A Few Hidden treats for Unions & Acorn in the Health Care Bill Sponsored by You!

DETAILED ANALYSIS: HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE PLAN LOADED UP WITH SPECIAL-INTEREST GIVEAWAYS

HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ COSTLY HEALTH SCHEME A BOON TO UNIONS, TRIAL LAWYERS, AND EVEN ACORN

August 31, 2009 | House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) | Permalink


If a government takeover of health care at the expense of America’s seniors, middle class and small businesses wasn’t enough, Democrats also decided to load up their costly bill with special-interest giveaways to help their labor union, trial lawyer, and ACORN friends. It’s no wonder the American people increasingly oppose the proposal put together by President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and House Democratic leaders. House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) responded today:



“Chock full of liberal special-interest giveaways, it’s no wonder public support for the Democrats’ government takeover of health care is plummeting. American seniors, families and small businesses should not be sacrificed at the expense of trial lawyers, unions, and even ACORN. It’s time to scrap the current bill and start working together on a common-sense plan to lower costs and increase access to quality health care.”



Written in a backroom, it’s easy to understand why the House Democrats’ bill provides numerous giveaways to special-interest groups and their allies. Here are just a few examples:

Page 95; Section 205 – The bill directs the “Health Choices Commissioner” to conduct outreach activities, including through the use of outside organizations such as ACORN and others, to reach out and enroll exchange-eligible individuals and employers.
Page 31-32; Section 123(a)(5) – The bill requires that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee include labor unions. This advisory committee would be charged with recommending covered benefits for essential, enhanced, and premium plans. Although the reference to ‘labor’ does not necessarily require a union representative or a unionized employee on the committee, the choice of that word as opposed to ‘employees’ suggests that organized labor would likely be assured a position on the advisory committee.
Page 53; Section 154 – The bill ensures that the new federal health care program will set a floor (but not a ceiling) for health care negotiations for unionized employers. The legislation cannot be construed to excuse them from good-faith bargaining over health care benefits. Furthermore, it will not permit unionized employers to unilaterally drop health coverage of its employees in favor of shunting them into the government-run plan or simply paying the penalty associated with not offering health care benefits to workers.
Pages 533-551; Section 1412 – The bill requires the Comptroller General of the U.S. to conduct a study examining: “(A) the extent to which corporations that own or operate large numbers of nursing facilities … are undercapitalizing such facilities; (B) the effects of such undercapitalization on quality of care, including staffing and food costs, at such facilities; (C) options to address such undercapitalization, such as requirements relating to surety bonds, liability insurance, or minimum capitalization.” This provision primarily benefits trial lawyers who sue nursing homes.
Pages 551-569; Section 1413 – The bill requires HHS to include certain kinds of information about nursing home facilities and skilled nursing facilities on its website, including staffing, turnover, and tenure data for each facility. It also requires the HHS Secretary to consult with labor unions representing workers at the facility in reviewing the information. By giving labor unions a voice in deciding what information will appear on the website, the bill creates an opportunity for the unions to drive their staffing or other agendas.
Pages 1007-1017; Sec. 2531 – The bill establishes labor union grants for the training of nurses through a partnership grant program that would award grants for collaborative programs between staff nurse organizations, health care providers, and accredited schools of nursing. Except for nursing schools, entities must work with labor unions in order to meet the eligibility requirements for receiving grant funds. Not only do these grants have to go to joint union-run programs (unless they go directly to nursing schools), but the bill further restricts eligibility for the grants to health care employers, which pay prevailing wages and subsidize the costs of their employees’ participating in these training programs. To the extent the grant program is effective, nursing shortages will become worse in non-unionized hospitals than in unionized hospitals. These training programs will also provide unions with access to future nurses before they even complete their training, which could make it easier for the unions to organize those nurses in the future—either because of gratitude for the union’s involvement in providing their training, or else simply due to their early access to the employees.
The American people shouldn’t be sacrificed to line the pockets of liberal, special-interest groups; they don’t want a government takeover of their health care; and they want common sense reforms to lower health care costs and increase access for those who don’t currently have health care coverage. Shouldn’t Democrats work with Republicans on common sense solutions to deliver on the reforms the American people expect and deserve?

REPUBLICAN LEADER PRESS OFFICE
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH)
H-204, THE CAPITOL
(202) 225-4000 | GOPLEADER.GOV

Read more...

More Health Care Videos that are a Little Scare on Television

Here is a video or two liberals don't like much on health care. They are hard to find on your television as well. These are hard hitting to the point videos. Ask Harry Reid, he thinks a lot of them. The Club for Growth produced these and set off a firestorm from the left. That means they must be good.

Read more...

The left Flunks the Kennedy Test - Matthews: Obama last Kennedy Brother - Health Care at All Cost

It looks like the left flunked the morals test on the Kennedy death. I said last week that it would be interesting to see if the left could restrain themselves and show a little class while dealing with Senator Ted Kennedy's death, they could not wait until he was buried.

Our boy Chris Matthews from MSNBC comes out and calls Obama the "last Kennedy brother". Is that like when the said that Bill Clinton was "the first black president"? The man was not even buried and they were working as hard as they could to get the health care bill passed. Obama has to carry on the Kennedy work, is the new story line. Chris Matthews is a pathetic political hack who works for a network who has no viewers and is seen for what they are, a mouthpiece for Obama. The reason I put up this video is because people don't believe Matthews said it.

Then, not 24 hours after he was buried Maria Shriver comes out and tells NBC that she hopes his death will inspire people to get the health care bill done because it was his life's work. Many in the Democratic party now want to name the bill after him hoping to engender sympathy for their cause. I was on a liberal web site the other day. There was a post on it about how the conservatives will lie about Kennedy to try to stop health care. I left a comment for the author telling him that it is much more likely that the left will do that, conservatives do not need to lie about Kennedy, his history is fact not fiction. I challenged the author to admit if he was wrong. Another person responded to my comments by saying Reagan was used by the conservatives and he was a deeply flawed person as was Kennedy. Two things here, moral equivalency is a left favorite. Ok, Reagan never killed anyone while driving drunk. Further, how did Republicans use Reagan's death? Yes they had tributes to him, just as with Kennedy. But, and this is a big but. They never said elect George Bush because he is the last Reagan brother.

The American people know the difference. The more the left plays the game the more pathetic they look. The health care bill, just as any other bill, should be debated on its merits, it is sinking based on its merits not because Obama is pushing it. As I have said before, integrity is a word which the left and the liberals need to learn the meaning of.

Read more...

Cheney defends the CIA and at the Same Time makes it Clear Obama & Holder are Playing Politics with National Security

Well it looks like former Vice President Dick Cheney as decided that he once again needed to come out and call the Obama administration to account for the latest CIA flap. It seems that its almost like the left has a reflex to go after Bush whenever things aren't going well.

This is not the first time the left has attacked the CIA. During the 1990's they destroyed the ability of the agency to function and preform its function. That it was a leading contributing factor to the 9/11 attacks is not really ever questioned. The left has a history of attacking the military and intelligence communities after they find themselves in power. Liberals were this way even during the cold war, think back to the Reagan "cowboy diplomacy" line, and their pushing the belief the whole world was going to destroy itself. Reagan was dangerous, he was a loose cannon and so on. I think we all know who was on the "right" side of history. Cheney is simply pointing out that we need the CIA to be the best it can be. Defending itself against charges that have already been investigated by the justice department serves no legitimate purpose. It is clear Eric (Renditions) Holder is out playing politics with national security and Cheney called him on it.

Obama is trying to act like he has nothing to do with it, my god what a lie. Eric (Renditions) Holder is doing what his home boy Obama wants. They actually expect people to believe what is obviously an outright lie. The investigation is to make Obama's far left base happy. He believes if he says it enough, people will believe its all that bad man Holder and not him. They accuse Cheney of setting Obama up to take the blame should we be attacked again. I have bad news for the left, people know who is or is not defending this country at all cost's. Who is and is not will to do whatever it takes to keep them and their loved ones safe. Who is willing to do whatever it takes to guard the American lifestyle and freedoms we all have been accustomed to enjoying. I have even worse news, Cheney or not, the American public does not need another terrorist attack to know that it is not Obama and Holder.

