The Daily Dose

Energizer Bunny Obama Abandons Fox News Boycott

2010-03-17T10:58:00.004-06:00

The ends must justify the means, or Obama is desperate. A majority of Americans do not like his health care overhaul plans. He has done everything imaginable (many times over) to persuade us that he knows best. His plethora of town hall meetings devoted to the topic of health care reform haven't swayed us. His excessive speeches to the nation have fallen on deaf ears. His address to the joint session of congress was unconvincing.

Nevertheless, he is undaunted. And like the iconic Energizer Bunny, when it comes to his signature issue of health care reform, Obama just keeps going and going and going.

But there is one thing he has not done - yet. He has not courted the audience of the nation's largest news network - the network his administration has demonized and boycotted since last fall. Today Obama's stubborn resistance will end, at least temporarily, and he will sit down for an interview with Fox News anchor, Bret Baier.

Maybe he has come to realize that shunning a cable news network whose ratings are higher than all its competitors combined was a mistake. Perhaps he thinks one more interview will be enough to push his precious plan over the edge.

It will be interesting, if not entertaining, to see what sad stories and fanciful facts he asserts tonight. The same stories and facts are not typically used twice. Particularly because they are later "fact checked" to be categorically false.

My favorite whopper, which I personally hope to hear again tonight, is Obama's claim that his health care bill will lower our insurance premiums by 3,000 percent. How could any reasonable person vote against that? While he's at it, maybe he'll promise to put root beer in all the drinking fountains.

Buh-Bayh

2010-02-16T11:47:00.005-07:00

There's a new strain of Potomac Fever spreading through Washington. Democrats seem to be most susceptible to the disease. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) is the latest victim to succumb in a string of illnesses.

Potomac Fever is usually associated with the love of Washington; the love of power and politics. This new strain of the bug, however, has had quite the opposite effect. As Josh Kraushaar from Politico puts it, "even the politicians are sick of Washington."

In his speech yesterday, Bayh said:

I love working for the people of Indiana, I love helping our citizens make the most of their lives, but I do not love Congress.”

Other retiring Democrats such as Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Rep. Bart Gordon (TN), Rep. Marion Berry (AR), and Rep. Dennis Moore (KA) have also complained about Washington partisanship in their retirement announcements.

Berry even blasted the President's reaction to the possibility of a 1994 Republican revolution redux this fall. He told his local newspaper:

The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.

Bayh is the fifth Democratic Senator to announce that he will not seek reelection this year. His retirement is sending the Democrats scrambling to look for a replacement. The filing deadline for the Indiana state Democrat primary election was today.

As time passes it looks increasingly possible for Republicans to gain majority status in both the House and the Senate this fall.

My biggest concern is: are they ready?

Republicans blew it before because they were more concerned about hanging onto their power than they were about governing as Republicans should. In other words, they got the other strain of Potomac Fever and began acting like Democrats -- growing the federal government and spending money like drunken, well, congressmen.

Let's hope the Republicans have learned from their mistakes, and work hard to replace those who have not.

Another One Bites the Dust

2010-02-12T12:59:00.002-07:00

Today Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), son of the late Ted Kennedy, will join thirty-one of his House colleagues on the crowded retirement bandwagon. But that's the little picture. The big picture is this: What will the United States do without a Kennedy in Congress?

Besides a two year vacancy from the time John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960 until his little brother, Teddy, was elected to fill his vacant Senate seat 1962, there has been a Kennedy in Congress since 1946. With the retirement of Patrick, the Kennedy Dynasty has officially gone the way of the Whigs, so to speak.

Since Ted Kennedy's illustrious career began in 1962 we've seen many changes in the size and scope of the federal government. In a nutshell, it's gotten ginormous.

A few fun facts:

• In 1962 government spending was around 18% of the GDP
• In 2009 government spending reached 25% of the GDP
• In 1962 the federal budget was $107 billion
• In 2009 the federal budget was $3.5 trillion
• In 1962 the national debt was $390 billion
• We are now more than $12 trillion in debt (and climbing rapidly)
• During the sixteen years Patrick Kennedy has served in Congress federal spending has nearly tripled and the national debt has more than doubled.

The federal programs both Kennedys championed were the essence of the nanny state. In the name of compassion they have worked to saddle us and future generations with debt that cannot be repaid.

They were also loud proponents programs like No Child Left Behind, SCHIP, Medicare prescription drugs and other bloated, inefficient government boondoggles that will not be easy to fix (not to mention that the younger Kennedy, as a member of the House Appropriations Committee, was well known for his ability to bring home lots and lots of pork to his tiny state).

And I'm not even going to mention the many scandals.

So I ask the question again: What will the United States do without a Kennedy in Congress? Answer: A heck of a lot better.

Supreme Court is Attacked from the Bully's Pulpit

2010-01-28T12:10:00.003-07:00

In an unprecedented act of bad manners the POTUS used the SOTU to blast the SCOTUS -- while they sat only a few feet in front of him. It appears that Justice Alito mouthed the words "not true" after Obama pronounced that last week's Supreme Court decision would "open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."

In fact, the limits on foreign nationals and foreign corporations remain in place. Bradley A. Smith, law professor at Capitol University Law School says:

Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibited from making "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

He concludes by saying:

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demagoguery of the worst kind.

I concur.

