perhaps more affordable. The current enrollment in medical schools have dropped and the caliber of student is also suffering. Gone are the days when medicine was a lucrative practice. There is more money and less risk in so many other fields that perhaps we need an incentive system to draw in quality candidates. I know when I was attending pre-med classes there wasn't anything motivating me to finish. In fact the opposite was often more common.

HMOs have radically changed the medical profession. Their formularies and reimbursement programs take control out of the patient and doctors hands and put it in the hands of bureaucrats. This system of healthcare management has focused the industry on cost instead of outcome. The goal of the doctor patient relationship was the health and well being of the patient. Under the HMO system the goals are based on uniformity instead of best health outcome. Patients have the impression that they should have it all given the high cost of the program, while insurances try to give them the minimum they feel they need leaving doctors in the middle to negotiate the end result or fail to be reimbursed for their efforts. The HMO system has created another problem. The co-pay system takes away any incentive for the patient to learn or do basic care. The medical facility is forced into a bad guy roll by denying some level of care.

Placing the price tag back out in plain sight and allowing the patient to use their money to buy what they need would restore the patient doctor relationship as well as contain costs. The doctor only naturally will perform to the buyers level of acceptance. Third party buyers such as insurance companies and government programs take the focus off the real issue that brought this group together in the first place. Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are a great way to put things back in order. The Personal Medical Savings Account is a far superior method for restoring some of the accountability back into the system. If someone had to actually pay for the requested service even knowing they would be reimbursed for a qualified medical visit, they would spend some time verifying and learning how to qualify. If there was the possibility that they would foot the bill they would be absolutely sure they needed to go. On the flip side if the medical facility was paid by the patient and not some formulary centered third party, they would be more prone to quality customer service. The incentive to please and help the patient would be returned to the health care industry. It would also be easier to focus on care when only patients with real needs came, hence education.

Once again a simple review of the problems with healthcare and its cost help us find ways to improve the system without having to resort to something as drastic as Obamacare. I recently wrote every senator to give them these very suggestions before they voted for Obamacare. I still haven't received a response from anyone. They sent me a generic thanks for writing letter.

The answer isn't bigger government. Looks like many got this test question wrong and failed America. It is time we a least shrunk government by every name on the "yes" side of Obamacare.