Read more...

New Video on Health Care - ABC & NBC Won't Show You This Video on the Air

This video has a powerful message on health care, in fact its so powerful, ABC & NBC won't air it. The video done by the League of American Voters drives home the point on the government run option on health care.

Take a look, its not a long spot, about 33 seconds. I think most would agree that it leaves a lasting impression. Again, how bad is it when ABC & NBC won't run it. There is no hate speech, not degrading messages, nothing that should prevent it from being aired. Unless of course your a mouthpiece for the White House.

Read more...

Firearms for Survival - The In's and the Out's - A few things to Remember

I have had several people ask me, what rifle would I use should it be the end of the world as we know it and I knew I had to go into harms way. For me that's an easy choice, a Colt LE6520, or A-2 Government Carbine. What about one pistol to go with it. Again, pretty easy, a Sig P226 in 9mm.

I have good reasons for choosing both. Not the least of which is the fact that I know the weapons inside and out. Also, they are rock solid platforms when it comes to being dependable, accurate and durable. Take one other thing into consideration, ammunition and the ability to replace what you shoot. People have a tendency to overlook that simple little item. A firearm for survival has to be something you can scrounge ammo for should you need to. The AR-15 uses 5.56mm/223, its also the standard round of the US Military and is in use by thousands of police departments across the country. Its probably the most popular rifle round in the nation based on volume sales. Also, M-16/Ar-15 mags are the same, a nice bonus. 9mm is the single most popular pistol caliber in the world, again its the choice of the US Armed Forces. Despite what you hear, the 9mm holds its own when it comes to law enforcement agencies with the 45acp and the 40s&w.

Another thing to remember, should you need to leave your "bunker" you need to take ammo with you. People ask how many mags to you need to take for your rifle, my answer is at least 12 when at all possible. Pistols, you can get by with 5. Now if you put that in your bug out bag and you are using 45acp in a pistol and 7.62/308 in a rifle, that's a ton you will be carrying around. You had better think about that before you decide which weapon is best for you, thinking that you will never need to leave your safe location could be fatal. Plan to be able to move if needed. Being able to know the weapon inside out makes things work better, for example you will know when your weapon needs cleaned and how to do it fast and correctly. Another thing you can never over look, they need to be clean to run when you need them to.

Another reason for my choices, they are light weight and fast shooting. Having a great pistol like a Desert Eagle in 50A&E is wonderful if you have a weapons bearer, kind of like an African hunting trip. Same thing goes for a rifle, in a car, how easy is it to swing around something the size of an M1 Garand, you'll be looking for windows in no time or knocking out someones eye ball with the thing. My point is they are big, great rifle, just big and heavy. Firepower is another key. You need firepower in some cases and nothing else with do. Yes accurate fire is what you are looking for, but a bolt action rifle with 4 or 5 rounds leaves you at a huge, probably fatal disadvantage in a shootout. You will most likely be out number and they will probably be pretty close when the shooting starts. You will need to counter fire against you as fast as possible to enable yourself to exit or shoot your way through. The latter is not a good choice if you have no training at it, its a goods way to get dead. You could have your family or friends with you, do you want to be in a firefight with them behind you? This is about "survival firearms". Remember the key is "survival" here.


Look there are many other good choices, Glock's are used by the Israeli military and they store both weapons and magazines in caches in the desert for later or covert use. They love them. H&K make great assault rifles, almost unstoppable reliability. Springfield has the XD pistols, again a great weapon. The Ruger Mini 14, another good choice. Now last but not least the infamous AK-47 family. Can't stop those things from shooting. Small, fast, accurate enough, hard to beat, just watch the ammo issue. You have tons of choices for a survival firearm. Price, your comfort with the weapon and your just "I want it" factor all come into play. Just remember to stock up on plenty of ammo and extra magazines for whatever you choose. The last and most important factor is you, you need to make time to practice on a regular basis. If you need help, seek professional trainers who are teaching what you need to learn, everything from basic handling to clearing rooms is being offered out there somewhere, get what you need that's all.


I hope this helps, there is no one answer is a survival gun. Different people have different views. I am trying to point out a couple things you need to keep in mind, if you have other ideas, feel free to share.

Read more...

CIA Director Leon Panetta should "Connect the Dots" and Resign

The CIA Director, Leon Panetta was reported to have had a spirited argument at the White House over the new investigations. This is not the first time Panetta has lost a battle over the workings of the CIA.

The release of the CIA "torture documents" a couple month ago was to have caused a great blow up then. Obama released them anyway. This time Obama has turned to his friend Eric (Renditions) Holder to have the FBI and Justice Department investigate interrogations that's have already been investigated by the Justice Department 5 years ago. This is nothing but an obvious political move designed to help Obama's sagging poll numbers and take the debate off of health care which he is loosing. This does one other thing, it plays strongly to the left loon base of his, a base that is looking at extended and expanding wars, no gays in the military, no gun control laws, and maybe worst of all, no government run health care. Obama knows his poll numbers are not just going down with Republicans, he is loosing the critical middle voter and his own Democratic base. Many in the Democratic party are starting to believe he overreached. This is the perfect move in his mind. Many have said he is still in "campaign mode". Fine, he ran his campaign against George Bush, he just doing it again.

The other more important development he announced this week, is that they are now putting the FBI in charge of terrorist interviews and investigations. Which means two things. First, the White House will be in charge of deciding what to do with terrorists, including who is and is not a terrorist. This is nothing but an outright power grab. Further this is the exact problem we faced 10 years ago. The Democrats destroyed the CIA, they believed terrorism was a law enforcement matter only. They wanted to arrest them, not kill them. This is what caused 9/11. Also, remember how after 9/11 everybody complained about "not connecting the dots"? This is why no one connected the dots. The "walls" between agencies stopped people from working together.

The sad part here is that Obama is playing politics with national security and going to his buddy Eric (Renditions) Holder for help to do it. Panetta is a "Clintonite", all you need to do to see how much Obama thinks of those people is try to find Hillary, she's in some third world country somewhere I'm sure. Obama is destroying the nations ability to defend itself. All to get his agenda passed. Leon Panetta should connect the dots and resign, before another 9/11 style disaster takes place and he takes the fall for that as well. Or how about resign because its the right thing to do and send a message to the country that not all Democrats are left wing loons bent on getting their own way at the cost of everyone's safety.

Read more...

Obama's Misdirection on Medicare Cuts - $500 Billion Worth

I have been talking for some time about the health care bill and the Medicare cuts that go with it. It seems like the more people say it, the more Obama denies it. He repeats the same line over and over again, saying no cuts to medicare.

Its a little slight of hand and twisting a few words. There are approximately $500 billion in medicare "savings" he claims the plan will realize. Now the keys here are the word "savings" and how they realize them. The savings come from cutting reimbursements to providers and making fewer services available to patients. Fewer services authorized means less money paid out. Cutting providers in the amount they are paid for these services also achieves the savings. So when he says he is not cutting your medicare, he technically is not completely fabricating the line. Its a play on words, he does it all the time. A good example is during the campaign he said he would look into off shore drilling, he never said he would do it, just look into it. As you can tell, he lends $2 billion to Brazil for off shore drilling but he won't approve it here. This is the same thing.

A report by his own White House Council of Economic Advisers claimed the government can cut projected health care spending by 15% over the next 10 years, but these savings would come from fewer services being offered or provided. Lets see, fewer services, sounds like a cut to me. Since the large portion of health care expense is incurred later in life, please tell me where these cuts in services are coming from and who they will affect? Simple answer isn't it? Obama does not outright lie, he just skirts the truth by phrasing things a different way, kind of like being a lawyer. Wait, he is a lawyer come to think of it. As a mater of fact he was a "constitutional" lawyer and scholar we all know how well he is doing with that issue.

The best part about this is that the Congressional Budget Office said that the administration proposed medicare cuts would yield only modest savings. In simple terms, he is going out misleading people for almost no gain. That's real smart. Unfortunately, this is becoming a familiar Obama tactic, misdirection. Its not such a good thing when he has been in office for 7 months and people already know he is either shading the truth or just making it up as he goes. The reports I am referencing are from the CBO and the White House Council of Economic Advisers, you can't fake those.