Democrats Actually Admit to a Mistake

2010-01-25T15:37:00.002-07:00

Democrats admit they "need a new game plan" for the 2010 elections. Their Blame-Bush strategy has clearly failed. It worked great in '06 and '08, but Americans are now ready for a little accountability. That's bad news for liberals who hold a sneering distain for accountability. It's also bad news for their mystified campaign consultants who are scratching their heads in confusion. Back to the drawing boards for them. They will actually have to come up with a plan that doesn't include the words "previous eight years."

This will be no small task for those poor strategerists who've banked on wringing a few more elections out of the Blame-Bush approach. After all, Democrats successfully ran against Herbert Hoover for 30 years.

Steve Hildebrand, who worked on Obama's presidential campaign openly admits:

“Voters are pretty tired of the blame game…[w]hat a stupid strategy that was.”

It's a bit amusing to hear these sputtering concessions. To them, one year of peddling unpopular healthcare reform, stimulus packages that didn't stimulate, broken promises of transparency, and back room bribery are not the problem. It must be that the American people are just too stupid, ill-informed or amnesic to "get" the message that all problems in the world are the fault of George W. Bush and the eeevil Republicans.

I can't wait to see what new tactics they trot out this year. If they can no longer effectively run against Bush, I bet they'll try the old "party of no" routine. But considering the unpopularity of all recent Democrat policies, I don't think that line will help them much.

Economic Stimulus Created or Saved at Least 2 Million Liberals

2010-01-13T11:41:00.002-07:00

Here we go again. Last night the White House released another self-congratulatory report boasting new "jobs created or saved" numbers. This quarter the number is "between 1.7 and 2 million" jobs. In the Grand Experiment known as counting the "jobs created or saved" by the economic stimulus plan, the Grand Experiment Schemers have concocted yet another way to count the bogus jobs.

This quarter's numbers, unlike last quarter's, are not based on phony reports of jobs created in fake congressional districts around the country -- Americans didn't buy that claptrap. THIS time the numbers are conveniently based on "macroeconomic estimates."

But hold onto your shorts because NEXT quarter they're going to try something even better. The White House has announced a brand new way to tally jobs. Now, if a company who has received stimulus money doesn’t quite know how to estimate a job saved, they are to simply report all their employees as having a saved job, whether they would have been laid off or not. Brilliant. That ought to boost those fraudulent numbers quite a bit.

In the meantime, unemployment holds steady at a whopping 10 percent.

In Lieu of Waterboarding, Panty Bomber is Offered a Cookie for Information

2010-01-04T22:41:00.006-07:00

Instead of interrogating the Christmas day would-be bomber and trying him in a military tribunal, the Obama administration has decided to use a kinder, gentler approach. They will try Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (a.k.a. Captain Underpants) in civilian court.

It is interesting to note that the Fox News Channel and Rush Limbaugh can get the Obama administration's knickers in a knot merely by espousing conservative thought. However, when it comes to the Panty Bomber, and other terrorists who seek to kill innocent Americans, Obama is as cool as a spring breeze.

Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian with ties to al-Qaeda, snuck bomb-making materials aboard an Amsterdam to Detroit flight by concealing them in the crotch of his girlie pants. After his arrest he was talking freely to his captors -- until, of course, the Obama administration informed him that he had the right to remain silent. Now he is lawyered up, and not saying a word.

The best part is President Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan admitted on "Meet the Press" that the administration would be pursuing a plea agreement with the terrorist.

"A lot of people…understand what they're facing, and their lawyers recognize that there is advantage to talking to us in terms of plea agreements, [and] we're going to pursue that."

So there you have it. No loud rap music, or standing for long periods of time. No sleeping in a chilly cell, or attention slaps -- and most certainly no waterboarding. Instead, our good friend, the Panty Bomber, will be sent to bed without supper. That ought to make him think twice about committing acts of terrorism against the United States when he is acquitted and sent back to Yemen -- or Detroit.

Obama's buddy, Chavez: Capitalism is road to hell

2009-12-17T10:15:00.003-07:00

Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez received thunderous applause and standing ovations during his anti-capitalism speech at the climate change summit in Copenhagen yesterday. The Marxist dictator strayed from his notes and ranted for 45 minutes -- far beyond his allotted five minute time.

Chavez charged that capitalism is what's ruining the planet. He said:

"A ghost is stalking the streets of Copenhagen...it's capitalism, capitalism is that ghost…The destructive model of capitalism is the eradication of life."

Chavez' speech was enthusiastically received by the audience. He claimed that socialism is the way to save the planet and nearly brought down the house after pronouncing "capitalism is the road to hell....let's fight against capitalism and make it obey us."

Obama heads to Copenhagen tomorrow to attend the anti-capitalist, anti-America, anti-freedom rally (otherwise known as the climate change summit).

Doomed or Duped?

2009-12-14T14:29:00.003-07:00

Global warming peddlers in Copenhagen just proved that they not only don't practice what they preach, but they don't even believe what they preach. According to "Climate-Changeologists" the polar ice caps will be completely melted within FIVE years. And yet, the Super Duper Smart People in Copenhagen just decided to delay decisions on "preventing catastrophic climate change" for SIX years.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the debate on global warming is in fact over, and there is no doubt in the accuracy of the science, wouldn't the "I-like-the-money-and-power-that-comes-from-selling-global-warming" people be in a panic to reach some sort of agreement before the polar ice caps melt and much of the world shares the fate of Atlantis?

Two years ago Al Gore predicted that the polar ice caps will be gone in five years. So according to the all-knowledgeable, Inconvenient Truth-Telling Scholar, the polar ice caps will be gone by the summer of 2012. In Copenhagen today Al Gore once again predicted that the polar ice caps will be gone in five years. Hang on, if he first made this very same prediction in 2007, and it is now 2009, shouldn't he be saying that the ice caps will melt in only three years? I'm no math major, so if I can calculate that equation, one would think the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate shouldn’t have a problem with it either.

Except it isn't true, and he knows it. So he has to continue lengthening the time frame.

How convenient.

Regardless of Al Gore's discrepancies, we must conclude that either we are all doomed because the Smarty-Pants in Copenhagen are procrastinating global warming decisions for six years, and the world will come to a disastrous, watery end in five years, or none of these alarmists really believe in the rhetoric themselves, and we're all being duped. My bet's on the latter.

Tangent: Why do they hold the Climate Change Summit in December -- in Denmark? When one is shivering in a 30 degree snowstorm, a little global warming might sound appealing. I'm not trying to help them out or anything, but I think they would have better luck if they tried to strike while the iron's hot, so to speak. Like Death Valley -- in August.

The omnibus bill's so full of pork it's oinking - and some Republicans smell like a pig sty

2009-12-10T17:16:00.008-07:00

Today the U.S. House of Representatives passed its omnibus spending bill which combined six "regular" appropriations bills into one giant monstrosity. As is typical with such bills, members of congress lined up to discretely stuff goodies for their own districts into the bill's 2,500 pages.

Let me point out some lowlights of this bill:

It contains a 12 percent spending increase over 2009
It contains a 24.4 percent increase in spending over 2008
$446 billion in total spending
5,224 earmarks worth $3.8 billion
A whopping 1 hour debate

Of course no Republicans in the House voted for this bill today -- we'll see how the Senate does next week. But some Republicans, knowing the bill would ultimately pass, eagerly shoved into it their own earmarks.

Here are just a few examples:

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) U of Louisville: $8.56 million
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) Oyster Rehabilitation: $800K
Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL) Conserving Fish/Wildlife: $1 million
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) Soybean Research: $690K

This conduct is exactly what's wrong with Congress. Appropriations that wouldn't withstand the smell test on their own get hidden within a regular appropriations bill that "must" pass in order to fund things like veterans programs.

The hypocritical Representatives and Senators who vote against this bill while ensuring it provides their district's bacon must be held accountable. This sort of behavior is expected out of Democrats, but our Republican lawmakers should know better -- and if not, they need to go.

Obama to spend his way out of recession: Surely it will work THIS time

2009-12-08T14:32:00.005-07:00

Spending vast sums of money to end the recession didn't work the first time with TARP, or the Second time with the Stimulus. But perhaps the third time's the charm. Today President Obama announced his plan to use up to $200 billion in repaid TARP funds to create jobs instead of pay down the enormous deficit.

The AP reports:

He [the President] called for more government spending on infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges and water projects and for new tax breaks for consumers who invest in energy-efficient retrofits in their homes. This could be what some administration officials have called a "Cash for Caulkers" program modeled on the now-expired Cash for Clunkers program of tax rebates for people who turned in old cars for more fuel-efficient models.

While he didn't put a price tag on his brilliant scheme to use taxpayer dollars to fund home weatherization and other crony-related projects, he did admit to looking for ways to also tap into a portion of the unused stimulus money (a.k.a. Obama's Personal Bribery Slush Fund).

The administration also is eyeing ways to get money still not spent in the $787 billion stimulus bill passed last winter into projects more quickly.

Obama claims his new plan "will generate the greatest number of jobs while generating the greatest value for our economy." Right. Where have we heard that before? And where's Dave Ramsey when you need him?

Topic of Obama's next Summit: How to save the President's job

2009-12-07T19:39:00.002-07:00

The Obama Administration has been in a veritable panic ever since unemployment rose beyond 10 percent. Last week Obama hosted a "Jobs Summit" at which members of business, labor, and academia converged to brainstorm about ways to create jobs.

Tangent: The reason Obama needs to have all these people from the real world come and tell him how to create jobs is because neither he nor anyone in his administration has ever worked in the private sector.

Thus far all efforts made by the White House this year to "create or save" jobs has left Obama scratching his head. The Stimulus didn't work; the Bailouts didn't work; lying to the American people about saving or creating 1 million jobs didn't work.

Now, apparently, the job Obama is most concerned about saving is his own.

This bogus "Jobs Summit" is reminiscent of the good-old-days back in February (when unemployment was a paltry 8 percent), when Obama held his "Fiscal Discipline Summit" five days after the largest pork-laden, crony-paying, dysfunctional bill in American history was signed into law. Obama at a fiscal discipline summit is the equivalent of an alcoholic promising to never drink again.

During the "Fiscal Discipline Summit" (I seriously chuckle every time I type that) the POTUS made a couple wild assertions -- wild assertions for a free-spending liberal, that is.

The first assertion was that he was going to cut the deficit in half (!) by the end of his first term. Fabulous goal. The second wild assertion was that he would release a budget that's "sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting…and [restores] fiscal discipline."

A mere three days later the President killed two promises with one stone when he unveiled the largest budget in U.S. history (intriguingly entitled "A New Era of Responsibility"). According to ABC News most of the spending in Obama's bloated budget would be done with "money the government does not have, creating a $1.75 trillion deficit next year alone."

Fiscal discipline? I don't think so.

It will be interesting, if not scary, to see if the policy changes that spring forth from last week's "Jobs Summit" work as well as those policies which followed the "Fiscal Discipline Summit."

Let's hope not.