Read more...

ACORN involved in Gun Control - Using Government Funding to Defend Itself against Criminal Investigations

Here's a piece of information I have been working at for a few days. It seems after checking to obtain some facts, ACORN, is working as an anti gun group and has been for some time. Not really a big stretch but still a little surprising how they are doing it.

ACORN has come out against gun owners rights in Jersey City, New Jersey. They were helping, unsuccessfully, to try to pass local ordinances further restricting the already bad New Jersey state gun laws. Its bad enough that they got involved backing ordinances already declared unconstitutional but they did it with tax payer money. The story here is not the gun laws, the story here is that ACORN has received over $31 million in government funding in the past 10 years. Further, Obama's presidential campaign gave ACORN more than $800,000 for "get out the vote" efforts and voter registration.

ACORN is under investigation in a dozen states for voter fraud including paying for votes and voter registrations. The fact that they are openly supporting gun control and getting government funding to do it seems to be more than a little shady. The Second Amendment Foundation is trying to push the FBI to investigate the use of public funds in the New Jersey Case, the odds of this aren't too good since Attorney General Eric (Renditions) Holder would have the last say on the decision to go forward or not.

The House Minority Leader, John Boehner has requested the White House block all federal funding to ACORN until the group has been fully investigated. ACORN has a staff of lawyers to defend themselves, where are they getting the money from? How about this, the United States government is funding ACORN to defend itself from investigations into criminal actions being looked into by various state and local governments. Its so bad, the limited federal investigation into ACORN is being defended against by lawyers being paid for by the federal government itself. ACORN is using tax payer money to defend itself from criminal charges and investigations. How wrong do you wish to get? When do people start to understand how corrupt the Obama administration really is?

Read more...

A Little fact about Cash for Clunkers

I watched something on Fox News last night I found kind of amusing in the way it was handled. It just proves one thing, you need to pay close attention when ever or from where ever you get your information.

I watched as Shep Smith, who is not exactly a harsh critic of Obama, throw up a chart behind him. He explained that now that cash for clunkers was over, the sales figures had come in from the government. He spoke about the total sales of almost 3/4 of a million cars. Then he did something odd. He explained that the foreign cars had sold 41%, his chart showed that Toyota, Honda and Nissan had sold 41%. He then went on to say that the domestic car companies had sold 39%, his chart showed GM, Ford and Chrysler having 39%. He then moved on to the next story.

Looks pretty close, almost as many domestic cars sold as imports right? Wrong, that's only 80%, looks like we are missing the other 20% somehow. That would be because one of the leading sellers in the cash for clunkers program was Hyundai. It seems that imports got the other 20% as well. Doesn't look as balanced now does it. Showing 41 to 39 makes it look really close, just a hair behind, almost like a close football game. Now put up 61 to 39 and it looks like a blow out. Since imports accounted for 61% of all cash for clunker sales, I don't think it had the impact that some where hoping for. Sure, the dealers sold a bunch of cars, but almost 2/3's of them were import brands, not the former big three. So much for a "slight of hand".

Read more...

Romanian AK-47's, the "WASR 10", Whatever you call it, it Shoots

People write and ask all the time, do the Romanian AK's make good survival rifles or not? And why are they so much less money than the others? Both good questions, with pretty straight forward answers.

First, the cost question. They cost less because there are a lot more of them. They are a little different in that the ones floating around say from China. The Chinese version can't come in any more, they have not been imported for going on 20 years. The others, some are made here in the US, are generally a few hundred dollars more. The Polish versions are also out there, though not in the numbers of the Romanian ones. Some people say the quality of the rifles is not on par with the others, after seeing tons of them, I would have to say that's somewhat true, but keep this in mind, none of them are well done rifles. Even the top of the line AK is no masterpiece by a long shot. Also, the Romanian rifles are known as "WASR10s". People need to understand what this means. There was a version of the AK being brought in while the infamous Clinton assault weapons ban was in place. These weapons in order to meet the criteria placed on them, only took a 10 rounds magazine. They were the original WASR 10's. After the ban expired the recievers were milled out to allow them to take the standard AK-47 mag. This is why they have the "WASR 10", name. Most come in from Century Arms. The best finish I have seen on an AK-47, was on a Polytech Legend, they have milled receivers like the first AK's and the fit and finish is second to none as AK's go.

These rifle shoot fine. They shoot anything that fits in the chamber. They are not a marks mans weapon of choice, but they are more than accurate enough. At say 100 yards, placing center hits on a standard B-27 target is no problem. All AK's suffer from the same crude sites and a short site radius, its just part of the animal itself. At 50 yards, head shots are not hard. most of these rifles come with the standard oiled wood stock set, some did come in as folders with the distinct one wire looking butt stock. The AK-47 is the first in the long line of AK style weapons. The AK-47 is no longer in use as a front line weapon in Russia, they now have the AK-74, chambered in the 5.45mm caliber, compared to the short 7.62 AK-47. Most people have a liking for the 30 caliber round against the smaller lighter 22 caliber AK-74. These same people probably feel the same way about the M-16. These rifles that I have shot, run and run and run some more. That's what you want.

Are they the best AK out there, no. But as a famous person once said, "If the western world melts down, give me an AK-47". The Afghan's clean them with boot laces and motor oil, that's a tough rifle. The AK-47 makes its appearance everywhere terrorist's abound. The reasons, which are very similar to one of the original questions here, is they are simple to shoot, simple to use, simple to clean and they can take a beating. The Romanian AK's are no different. If you have a good supply of ammo, this is a great survival rifle, or a "just in case" rifle if things melt down.

Read more...

With Kennedy's death, The Democrats Face a Real Test

With the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy this week, things have changed is several ways, some good, some not so good. The Democrats are at a crossroads, not Republicans.

Democrats are already lining up to try to use his death as a way of pushing the health care bill through congress, they want to name it for him. That's fine, but trying to say it was his life long pursuit and he should have it even in death will only serve to show the American public how desperate they are to pass the bill.

It's not just on the federal level. The state of Massachusetts is already considering changing the law so the governor can appoint a replacement. Now, as if this was not bad enough, Kennedy himself requested the law be changed from a governors appointment in fear that then Republican governor, Mitt Romeny would appoint a Republican to fill the seat of Senator John Kerry who they believed was going to be president. Right before his death, Kennedy was asking the governor, Deval Patrick, a Democrat to get the state legislator to change the law and reverse what he had requested in 2004. If the Democrats in Massachusetts do this they will draw the anger of people nationwide for what is rightly seen a manipulating the election of a new senator.

If Democrats on the federal level try to ram the health care bill through using the "Kennedy" sympathy trick, they could very well suffer the same fate. they should remember the funeral turned political rally for Senator Paul Wellstone when he died a few years ago. I'm not saying anything about Kennedy, simply because the man just died, out of respect for him and his family. I don't share his views on anything, but that is for another day. Democrats need to show some class for a change and not try to manipulate elections or use his death as a sympathy trick. If they do they only show Americans how sad the really are and how desperate they are to get their agenda through no matter what.

Read more...

Obama's Power Grab and his New CIA - aka "Can't Interrogate Anybody"

I was in local law enforcement for sometime when I was younger and we joked about the feds because they always come in just in time to make a splash. To be sure we have plenty of good people on the federal level, so this is not an attack on them. We called the FBI, "famous but incompetent", really got under their skin. Now Obama is causing the same reaction to the CIA.

Obama's new plan is to take away the ability of the CIA to interrogate prisoners aka/terrorists. He has created a new group of people working under the White House, who will handle the terrorism treat now. These people will handle the detention and interrogation of all the terrorism suspects. This is troubling on several fronts. First, the consolidation of power by the White House. Understand, Obama will now be in control of the process and who is considered what kind of detainee. This means is you are designated a "terrorist" by the White House, your sol. Now this is really troubling in that we have seen the Department of Home Land Security issue reports detailing who they think are "potential" terrorists. Remember the right to life people, the veterans and so on? This move alone points out how much of a power grab Obama has been executing. Its also very dangerous to the rights of the American public. I don't hear all the liberal rights groups complaining now do you?