Tiger Woods' wife should have used a driver instead of a three-iron

2009-12-03T09:46:00.003-07:00

At least that's what Swedish golfer Jesper Parnevik said. Woods' wife Elin used to be Parnevik's Au Pair, and now Parnevik is feeling an uncomfortable prick of conscience for introducing the two of them in 2001:

"I really feel sorry for Elin – since me and my wife were at fault for hooking her up with him," Parnevik said. "We probably thought he was a better guy than he is. I probably would have to apologise to her and hope she uses a driver next time rather than a three-iron, I would say."

Last Friday Woods crashed his car into a fire hydrant and tree in the middle of the night. The incident has prompted widespread speculation about the formerly squeaky-clean golf superstar.

After the release of a particularly damning message left on his girlfriend's cell phone, Woods admitted to "transgressions." Now there are women coming out of the woodwork (pun intended) to fess up.

Global warming hucksters have a lot to lose...

2009-12-02T16:17:00.004-07:00

...which is why they have had to manipulate, throw out, make up, or invert data to keep their theory alive.

Yesterday a leading science academic, Professor Ian Plimer, of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, called the manmade climate change consensus a "load of hot air underpinned by fraud". According to the UK Express:

Professor Plimer said climate change was caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, the shifting of the Earth’s orbit and cosmic radiation. He said: “Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past. CO2 cannot be driving global warming now."

The recent discovery of scandalous climate change research has rocked the real world. Sadly, many in the "scientific" community refuse to admit there are any problems beyond "poorly chosen words" and emails that were sent in the "heat of the moment". But if, as Professor Plimer asserts, there is no solid proof that carbon emissions are causing manmade global warming, then the implications for the "climate comrades" are huge.

Climate science has become nothing more than a massive lobby for government research grants. And government officials -- worldwide -- are using the fabricated data as scare tactics to increase taxes and control over individuals. Both groups have a lot of money and power to lose if global warming is exposed as a made-up hoax.

Professor Plimer stated: "If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid."

No kidding.

The timing for these new developments couldn't be better as the UN gears up for its climate change summit next week. Of course the dirty data will have no effect whatsoever on the leaders at the summit, but it may have an effect on public opinion, which in turn (hopefully) will have an effect on government.

Last June the U.S. House of Representatives passed a jobs-killing, economy-busting, punitive cap-and-trade bill which now has to make it through the Senate. But on a lighter note: today Australia's Parliament defeated a cap-and-trade proposal. Here's hoping the U.S. Senate follows suit.

Oh, yeah -- on a completely unrelated topic -- northern Texas woke up this morning to this:

The Great Swindle of Climate Change

2009-12-01T08:42:00.007-07:00

According to the AP rich countries (a.k.a. the United States) must pay poor countries reparations for climate change.

"Rich countries must put at least $10 billion a year on the table to kick-start immediate action up to 2012," the U.N. climate chief, Yvo de Boer, told reporters last week in a preview of the two-week conference opening next Monday in Copenhagen."

Don't be misled by de Boer's use of the term "kick-start." What he really means is bribe. According to Athena Ballesteros, a climate-finance expert at the World Resources Institute, "short-term finance would be used as an opportunity to get a political buy-in for the other elements of an agreement." In other words, developing nations would never agree to a global climate change pact without being paid off. (Sounds eerily like the healthcare debate in the Senate, doesn't it?)

Because eeevil industrialized nations (a.k.a. the United States) cause global warming -- and won't do anything to stop it -- we must fork over dough to a global body for redistribution as it sees fit. Apparently this would help the world feel good about us.

"Upfront money would also help rebuild trust between the rich north and poor south, eroded by years of relative inaction on climate, particularly by the United States."

Forget the fact that recently hacked documents from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England show collusion on the part of leading "global warming scientists" to cook the books, spin their research, and hide contrary data. Yesterday The Hill confirmed that President Obama will continue with his plans to attend the climate summit in Copenhagen next week.

"Despite the incident, which rocked international headlines last week, climate science is sound, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stressed this afternoon, and the White House nonetheless believes 'climate change is happening.'"

(According to reliable sources Gibbs had his eyes closed and fingers stuffed in his ears during the entire press conference.)

And Obama will no doubt throw a billion dollars or so into the U.N.'s climate kitty. After all, what's another billion dollars when we're already $12 trillion in debt? Chump change.

While we're at it, let's chuck another billion at Al Gore -- quite possibly the world's first "carbon billionaire."

Afghanistan: Go Big or Go Home?

2009-11-30T20:10:00.006-07:00

It has now been ninety days since Gen. Stanley McChrystal submitted his review of the military strategy in Afghanistan in which he recommended a surge of U.S. troops. Since then President Obama, like a teenager avoiding dish duty, has busied himself with all sorts of other less important projects, from failed Olympic bids to China trips to Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speeches, in an apparent attempt to postpone an unpleasant confrontation with a dirty job that only he can do.

After all, the decision to send tens of thousands of additional soldiers to Afghanistan is not one to be taken lightly. It must be contemplated thoroughly -- perhaps over a dozen or so rounds of golf.

In the meantime more than 100 troops in Afghanistan have lost their lives.

Today Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), in anticipation of President Obama's long awaited decision on Afghanistan, pronounced an interesting solution to the complexities of the quagmire there.

In an address at the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah, Congressman Chaffetz laid out his position on ending the eight year war. It is essentially "go big or go home." What a concept. Mr. President, you can't have it both ways. You can't send only some of the required troops to the region, in hopes of not angering the anti-war left too badly, tie the military's hands with political correctness, waver in commitment, and then expect to secure a victory in Afghanistan.

Rep. Chaffetz believes that the troops have already fought and won in Afghanistan by rooting out Al-Qaeda (according to Obama's National Security Advisor fewer than 100 Al-Qaeda remain in the country) and toppling the Taliban, but the United States will need to continue to hunt and kill terrorists around the world. Chaffetz said if the President believes we need to continue fighting in Afghanistan, we need to do so with full commitment to win -- otherwise we should begin the process of bringing our troops home.

Chaffetz also addressed what he considers to be the "real threats" to our nation: Iran, which he says represents the most immediate threat to world peace; terrorism, whether it originates in Afghanistan or elsewhere; and debt, which is the greatest menace to the long-term stability of the United States.

Chaffetz has stepped out of his party's box on this one. But that's not unusual for the freshman congressman who defeated a 12-year incumbent RINO last year in an unprecedented victory with no name recognition, no money, and no paid staff.

Giving Thanks

2009-11-25T10:44:00.005-07:00

Woven into the fabric of American Heritage are the glistening threads of a self-evident truth: God - not government - gives people rights. For more than two centuries Americans have lived by, dreamed by and died by the idea that we are endowed by our Creator with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

From across the tempest seas came the first Hope of our nation. They left homeland and heritage to seek a better life and plant the seeds of liberty in a New World. As the fledgling experiment that became our Nation struggled to survive it was nourished by the belief that America is the Promised Land.

The truth of God-given freedom has carried our nation through hope and despair, peace and war, terror and destruction.

But not all believe that truth.

The natural man craves power. We face today the same forces that compelled our forefathers to flee their lands of oppression and seek a new life in America. We face a growing class of political elite who believe in imposition over opportunity and force over failure. We face the apathy of a few who don't value the struggles of our past or the protection of our future.

We must not give in to such forces.

The hope for a better tomorrow, faith in God and the belief that the founding of our nation was divinely inspired are, to some, ideas thought of as dusty relics of the past. These unbelievers seek to transform and remake our nation, but we will not give up so easily. We will not despair. That worth keeping is also worth the fight.

President Ronald Reagan warned:

"Perhaps you and I have lived with this miracle too long to be properly appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again."

Today I am thankful that, as a descendent of pioneer ancestors who crossed the wilderness of the western plains in search of religious freedom, I carry the love of God in my soul. I am thankful that, as the granddaughter of a brave airman who fought in World War II, I carry the love of country in my blood. And I am thankful that, as the mother of five children whom I hope inherit the same blessings of freedom that I enjoy, I carry the love of liberty in my heart.

During this time of Thanksgiving, I wish to express my gratitude for the freedom to live, love, work, fail, grow, struggle and prosper in this great Land of Liberty.

It's Payback Time

2009-11-23T13:09:00.005-07:00

Today the New York Times proclaimed what we in the real world have known for a long time. The headline on the front page of the paper reads, "PAYBACK TIME Wave of Debt Payments Facing U.S. Government."

The United States has been borrowing cheap money in short-term loans to fund its spending binges for decades. Now those loans are coming due, and the Department of the Treasury is scrambling as it faces the sticker shock it has been avoiding all these years. (Poor Tim!)

Skyrocketing national debt, creditors knocking on the government's door, and soon-to-rise interest rates have mixed together just right into a sort of economic Molotov Cocktail. Now all we need is a match and the result will be an explosion that will affect the whole world's economy -- coming from the general direction of the northwestern hemisphere.

This is a problem decades in the making, and one that most of the current crop of politicians in Washington will only make worse in their desperate attempt to fix it. Case in point: the Administration is now toying with the idea of a new federal stimulus (while simultaneously proclaiming that something must be done about our deficit), and Congress is flirting with trillions of dollars in new medical spending and threatening to impose crazy new taxes on the already-taxed-to-death American people in the form of cap and trade.

The New York Times had a great little visual aid to go along with their (shockingly reality-based) assessment. In it they list four possible solutions to our terrible debt woes: raise taxes/cut services, allow inflation to rise, default on our loans, or grow the economy.

I'd like to vote for the fourth option, please. However, the current party-in-power has a hard time with this one. Their idea of growing the economy consists of sucking everything out of it and then divvying up the spoils to their political cronies. Not exactly a winning strategy for improving the economy.

One thing's for sure, we've got to stop spending money. The government has been borrowing money at close to 0% interest rates (teaser rates), and the payments are about to balloon. "Free" money in the hands of Congress has never been a good thing. Spending the money our children and grandchildren have yet to earn should be criminal.

When Americans were purchasing homes they couldn't afford using teaser-rate loans, they got a wake-up call when the real interest rates kicked in. Many of them could no longer afford to make their mortgage payments and were foreclosed upon. This is the same situation our country faces right now, and we are stuck with the bill.

The good news: 2010 is almost here!! We can foreclose on the lousy Members of Congress who overspend, overtax, and overpromise -- from BOTH parties. It's payback time.

The Second Louisiana Purchase

2009-11-21T21:02:00.003-07:00

Today Senator Mary Landrieu, D-La., voted with the rest of the Democrats to begin debate on the Senate healthcare overhaul bill. We'll call her The Deciding Vote. She was one of three centrists giving Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, heartburn. He needed support from every single Democrat to pass the cloture motion and move the bill to the floor for debate. Reid had to woo Landrieu for her vote, and that put her in a convenient position of power.

Apparently, Louisiana has a government-caused problem (go figure). All states receive federal matching funds for Medicaid (the more money a state spends on Medicaid, the more it receives from Uncle Sam). Poor states, like Louisiana, receive more money than they spend. In fact, for every 33 cents Louisiana spent on Medicaid it received 67 cents from Big Brother.