Second, the CIA is comprised of professionals doing their jobs. To simply decide to create a whole new body to handle something this important should not be done after a few beers and a few talks with your friends. he is consolidating power with his friend the Attorney General, Eric (Renditions)Holder. Holder is a political hack who will do whatever Obama wants. No one wants to investigate the CIA for things already looked at 5 years ago, no one but Obama who is looking for political cover and to rev up his base. The old "beat on Bush trick" is getting a little old. the new group will be under the direct supervision of the Justice Department, I go back again to Eric (Renditions) Holder. Third, he has compromised national security for political gain, pure and simple. No one working anywhere in the world will go the extra mile when they know the government they work for won't back them up. Its really worse than that, they may be arrested even if they save American lives with the information.

The point is that Dick Cheney punted Obama back a few feet not long ago over this whole issue, maybe we need him again, no, we do need him again. I believe most Americans have very similar views to mine on this. I don't care if you throw those people out of plane at 30,000 feet, if it saves one American life. The terrorists are cowards and scum you wipe off your shoes. Obama has crippled the CIA with his moves, he has compromised national security for political cover. He is trying to amass power for himself in outright disregard for the congress and the American people. Obama can now be credited for giving the CIA its own nickname, "Can't Interrogate Anybody".

Read more...

A few facts on Public funds for Abortion in the Democratic House Health Care Bill

DETAILED ANALYSIS: HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE PLAN ALLOWS TAXPAYER-FUNDED ABORTIONSDESPITE DEMOCRATS’ CLAIMS, THE “CAPPS COMPROMISE” WAS JUST FOR POLITICAL COVER
August 25, 2009 House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) Permalink
Most Americans – about 70 percent, according to a recent Zogby poll – are opposed to allowing taxpayer funds to be used to pay for abortion. But the government takeover of health care proposed by Democratic leaders in Washington runs counter to the views most Americans have on the subject, and despite the claims of some prominent Democrats, the legislation would in fact allow abortions to be subsidized by taxpayer funds. House Democrats claim that an amendment offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) in the Energy & Commerce Committee will prevent taxpayer dollars from going to abortion, but a close reading of the legislation shows that is fiction. In a letter to members of the House of Representatives, Cardinal Rigali, Chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Pro-Life Activities, criticized this Capps “compromise” for delegating to the Health & Human Services Secretary “the power to make unlimited abortion a mandated benefit in the ‘public health insurance plan’ the government will manage nationwide.”In addition, the Associated Press has reported that “Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions” and FactCheck.Org has stated that “House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.” House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) made the following comment on this troubling development:
“When most Americans talk about the need for health care reform, they’re talking about the need to address rising health care costs, not taxpayers subsidizing abortion. The fact that this bill will actually increase the deficit and raise costs for middle-class families and small businesses while allowing their hard-earned money to be used to pay for destroying human life is unconscionable. Health care reform that fails to respect the dignity of all human life is not reform at all.”A detailed analysis of the Democrats’ government-run plan shows how it allows taxpayer-subsidized abortions:
Page 24; Section 115 – The bill requires that plans that use a provider network for health services must meet the standards set forth by the “Health Choices Commissioner” to assure the adequacy of the network for plan enrollees to receive covered services. If abortion becomes an essential benefit, as Section 122 leaves open as a possibility, provider networks would be required to ensure – including by establishing abortion clinics – that abortion services are available.
Page 26; Section 122 – The bill defines what would be deemed an “essential benefits package,” or in other words what the government sets as benefits or services that must be covered by an insurance plan. This section, however, contains no explicit exclusion or prohibition from abortion being deemed part of an essential benefits package. Without such an exclusion, the bill leaves open the possibility of federally mandated coverage of abortion as an essential benefit. The bottom line? H.R. 3200 does not contain any limitation on federal funds authorized or appropriated in the bill from being used to pay for elective abortion or to subsidize the purchase of insurance coverage of elective abortion.When Democrats return to Washington next month, will they be willing to work with Republicans to ensure that taxpayer money isn’t used to end human life? Or will they continue to go it alone, trying to force a partisan government takeover of health care down the throats of the American people?
REPUBLICAN LEADER PRESS OFFICEREP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH)H-204, THE CAPITOL(202) 225-4000 GOPLEADER.GOV

Read more...

Obama's self inflicted "Credibility Gap" - He is Bleeding over to the Rest of the Liberals

President Obama has never really had a claim to a long impressive resume, that's for sure. Liberals criticized Sarah Palin for a lack of experience. They said she could not be president, what would happen if something happened to John McCain? The truth is that the Republicans had their most experienced person on the top of the ticket, the Democrats had it the other way around and now they beginning to pay for it.

Obama is suffering from a real credibility gap with the American people. It is truly his own making and doing. Take a look at what the American public is seeing. Two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, neither going especially well. Our own ground commanders report a deteriorating scene in Afghanistan with a demand for hundreds of thousands more combat troops from Nato and America. Iraq is literally exploding, fueled by Iran and other Islamic extremists. North Korea now has Obama willing to talk with them on a one on one basis, away from the agreed upon six party talks. They made him look foolish chasing empty ships around while they tested nukes and missiles. Iran beats and kills protesters in the streets, after a hard line regime steals the elections. Obama fails to respond when it occurs because he wants to talk them out of their nuclear desires. Since they pretty much told him to go pound sand, I would have to say that is not going to well. Don't forget Syria testing new missiles with the help of Iran and North Korea. So much for his foreign policy.

Now his domestic situation looks even worse. His health care bill is stalled, why? Because people don't like his plans. He comes out and announces the largest national debt in the history of the nation. The new deficit numbers are staggering, he was only off by $2 trillion. Its now $9 trillion, not bad for a community organizer right? Don't worry, health care is estimated to cost another $1.6 trillion. Give me the stimulus bill and unemployment won't go above 8%, except now its 9.4% and is forecast to peak at 10.6% by the Federal Reserve, next year its average is estimated at 9.8%. Oops. Cap & Trade is a pure tax on American's and they now know it. Government run health care is nothing but a social welfare program being offered up at the tax payers expense, and Americans know it. The other big item, Card Check, it got stalled in the Senate because its nothing but union payback for his campaign, and guess what? Americans figured that out too.

Democrats are looking around in congress and finding ways to hide from their home district voters because of this man. Several won't be coming back next year because of him and they know it. They even have a few senior leaders in trouble in the polls, again they know why. Obama's poll numbers are falling because he really does have a credibility gap with the American public and his own little reality. Its also his own doing, and he knows that as well.

Read more...

Would you be mad if the US was paying Communist China, $800 Million a Week in Interest? If so, you should be Mad as Hell!

I wanted to take a minute to give you some facts about the national debt you don't get or hear from anybody else. It may be hard to believe, but I'm telling you the truth.

The national debt, not to be confused with the deficit, is now at $11.7 Trillion, now add into that the projected new deficit numbers the Obama administration has published which is another $9 Trillion, you are now looking at at total national debt of $20.7 Trillion. Now these numbers seem almost like monopoly money I know, but they are real. For every $1 trillion we borrow, we pay an extra get this, $50 Billion a year just in interest. $50 Billion a year in interest. Since the Obama health care government run plan has an estimated cost of $1.6 Trillion, again over 10 years, we would end up a new national debt of $22.3 Trillion. What planet is Obama living on, because its not this one that's for sure.

This will piss you off even more, we owe the Communist Chinese approximately $780 Billion, now if you understand that, our interest payment to them is $800 Million a week. Hello, $800 Million a week just to the Chinese. We owe the Japanese approximately $625 Billion. Bet nobody told you that little tid bit. Just to give you an idea of what Obama has done, we all hear the liberals talk about George Bush and how he started it. Ok, he did do the TARP that's a fact. Here is another fact, when George Bush left office, the deficit was about $400 Billion, this years revised numbers coming out of the Congressional Budget Office is $1.8 Trillion. That's about a 4.5 times increase in the deficit, and he did it all in 7 months. I know these numbers are boring and hard to get your hands around, but believe me when I tell you, we are in so much trouble its not funny. We need to tell the liberals in congress to stop the spending, next year we need to vote them out and replace them with conservatives that can hopefully get some kind of control before we crash completely.