All that changed after hurricane Katrina when the reduction of population, coupled with an influx of grant dollars and one-time recovery money, artificially inflated the state's per capita income. Now Louisiana receives only 63 cents for every 37 cents spent. In an attempt to buy off Senator Landrieu, Harry Reid slipped language into the healthcare bill that would compensate for that problem. And it obviously had the desired effect.

While the merits of Louisiana's predicament are debatable, one thing is quite clear: Mary Landrieu held out for goodies and got rewarded with $300 million reasons to vote for the healthcare bill.

This is precisely what is wrong with the whole process. Bills that otherwise wouldn't have a chance in Hades of passing get stuffed with bribes to purchase votes. No wonder our country is in such economic (and moral) peril.

It will be interesting to see if this purchase is final (see yesterday's post).

U.S. Senate to Commit Harry-Kerry

2009-11-20T10:43:00.016-07:00

Saturday's scheduled vote in the Senate for cloture on the motion to proceed (a vote to begin debate on a bill), although innocently claimed to be strictly procedural, will really enable at-risk Democrats to vote for the healthcare bill, without really voting for it.

According to a study of voting patterns, more than 97 percent of all bills that are first subject to a cloture vote end up passing in the Senate. This procedure gives cover to "on the fence" lawmakers who want to have it both ways. They can pull a John Kerry, and vote for a bill… before voting against it.

Harry Reid needs 60 votes to pass a cloture motion, and only 51 votes afterward to pass the giant healthcare reform bill. So if the cloture motion is passed, essentially (and statistically) the healthcare bill will be passed.

This needs to be widely understood by residents of states who have a Senator up for re-election next year. Any Senator who votes for cloture and then votes against the healthcare bill has knowingly voted in favor of the bill, and is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Don't let them get away with it.

Here's a recap of what's wrong with the Senate Harry-Kerry healthcare bill:

1. $2.5 trillion in real costs for the first 10 years after the bill is implemented (and don't be fooled by wild claims of $127 billion in deficit reduction)

2. Massive new taxes (to the tune of nearly $500 billion)

3. Half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts

4. Lost jobs and lower wages due to crippling employer mandates

5. Increased health insurance premiums (I thought the point of this whole reform thing was to decrease premiums, but I digress)

6. Federal funds used to pay for abortions

And much, much more.

Read the entire 2,074 page bill here.

Welcome to Fantasyland. We hope you enjoy your stay.

2009-11-19T10:49:00.001-07:00

Yesterday the United States Senate unveiled their new healthcare overhaul plan claiming it will actually reduce the federal budget deficit by $127 billion over the next 10 years. If that fraudulent claim wasn't so infuriating I would be laughing.

Let's look at some of the creative ways Senate Democrats plan to reduce the federal budget deficit while simultaneously spending a trillion dollars:

1. New taxes on medical devices (a.k.a. The Tampon Tax)
2. New taxes on eeevil insurance companies (so much for keeping your private plan, insurers will be forced out of business)
3. Limitations on medical expenses that can be deducted from personal taxes
4. Huge increase in Medicare payroll tax
5. $465 billion in Medicare cuts (I like to call this a redistribution of healthcare from the elderly to the uninsured)

Half a trillion dollars in new taxes during The Great Recession aside, let's not forget that the government never comes in under budget on ANYTHING. To think this will be the One Exception is delusional.

Here are a couple examples off the top of my head:

1. When Medicare was launched in the 1960's budgeters projected the cost to be a paltry $12 billion by 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $90 billion.
2. Medicaid was scored to cost $238 million in the first year. The actual cost was more than $1 billion.

What kind of fools do these people think we are? It's bad enough to socialize the healthcare industry, shackle the economy with crippling new taxes, ration healthcare, and spend like drunken congressmen, but to suggest that we'll actually be SAVING money by doing all of that is simply insulting.

Democrats, Learn from George Costanza. Please.

2009-11-18T12:48:00.000-07:00

"If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right." -- Jerry Seinfeld

This week House Democrats vowed to shift their efforts from the economy-busting business in which they have engaged all year, and focus on "jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs."

I would like to respectfully say, please don't. You'll only continue to make things worse.

It's not the first time this year we've heard Democrats chirping about creating jobs. The stimulus comes to mind. It was advertised as a jobs bill. Upon the bill's passage Nancy Pelosi gleefully patted herself on the back over the "swift, bold action" House Democrats took on behalf of the American people. That was in February -- when unemployment was merely 8%. Now, nine months later, under the "swift, bold" action of the Federal Stimulus, unemployment is up to 10.2%.

Okay, I'll give the Speaker SOME credit. The stimulus was bold…

The auto industry suffered bankruptcies and closed dealerships despite the huge government bailouts it received.

In June, Speaker Pelosi cooed about the jobs that will be created under the life-sucking, freedom-gobbling, economy-crushing "Cap-and-Tax" bill.

Enough already. Enough of these "solutions." They don't work. They never have, and they never will.

The more these Totally Out of Touch politicians try to fix something, the more they break it. And the more it breaks, the harder they try to fix it. It's a vicious cycle.

Maybe the Democrats should learn from George Costanza. I'm serious. Remember the episode of Seinfeld were George realizes that his life is the complete opposite of everything he wants it to be, and every decision he's made in his life has been wrong? Jerry says to him, "If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right." So George gets the idea to do exactly the opposite of everything he would normally do. And he encounters huge success.

If only Democrats would do the same. How quickly would the economy turn around if payroll taxes were cut by 25% so small business owners could afford to hire new employees and expand their businesses? How many families would have stronger purchasing power if the corporate and personal income tax rates were reduced? How much more innovation and manufacturing capacity would our country have if burdensome regulations and restrictions were eased?

These solutions seem so simple. Yet they are the antithesis of everything liberals in Washington stand for. They talk about government creating jobs, and fail to recognize that governments do not create -- they consume.

Back to Seinfeld:

George Costanza, testing his new "opposite" hypothesis, walks up to a stunning blond and says, "My name is George. I'm unemployed and I live with my parents."

She turns to him with a smile and seductively replies, "I'm Victoria. Hi."

Democrats, learn from George Costanza. For him, doing the opposite of what his instincts were telling him was a winning formula. And it will be a winning formula for our country if you do the opposite, too.

Let the Healthcare Rationing Begin

2009-11-17T09:51:00.000-07:00

For decades women have been badgered by healthcare professionals, politicians, government officials and celebrities to have regular mammograms after the age of 40. Early breast cancer detection is the key to survival, they've preached.

We've had to undergo embarrassing examinations, and be taught how to self-examine. An awareness campaign was launched, complete with Mary-Kay-Pink ribbons on everything from M&M's to t-shirts (I reluctantly admit to buying a Breast-Cancer-Awareness-Pink flat iron last month).

Hot off the heels of über-PC Breast Cancer Awareness Month (October) we get this news: "Breast exam guidelines now call for less testing"

Really? According to the Washington Post, a highly intelligent group of doctors (appointed by the government), with lots and lots of letters after their names, have done some research and determined that the risks of regular screening outweigh the benefits.

Now let's just forget for a moment that these Really Smart People (appointed by the government) are going to set the precedent for what medical procedures will or will not be paid for by any insurance plan (government or private). Forget that there are nearly three decades of research that prove early breast cancer detection saves lives. Let's forget that the American Cancer Society and other organizations are having major heartburn over the potential harm this new study will cause, and let's just look at the facts.

Risks of regular screening, according to the Brainy Government-Appointed people (I'm not making these up):

1. False positive results may cause anxiety
2. A small number of false positive tests can lead to unnecessary biopsies
3. Too much follow up testing
4. Some cancers can go away on their own, without treatment (that one is my personal favorite)
5. It's really expensive

Benefits of regular screening, according to the Brainy Hospital People Who Actually Treat Cancer Patients:

1. Thousands of lives have been saved by early cancer detection

To sum it up, according to this government panel, thousands of women's lives are not worth a few bucks and a bit of anxiety.

It's just a little too coincidental for comfort that these new guidelines are coming from the government in the midst of a hot healthcare debate. Government is looking to take over the healthcare system, and suddenly we're to throw out three decades of research, facts, and pestering? Sounds like one of these illusive "cost cutting" measures we keep hearing about. Cost cutting to the tune of $5 billion a year -- and untold thousands of lives.

The Super Smart People are engaging in a re-education campaign, even recommending against self breast-examination. This is just the beginning of healthcare rationing, folks. One thing is for certain, those boobs in Washington cannot be trusted.

I’ll wrap up by paraphrasing the illustrious Paul Harvey: And now you know…the breast of the story.

Americans Hope for Change in 2010

2009-11-16T15:03:00.000-07:00

Incumbents, beware!

Since 1980, Members of Congress have enjoyed average re-election rates of more than 92%. That means each election year only about 37 out of 535 Members get the boot. Pretty cushy statistics for incumbents.

Next year may be different. There is a growing chorus of anti-incumbent sentiment coming from both Republicans and Democrats alike. According to Pew Research Center, Americans are displaying some of the most negative attitudes toward incumbents in almost three decades. The only years that compare are 1994 and 2006 --years that saw the minority party win control of both the House and Senate.

The Washington Post sums it up this way:

What's clear from this and other national polling as well as a variety of state data is that there is a widespread belief that politicians are not acting in the best interests of those they represent. This sentiment isn't terribly new, but the depth of these anti-incumbent feelings -- particularly among political independents -- makes it newsworthy.
While it's likely that any sustained sentiment of this sort will hurt Democrats more than Republicans, this sort of political environment is decidedly unpredictable and could lead to surprising defeats for presumed safe incumbents -- of both parties -- next November.

Wow. People think that politicians aren't acting in their constituents' best interests? Stunning. I'm glad that, "while this sentiment isn't terribly new," it's finally showing up in polling. And hopefully next year, with the help of the new groundswell of conservative grassroots activists, it will show up at the polls.

This profound unrest is invigorating and healthy, while congressional stagnation is not. Not to mention, it makes exciting election years for We the Political Junkies.

New York State's Getting Nuttin' for Christmas

2009-11-12T10:53:00.001-07:00

This week New York Governor, David Paterson, warned that his state would be broke by Christmas if spending was not immediately slashed. He called an emergency legislative session to look into budget cuts that would save the state from bankruptcy.

The New York State Legislature met on Tuesday, but Senate Democrats were unwilling to suggest any spending cuts. They plan to meet again next week.

In the midst of the largest budget crisis the federal government has ever faced, almost a dozen U.S. states are going broke, including California, Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Wisconsin and Rhode Island. There seems to be a common (blue) thread among these states.

The nearly bankrupt states face financial peril for three main reasons:

1. State government spending is through the roof
2. State taxes are too high
3. The economy is in the toilet

In Paterson's desperate attempt to save his state, he suggested cutting $1.8 billion dollars from schools and hospitals. On the surface, it sounds like a heartless place to start -- especially for a Democrat.