Read more...

Its Not about the CIA - Its about Health Care and Obama knows It

Yesterday the Obama administration came out and announced the the Attorney General Eric (Renditions)Holder is going to launch a criminal probe into the CIA interrogations conducted years ago after 9/11.

Now while that sounds very serious, understand that these charges were already looked at 4 or 5 years ago by the Justice Department career prosecutors. Not just that, a bi-partisan congressional intelligence committee also reviewed the 12 cases being looked at here, and found a problem with one and the case was referred to the Justice Department for review and/or prosecution. Knowing that, why do it again? Simple, take attention off of health care that is sinking like a stone. Get it off of the head lines, change the the topic. One other thing, Obama ran his entire campaign last year against George Bush, and now when he gets in trouble he falls back on it again. It fires up his base and changes the national conversation, or so he hopes.

Not this time Barry. People know what you are doing. Poll numbers down, with below 50% approval ratings. His health care reform stuck and going backwards. Who are you kidding here? All the crying over 5 or 6 years old issues in the world won't change the facts. This is nothing but a bait and switch on a big scale. Obama's signature issue is in serious trouble, as is Cap & Trade and Card Check. People aren't just mad about health care, they have had enough of the Obama administrations positions and practices on spending, unions, defense, how about not being a socialist country. The welfare programs have to stop. Understand, his health care proposal is another form of welfare. Think about this, the plan is funded by tax payer money. It is given to everyone in many cases at no cost. If you tax people to fund the program and then you give it to people who don't pay taxes, what do you call that? I call it a social welfare program, how about you?

Look, the people who were involved in the cases being looked at were preforming a vital and needed service to our country at a time when things were pretty dark. Everybody was waiting for the next attack, everybody. The second attack never happened, but they tried. In documents released yesterday from the CIA, it proved out Dick Cheney's assertions. Words like vital, crucial, needed, are all over them. They explain that without aggressive interrogation techniques, we would not have obtained vital information on the structure, the members, the locations and the methods of the inner circle of the Al-Qaeda leadership. These people plotted and planned to kill over 3000 Americans, sympathy is not something many Americans have for them. Not to mention the affect it is having on the CIA and other intelligence gathering agencies. Imagine being in the position of needing to get information from a person and knowing that your own government won't back you up. This is pure politics that is setting a dangerous precedent. If every time administrations change, the career employees of the government need to worry about their jobs or better yet, being criminally charged, what kind of employees and talent will you have?

This is a pathetic attempt to change the subject to something more favorable to the Obama administration, that's all. Unfortunately what he is doing is compromising national security for political gain. This is the type of behavior that has his health care in trouble. People do not trust him or his judgement and this just reinforces that view. I can't imagine why people have lost faith in him or his polls numbers are sinking, can you?

Read more...

Border's may Believe Obama really is the Messiah, Thats a scary Thought even in California!

I saw this picture and knew it expressed why some in America are having such trouble understanding that Obama could be wrong about something, or for that matter anything. It also told me that people really do believe he is the "Messiah". This just proves that people think that way. Kinda scary as hell, ain't it? This was at a Border's by the way. Not exactly a "fringe" shop.

Read more...

A/P: No raises for Social Security Next Year or the Next - Wait I think I said that last Week! - Where is the AARP?

A report from the Associated Press yesterday came out and reported that Social Security recipients won't be getting their raises in their checks next year or the following one either. I think I pointed this out last week.

The reason people are not getting the cost of living increases is because the revenues coming in are going down. We as a country are cutting back on our Social Security payments, yet at the same time we are trying to spend over $1.5 trillion on government run health care that Obama is saying will benefit senior citizens. We don't have the money to fund Social Security properly yet we have the money for health care, I don't think so.

The AARP is half in and half out on the health care bill. Maybe it should be time for the AARP to pick a side. Yes health care is important to their members. But it is true that a huge amount of the savings the Obama plan claims to be getting is coming from almost $500 billion in Medicare cuts. I believe that if you ask the AARP members they would tell you that their Social Security checks are pretty important too. I can not understand where the AARP is on this. Their members are getting whacked either way with the policies they are supporting. Medicare is being cut, Social Security disbursements are being cut, where is the up side for seniors?

Forget the seniors for a minute, what about us. We have been paying into the Social Security fund for years. Now we are being told that the fund will be depleted by 2037, and going into negative numbers in a couple years. Let me put this in simple terms. The health care bill can go to hell and Obama with it. We don't have the money. Reforming insurance, yes. Funding a new government entitlement program, no. We have a responsibility to meet our obligations to people already drawing on Medicare and Social Security and we have a responsibility to ensure people who have been taxed for decades get a return on their money. If you are an AARP member, get on the phone and ask them about the cuts coming your way. If your not an AARP member get on the phone to congress or the White House and ask them what they are going to do about Social Security and Medicare.

Its time for Obama to fix the existing problems and not worrying about how to spend more money on a nice social program to help his base. This is why his poll numbers are falling, people don't trust him. They see his priorities as being wrong, his desire to full fill his campaign promise to his liberal base is becoming more important than looking out for the good of the country. With a new deficit projection of $9 Trillion over the next decade, can anybody, liberals in particular, tell me where we are getting this money? Even the most liberal economist with any credibility will tell you that those numbers are completely unsustainable. Yet he wants to spend more money, money we don't have. One thing is for sure, its time for a "change".

Read more...

The Obama double standard, Iran & Afghanistan and the Media

I find it kind of funny that the Obama administration has been very vocal about complaining on how the Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been acting as of late. Even the great Robert Gibbs chimed in a couple times.

The White House has been complaining that in the run up to the election, the Afghan President has restricted the press and has made alliances with some very unsavory characters in an attempt to win. Like that never happens in Washington. Gibbs blasted Karzai for not allowing reporters free access before the election. He complained that Karzai was suppressing their ability to report. He was right. Karzai's excuse was that he did not want to show all the violence that was taking place so people would not be afraid to come out and vote. I guess you could make that argument if you wanted. The point I'm making here is that he did suppress reporters and their ability to report on the elections. I want to make this very clear, I don't particularly like Karzai. Having said that, how can the Obama team complain about restricting the media, when the Iranians did it, he was completely silent for two weeks. The difference is obvious, Obama wanted something from the Iranians and he does not particularly want to be in Afghanistan at all.

When Obama watched Iranian civilians being killed and beaten in the streets in Tehran, he remained silent. When Karzai was manipulating the press, something we know Obama would never do, to get re-elected Obama cried foul. My problem is not that what they are now saying is true about Karzai, it may be, my is problem who are they to accuse anyone of manipulating the press? Obama got elected by manipulating the press and its coverage and presentation of him. Think about this, we have never seen his college transcripts. Remember how they compared George Bush and John Kerry to each other looking at their college grades? Remember Bush and the whole "skull & crossbones" fraternity deal? I do. We have never seen Obama's passport. We have never seen anything on Obama. No, he would never suppress anything that didn't make him look good would he? And best of all, has the media ever really looked for the information? He is manipulating the press, period.

Karzai keeps the press form reporting on the violence, probably because he did not want to look bad, agreed. Obama's administration screams. Ok. The Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who by all accounts stole the election, was killing protesters in the streets, and jailing reporters. Obama remains silent until it got so embarrassing he had to say something. You tell me, how bad does that look? I think Obama needs to learn the meaning of the word "integrity", if he did it would probably serve him well.

Read more...

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs:"Afghanistan is Deteriorating" Deteriorating all over Obama and the Liberals

As I was talking about a week or so ago, Obama is now facing a real crisis in Afghanistan. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen came out today and stated very clearly, the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. How nice, the Taliban is making a come back and we are loosing more troops, the elections were a joke, and the new commander is looking for more troops on the ground.

New polls are coming out showing 51% of Americans want out of the war. At the same time Obama has committed to troop increases and it appears from all the reports coming in from several different sources, we are tens of thousands of troops short on the ground. The new commander on the region, hand picked by Obama, General Stanley McChrystal is due to make his report in Washington soon and it is widely believed he will be asking for several more brigades. America could easily find itself with 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan by the years end. This will no doubt send the liberals into cardiac arrest. When Admiral Mullen said "deteriorating" he was talking about the reality on the ground, you could apply that word to the Democratic support in congress as well.