Before you start feeling sorry for the children of New York State public schools consider that, at almost $16,000 a pop (more than 60% above the national average), NYS has the highest per pupil spending rate in the nation. Pataki logically sees that there may be some money to squeeze out of that bloated budget. But unions and special interest groups have a vice grip on Democrats in the New York State Legislature. They will never allow those spending cuts to happen.

The problem with cutting $287 million from Medicaid payments to hospitals, as Paterson has proposed, is it would keep the state from receiving $460 million in federal matching funds. That's fantastic. Bankrupt states can't slash budgets anywhere meaningful because it would require forfeiting almost twice as much money from Uncle Sam.

So what's a broken state to do? One time raids of unused state funds? Refinance state bonds to cover budget gaps? Raise taxes? Create new taxes on soda pop and candy bars?

The answer for these bankrupt states is to tighten the belt, cut spending, and lower tax rates to promote economic growth (and thus increase tax revenues). Unfortunately, these solutions require more common sense than is typically found in government -- and a lot fewer Democrats in state legislatures.

The sad reality is that current leaders in Washington (and some former leaders, as well) are applying the same big-government, big-spending policies these belly-up states have implemented for decades. As a result, the entire country is rushing down the same path to financial ruin. Some will argue we are already there.

Shadegg's One Man Revolt

2009-11-10T11:26:00.000-07:00

House Republicans are responsible for passing the healthcare reform bill last Saturday. Nancy Pelosi played them like a golden fiddle. They even saw her coming at them with bow in hand and a glint in her eye.

Rep. John Shadegg, R-AZ, sounded the alarm. He warned Republicans that the Speaker was using the Stupak amendment, which would prevent the federal government from paying for elective abortions, as a ploy.

Pro-life Democrats did not have enough votes to pass the Stupak amendment without Republican support. These same Democrats would not have voted for the healthcare reform bill without the amendment. The bottom line is, without the amendment the healthcare bill would have failed.

Shadegg saw this and formulated a plan. No House Republican wanted to vote against a pro-life amendment, but voting for it would give the Democrats enough cover to pass the healthcare reform bill.

The solution, according to Shadegg, was to take a page out of President Obama's dusty old playbook and vote "present." Brilliant idea.

But Republicans were scared. They were scared over a huge bill that forced American taxpayers to pay for abortions. They were also scared over potential political ramifications coming from special interest groups over not voting in favor of a pro-life amendment. It was an uncomfortable predicament.

Shadegg tried his best to rally support for his plan, but apparently the Republicans found it too risky. They ended up voting in favor of the Stupak amendment. Only 64 Democrats voted for it. Republicans may as well have tied up their yea votes with pretty ribbon, because it was a gift to the Speaker, and cleared the path for passage of the healthcare reform bill.

Shadegg was the lone present vote. Good for him.

The Stupak amendment was never about abortion. Democrats have already vowed to strip pro-life language from the final conference report. It was about Pelosi using Republicans as pawns to get her bill passed. And Republicans (except for Shadegg) fell for it.

The choice between either having a really bad Democrat bill, or a slightly less-bad Democrat bill with Republican input, has a false premise. Republicans throwing a few palatable tokens into these horrific legislative monstrosities just make it easier for moderate Democrats to vote for them. We cannot afford for Republicans to simply try and make bad bills a little better. Big props to Rep. Shadegg for seeing this.

House Republicans had the opportunity to stop the healthcare reform behemoth in its tracks by voting present on the Stupak amendment, and they chickened out. Now is the time for all Republicans to get their courage on and reject DC conventional wisdom which preaches political safety at all costs.

To Abort, or Not to Abort the Stupak Amendment

2009-11-09T14:50:00.000-07:00

Democrats have a problem.

In the weeks leading up to last Saturday's vote, more than 40 House Democrats threatened to torpedo the healthcare bill if abortion funding language was not removed. More than 30 could not be counted upon to vote for the bill either way, and some pro-choice Democrats threatened to withdraw their support if any amendments were attached restricting abortion funding. This presented quite a dilemma for House leadership.

Nancy Pelosi had to decide which side to appease (or bribe).

Enter pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich. Stupak worked closely with pro-life groups to draft an amendment that would prevent government subsidies from being used to pay for health insurance plans that cover abortion services. This sent many hard core pro-choice Democrats howling in protest.

At first Pelosi vowed that no amendments would be allowed. But at the last minute she chose sides, and cunningly permitted debate on the Stupak amendment. It passed by a wide margin, suggesting a majority of the members of the House of Representatives are indeed pro-life.

Pelosi bet that pro-life Democrats would stick to their principles and vote against any bill that included abortion funding, and pro-choice Democrats would vote for the bill no matter what. She had good instincts.

Here's the kicker: Republicans voted almost unanimously for the Stupak amendment, as did 64 Democrats. Without wide Republican support, the amendment would have failed. If the amendment would have failed, the House version of healthcare reform would not have passed. Pelosi knew this and used the Republicans as pawns in her scheme to pass the bill.

But the drama continues.

Now more than 40 vociferous "pro-choicers" in the House are threatening to derail the conference report if the Stupak amendment isn't, um…aborted. That's assuming the bill gets to conference. It has to pass the Senate first, and the problems there are a whole other post.

You know what they say about a house divided against itself. It appears the U.S. House is divided in many ways other than just red and blue. Freedom lovers can only hope that the House of Pelosi will come tumbling down -- before Obamacare is signed into law.