Our Nato allies are balking at committing more troops, some that have are saying they can not be used in combat. We have a large American force in the field and can not forget that no matter what happens. Obama is making things worse for himself as he does not even have a defined mission. This man is so busy looking for the "polled" answer, he forgot that when you are in a war you fight to win. According to Obama, he's not trying to win, that sounds too much "Like the Japanese surrendering on a battleship". Hello dipstick, we are not there just to maintain our position, if this is what he believes he is truly a bigger fool than I gave him credit for. Now you must remember we are not in a "war on terror" anymore. He keeps talking about defeating Al-Qaeda, but to do that you need to win the war first, the war we are not fighting that is.

Several Republicans are now saying openly that McChrystal is being pressured not too ask for more troops. If this bears out the Obama administration is showing signs of trying to get out before his base collapses on him over this war. If Obama stabs these troops in the back, as I have said before, Afghanistan will be his real Waterloo. The campaign using the war in Afghanistan to play off the war in Iraq to attack George Bush is now starting to get a little tighter around the Democrats necks. Remember, they claimed this was the good war, now how do they get out from under their own rhetoric. They never had any real intentions of fighting a war anywhere for anything. I don't think Obama would be in office had people thought they needed a "Commander in Chief".

Read more...

Were You Spammed by the Obama White House - 10's of Thousands Were - The best part, Was it Taxpayer Money?

After more than a week of denying it, the White House admitted Saturday that they had hired a government contractor to send e-mails asking people to support the Obama health care proposal. Now the question is did they use tax payer money to do it?

The White House admitted after being pushed into a corner by Fox News that they used a private company, "GovDelivery.Com", to send thousands of unsolicited e-mails asking people to support the Obama government option health care plans. These e-mails were sent to people who had never had any contact with the white house, democratic operations or any linked causes. In plain words they were spammed. The question is who provided the e-mail addresses to the contractor? And since these were obvious political e-mails, degrading the Republicans and conservatives in general and deriding any idea's they may have presented, this would be a violation of federal law if the White House used public funds to pay for the firm.

The company "GovDelivery.Com" of course has no comment on what happened. They are used by several government agencies including the DEA, FBI and others. So now that we know that the Obama administration lied and attempted to cover up what they had done in an attempt to get the health care legislation passed, now are public funds being used for these political projects? And if we find they were, how many more times has the Obama administration done this or other things in direct violation of federal law? Under normal circumstances congress would look into something like this, can you imagine if this was George Bush, Nancy Pelosi would move heaven and hell to get at the story. We can't depend on the Department of Justice, as I'm sure his home boy, Attorney General Eric (Renditions) Holder has no intention of looking into it either.

Thanks Fox News and Major Garrett in particular, without you Obama would have gotten away with what I am sure is another in a long list of legal "irregularities". Oh yea, this is definitely "change" in how people do business in Washington. We haven't done anything like this since Nixon.

Read more...

Olympic Arms 9mm AR-15, Glock Magazines and All

If you are a Glock pistol fan, Olympic Arms has a carbine for you, actually two of them. Olympic Arms has taken their famous line of AR-15 rifles and added kind of a neat little twist. No they are not the first to offer a 9mm AR-15, Colt did it years ago. But they do offer something no one else does.

Olympic Arms took an AR-15 carbine, and adapted it to fire and feed from Glock pistol magazines. They offer two choices, the K9-GL and the K40-GL. We are going to stay with the 9mm version, the K9-GL. What makes this rifle neat is that you can stick a Glock 33 round, Glock 18 magazine in the rifle and off you go. This means it will take the Glock 17 magazines as well. The rifle itself is no stunner, its is a 16", A-2 carbine, with a collapsible stock that comes in at just under 7lbs in weight and about 35" long when the stock is extended and 31.5" when closed. A nice feature is that it offers a stainless steel barrel standard. They have a suggested retail of $1092.00. Now that we have the basics, we can look at the rifle a little deeper.

This weapon would offer a police officer who carries a Glock as a duty weapon a longer range, more accurate weapon and if needed they could simply exchange mags should they run dry in either the pistol or rifle. Now to be sure, the rifle offers a much more accurate delivery, at 50 yards we are talking groups golf ball sized, that would be 25 rounds in a golf ball. At 25 yards, with an EOTech mounted on top, you have a weapon that can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and it will stay on target without a hitch. You can get this rifle as an A-3 if you order it, if you are going to mount optics of some kind, that would be my choice. It will put rounds without effort into holes varying in size from 1/2" to 3/4", again depending on how fast you are shooting. This means that at 50 yards or under, you have a weapon capable of rescue shots all day long should it be needed. Why 50 yards and not a 100, simple. In police shooting most times you are only a few feet away, even when a tactical team is deployed, the average police marksman takes his shot at approximately 70 yards or less. That guy is using a 308 bolt or a very accurate semi like a flat top AR-15. We are talking about a 9mm carbine.

The weapon is different in that it operates on a simple blow back design, no gas operation is involved here. Keep it clean and it runs. Back in the 90's many police departments used 9mm sub guns or carbines, they believed it help to cut down on over penetration in an urban setting. The H&K MP 5 was among the top in its class and still is. Over time shortened M-16's and AR-15's started to cut into their turf. Departments started using hollow point ammo in 55 grain and really cut down on the potential for over penetration. These carbines bring the whole argument back again. What is for sure, is that if you are looking for a pistol caliber carbine, the AR-15 is the best way to go. Again, back in the 90's Marlin made the "camp carbines", one in 45acp which took government model magazines. The other one was in 9mm which took the high capacity Smith & Wesson pistol mags. While not bad weapons, this is a leap over them in almost every respect.

If you want a pistol caliber carbine, Olympic arms offers what no one else does, a rifle that takes a very popular magazine, not one specifically made for that rifle. All that does is make it harder to get them and when you do they cost more. These are dependable, accurate, great shooting carbines and should be on the top of you list if you are looking for this type of rifle.

Read more...

New Iranian Defense Minister a Wanted Terrorist - Something Different from Ahmadinejad

As if everybody did not know that the Iranian government is a disgrace, they have announced that the new Defense Minister is a wanted terrorist. Unfortunately I'm sure this won't dissuade Obama from wanting to meet with them with "no preconditions". Whats a little bombing here or there among friends ? Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has an old friend is he giving a new job, how special is that?

Ahmadi Vadhidi was the leader of the al Qods Brigades, which organized the bombing of a Jewish center Buenos Aires in 1994. The bombing left 84 people dead. Interpol issued an international warrant for his arrest years ago, funny how the Iranians never turned him over isn't it? Vadhidi has close ties with Hizballah who he also employed in the Buenos Aires bombing. He along with the late Imad Mughniyeh planned and executed kidnappings and murders to include the United States Army officer Col.Richard Higgins as well as the snatching and torture and murder of the CIA station chief in Lebanon, William Buckley. Whats really funny is how the main stream media hasn't mentioned this, I can't figure that out either, can you?

Vadhidi has been employed in the recent past as the Deputy Defense Minister in charge of "aerodynamic development", to me and you, that would be missiles. With this information on the appointment coming to light, it should throw up a serious red flag to the Obama administration on dealing with Iran, but my guess is that it won't. After all, seeing people murdered in the streets had no effect on Obama, why should this. Yes I realize some of the people he was responsible for killing were Americans, and yes I realize he is wanted around the world for those and other murders. The real question is will Obama ever grow a set and stand up and call out the Iranian government for what it is, a rogue "terrorist state". Or as he has done in the past, try to wait for a couple weeks and hope people forget, and then continue on with business as usual? I'm betting on the latter, sorry to say.

Read more...

New Deficit Number - $9 Trillion over 10 Years - How about the Money for Health Care? Or are we Just Printing that Too?

Numbers just released by the White House Office of Management and Budget this afternoon a little after 4:00pm, should spell the end of the government option for health care. The new long term deficit numbers did not go the administrations way, the new projection for the 10 year deficit is now $9 Trillion, up from what they had previously projected which at the time was also a record high of $7 Trillion. Funny how they came out just before Obama left town for vacation, he just wanted to share the good news I guess.

A jump in the projected deficit of more than 25% is normally a real killer for spending plans. Put this in perspective this way, with the government option the democrats want and its expected price tag of $1.5 Trillion over the same 10 years, you are now facing a minimum of a $10.5 Trillion deficit, or just over an annual deficit of $1 Trillion. Now since this years deficit is projected to come in at $1.8 Trillion and most economists say the health care numbers are probably low by between 30% and 50%, we could easily be faced with an annual deficit in the range of $1.5 Trillion. These numbers are completely unsustainable. The most die hard liberal economist can not say otherwise, and all of the Obama followers know it. Whats worse is that we can not increase taxes enough to get the deficit down, we will either need to be faced with across the board cuts in government programs, or the worst way will be to try to inflate your way out of it which is the course the Obama administration is seemly leaning to.

Just to be clear, this method of controlled inflation has never worked in recorded history for anyone, anywhere in the world. Medicare is broke and going backwards. Social Security is sliding down quickly. Unemployment is still rising. Now is not the time where a responsible person tries to create an entirely new government entitlement program. We have no money for anything let alone expanding a social welfare program. That's right, welfare. This entire health care debate is revolving around a small percentage of the American public without health insurance coverage of some kind. Under some fantasy world scenario, everybody would have everything, but this is life. Get up and shake it off and take care of yourself. Yes their are people who really need some form of help and we should help those people as best we can. But you do not wreck the entire system to better serve approximately 9% of the population, and you could cut that in half for those that really need the help.

This is part of Obama's redistribution of wealth program. He needs to understand, as a country we have no wealth to redistribute. We simply can not afford what the liberals are proposing. Notice that the numbers come out late Friday afternoon and Obama jets out of town for vacation. I know it just happened that way. Anybody, especially liberals, who can explain to me where this money is to come from, please feel free to do so. But don't give me your crap about we need health care for everybody, give me your answer on how to pay for it, not just that you want it. Liberals need to start living in the real world now, and in the real world you have to pay for things you get. No more free government hand outs, where is the money coming from? Don't start with cut defense either, because if you did away with the entire budget you still can't get there. So now its put up or shut up time, lets see what you have. If you don't have the answer, maybe you can call the fearless leader and ask him yourself, where is the money coming from President Obama?

Read more...

"Death Panels" - They are Alive & Well Government run Health Care in Oregon

If you want proof that the government run option is the basis for the famous "death panels", watch this video. In Oregon they have a state run health care system, a system which they are very proud of by the way.


Now to be sure, the state of Oregon is no conservative bastion. Liberals run the state and they border in many cases on socialists. Oregon is as "blue" as a state could get. The Oregon health care system provides coverage for 380,000 low income people in the state. The plan provides coverage for kids under 19 for free and it makes them eligible at 185% of the federal poverty level. The state requires co-payments on prescription drugs of $2.00 for generic and $3.00 for brand name drugs. No co-payments for kids. Get this, they even charge a monthly premium like real insurance. The rates are between $9.00 to $20.00 per month, I bet that goes far. Now while these co-payments and premiums probably look pretty good, watch the video for a minute.


The truth that no one wants to say is that if government runs your health care, you get what they give you. You actually have a doctor explaining that if they give a medicine to you, they may not have it for someone else. Keeps costs down that way. If this is the health care you want don't worry about it, if not keep the pressure on the socialists in congress. If they force the bill through, vote everyone of them out next year. I don't know about you, but that looks like a "death panel" to me. I bet the woman in the video thought it was a death sentence.

Read more...

From the GOP: A Breakdown of the Democratic Government Option

DETAILED ANALYSIS: HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE PLAN LIMITS CHOICES FOR PATIENTSHOUSE DEMOCRATS WILL LET GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS MAKE PERSONAL MEDICAL DECISIONS ONLY PATIENTS AND DOCTORS SHOULD MAKE
August 21, 2009 House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) Permalink
Patients and doctors should make personal medical decisions. That’s a fundamental principle of the ongoing health care debate with which nearly every American agrees. But the House Democrats’ government takeover of health care paves the way for something quite different: it would allow government bureaucrats to intercede and make decisions for patients and their doctors. That limits choices for patients and reduces overall quality of care. Is a new layer of federal bureaucrats what middle-class Americans already fed up with health care bureaucracy really want? House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) says no:
“A relationship between a patient and his or her doctor is one built on trust and honesty. Placing a government bureaucrat in the middle of that relationship undermines it and limits choices for patients and their families. That’s not ‘reform.’ That’s a prescription for declining quality of care. Republicans have offered a better solution that expands Americans’ access to affordable care and keeps patients and doctors in charge of personal medical decisions. Democrats should shelve their government takeover of health care and work with us on a plan that delivers the reforms Americans expect.”
A detailed analysis of the Democrats’ government-run plan makes clear how bureaucrats will limit choices for patients:
Page 97; Section 205 – The bill requires the “Health Choices Commissioner” to automatically enroll exchange-eligible individuals into a government sanctioned plan with rationed care. The bill says the Commissioner may enroll people in to plans through a “random assignment.” In reality, the Commissioner has every incentive to enroll people into the government-run plan. Since the Commissioner can auto-enroll Exchange eligible individuals who have not elected coverage to any plan in the Exchange, this provision is a de facto method for signing millions of Americans up for the government-run plan.
Page 102; Section 205 – The bill requires that the Commissioner enroll Medicaid eligible individuals who have not elected to be part of the program into Medicaid.
Page 115; Section 208 – The measure allows states to establish their own exchange or join together with other states in a multi-state exchange. The bill, however, also gives the Commissioner the authority to tell states what their state or multi-state exchanges can and cannot do.
Page 128; Section 241; Page 740; Section 1701 – The bill expands Medicaid eligibility to all individuals up to 133 percent of poverty and “low income” subsidies can go to a family of four making more than $88,000. This will shift even more Americans onto the government rolls.
Page 424-430; Section 1233(a)(1)(B) – One troubling provision of the House bill makes available to seniors a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care. The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and “the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.”
Page 16; Section 102(a)(2) – The bill pays lip-service to allowing individuals to remain in the “grandfathered” private plans, but the requirements to qualify for the grandfathering are so stringent, they will soon force individuals into the government-run health plan. As soon as anything changes in the plan – such as a change in co-pay or deductibles or even added benefits or coverage of a new life-saving drug or treatment, which many insurers change every year – you will be forced out of that coverage and be forced into a government-approved qualified plan instead.
Page 146; Section 312 – The bill not only requires employers to provide coverage for their employees that the government deems “acceptable” but it also requires that employers pay for a specific amount of the employees’ premium costs – 72.5 percent for individual plans and 65 percent of family plans – or pay a new eight percent tax.
Page 9; Section 100(c)(6) – The measure defines “employment-based health plan” as including governmental plans, which includes TRICARE. It then provides a five-year grace period for current employment-based health plans (section 102(b)(1)(A) (page 17) before the plan has to meet the requirements of a qualified health benefits plan under section 101. Section 101 requires qualified health benefits plans to meet the requirements of subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage), subtitle C (relating to essential benefits), and subtitle D (relating to consumer protection). This means that the bill would subject TRICARE to any future requirements on employer-based health plans.
Pages 26-27; Section 122 – The bill requires government-approved benefits be equivalent to average prevailing employer coverage. By requiring that the future “essential benefits package” of any “qualified health benefits plan” include benefits equivalent to the current prevailing average employer-sponsored coverage, this section necessarily raises the average scope of health benefits covered by future health plans. Businesses will not be free to vary the mix of benefits available to determine which ones help attract quality employees; instead, they will be forced to offer a certain minimum level of health benefits regardless of the demonstrated preferences of their employees (for higher salaries in lieu of pricier health benefits for example).
Democrats appear poised to go it alone and pass their government takeover of health care with no bipartisan support. Don’t Americans deserve a strong patient-doctor relationship – one free of a massive government bureaucracy?
REPUBLICAN LEADER PRESS OFFICEREP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH)H-204, THE CAPITOL

Read more...

MSNBC Uses Race to Attack Gun Owner's - The Best Part is they Lied and Got Caught!

Did you See This video clip? MSNBC used a piece of video that was edited to show a "protester" at a health care meeting where Obama was speaking. The three on MSNBC went on to tell people how "race is playing a part here". They went on to state that they would not be surprised if "someone" tried to hurt Obama. Now everybody has seen how in the bag MSNBC and NBC are in the bag for Obama, but this has got to be embarrassing even to them.

The man in the photo below is the same man in the video, please notice he is black. It turns out he was not really even a protester he was doing it as a stunt for attention. The left in this country will try anything to get attention for Obama. They have lied over and over again, MSNBC is willing to mislead people for political gain and that has once again been demonstrated. The left hates guns and gun owners, they have for decades. They want Obama's agenda to get passed no matter what people want. This was the perfect chance to paint gun owners has some kind of kooks or that they are threatening the president. They will do whatever it takes to accomplish their goals.

Gun owners need to pay attention carefully because believe me when I say they will turn your way soon. Obama has his hands full right now, but in time he will want to come after guns as his Attorney General, Eric Holder already expressed. This government does not recognize your 2nd Amendment rights, they don't even believe in a representative form of government as they are demonstrating. We have congressman telling people they will vote for health care even if their district is against it. If this was a gun ban, would they do the same? I think they probably would, don't you? If as it appears the left will suffer a large setback next year in the 2010 elections, they know that once the composition of congress changes they won't be passing a lot of controversial legislation, including gun control. What this means is that they are going to be very dangerous the rest of this year and next year as well. Once they realize they have nothing to loose, they will vote however their party wishes. This type of media coverage is just setting up the public for the next wave of Obama pushed legislation, maybe not this year anymore as he got derailed with health care.

When people see this kind of thing they need to hold the media responsible for at best, bad news reporting. If you are a member of the NRA or other pro-gun group, report it to them as soon as possible. This type of reporting needs to be brought into the light of day. People are trying to boycott Fox News and Glenn Beck, maybe if your a gun owner you shouldn't watch NBC or MSNBC and don't buy anything made by their parent company General Electric. I think that's kind of fair, don't you?

Read more...

Democrats: Social Security Insolvent by 2017, funds Depleted by 2037, No "Cost of Living" Raises in 2010 & 2011 Health Care money from Where?

Consider this, as per Democratic Senate Committee Chairman Max Baucus, and the Board of Trustee's for Social Security, it will become insolvent by 2017. Meaning it is spending more than it is taking in. I guess we could use the estimated $1.5 trillion they want for the health care takeover for Social Security, if the democrats in congress and Obama had a clue. They need to stop spending, we don't have any money, how hard is that to understand?

Social Security is in such bad shape that by the year 2016, it will be spending more than it is collecting. It gets better, by 2037 the fund is depleted all together. Social Security is funded by a 6.2% tax on workers, up to the first $106,800 per year. By 2016 the surplus funds coming in will be gone, period. From that point on, its in the red. There's more don't worry. It's so bad the trustees are saying that for the first time since 1975, there will be no cost of living increase in the Social Security checks for people in 2010 and 2011. I bet the AARP and the Obama gang failed to mention that little bit of joy, didn't they? So if you were on the fence about spending the money on health care, don't you think we should fix Social Security first? What happened to all your tax money you paid in? You have a right to get your money back don't you?

I'm not done, Medicare is now paying out more than it takes in. So how long can this go on? Do you understand now why the cuts in Medicare are real, not some made up story by the right? Its simple math, we don't have the money to have a government option on health care. We need to fix the insurance system and Social Security. To put this in perspective, if you are under 40, by the time you can collect Social Security it will be reducing benefits as it will be out of money. So in other words all the tax money you paid in is gone. This is not just talk, this is fact, look it up for yourself. Medicare is supported by taxes as well. The economy is in a tailspin and revenues are dropping like a stone, yet we have a socialist government that wants to spend $1.5 trillion on health care, $1.5 trillion we don't have. Not to worry, President Obama said he is going to tackle Social Security reform next year. How's that for "Hope & Change". If you are depending on Social Security like millions of the "baby boomers" who are getting ready to "retire", you had better hope for change damn soon, or that's all you will have, change.

Read more...

One Great Video - Not a single Word is Spoken - But a very Clear Message for Congress & Obama

This video is a couple months old now, its from the April 15th Tax Day Tea Party. This group, the Trussville Tea Party is from Alabama. They have put together a powerful statement on American sentiments abouts our government. It's 4 minutes long and is worth every second of your time. Watch it and let me know what you think?

Read more...

Democrats struggle to Take over the Entire Economy even as Unemployment & Taxes & Job Loss Grow

DETAILED ANALYSIS: HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE DESTROYS SMALL BUSINESS JOBSWITH UNEMPLOYMENT NEAR DOUBLE DIGITS, SECTION-BY-SECTION REVIEW REVEALS DEMOCRATS’ GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN WILL COST EVEN MORE SMALL BUSINESS JOBS
August 20, 2009 House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) Permalink
Middle-class families and small businesses across America are right to ask, “Where are the jobs?” After all, the Administration promised that its trillion-dollar “stimulus” spending bill would provide a “jolt” to the economy and create jobs immediately. However, more than two million jobs have been lost since the “stimulus” became law, and the unemployment rate has risen far beyond the eight percent promised by the Administration if Congress passed the “stimulus.” Now, Washington Democrats are poised to pass legislation that will destroy even more jobs: a costly government takeover of health care that will impose new taxes and Big Government mandates on small businesses and increase their health care costs as well. House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) warns that this will put even more Americans out of work:
“Middle-class families and small businesses want bipartisan solutions that will encourage more job creation at a time when too many Americans are out of work. But Washington Democrats are prepared to go it alone in order to pass a government takeover of health care that will drive up costs, increase our deficits, and destroy countless small business jobs. Republicans have offered better solutions to help small businesses provide quality, affordable health care to their employees and their families. Democrats would be well-served to scrap their costly government-run plan and work with Republicans on bipartisan health care reforms that the American people can support.”
Indeed, a detailed analysis of the Democrats’ government takeover of health care finds that small businesses and their employees don’t fare well under the legislation. Here are just a few examples:
Page 155-157; Section 321– This section imposes fines of $100 per employee per day on employers who do not offer a level of health coverage that is “government-approved” (employers would pay this fine every day until the oversight is corrected). This means that fines of up to $500,000 can be imposed on employers who make an honest mistake, thinking they had provided what the government deemed “sufficient” coverage.
Page 189; Section 421 (b)(2) – Under the bill, small businesses could receive subsidies to cover a portion of their health care costs. However, to receive a full subsidy, the average employee income must be below $20,000 and have fewer than 10 employees. This creates a perverse incentive to keep wages low and to not hire new workers.
Page 150; Section 313 – The bill includes a “small business exclusion” from the eight percent payroll tax, but the definition of small business in the bill leaves a large number of small businesses subject to the full eight percent tax. In fact, on average, small businesses with as few as 12 employees would be subject to a new payroll tax through the bill if they could not afford to provide coverage. Worse, the bill does not index to inflation the amounts which trigger the “small business exemption” meaning that Democrats have built into the bill a mechanism that capture and subject more small employers to the eight percent tax over time.
Page 198; Section 441 – If the government does not realize savings the authors of the bill claim will occur – even though congressional scorekeepers did not project any savings from these provisions – then the national small business surtax is automatically increased.
Pages 144-149; Section 312 – The bill mandates that employer contributions cannot come through salary reductions. Under this section, employers have to make a minimum contribution toward the health benefits plan premium for both full-time and less than full-time employees. By the terms of this provision, they cannot take that contribution out of an employee’s salary. That defies logic since any contribution that an employer makes toward a health care premium is necessarily money it cannot pay to its employees in salary. This will lead substantial layoffs as employers face this de facto tax.
Small businesses are the engine of our economy. Instead of punishing them with more taxes and mandates, shouldn’t Washington be encouraging them to create more jobs and provide their employees and their families access to more affordable health care?
REPUBLICAN LEADER PRESS OFFICEREP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH)H-204, THE CAPITOL(202) 225-4000 GOPLEADER.GOV

Read more...