Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tornados Keep Ravaging Congressman Billy Long's District: Tornado Drills and HAM Radios Discounted by Congressman
Ever feel like we are getting a reality check for the leadership (or lack of) we chose to represent us in Southwest Missouri in Congess? Since electing Billy Long to Congress, the man who mocked tornado drills, Missouri's 7th Congressional District has been bombarded by dangerous tornadoes. With each one, I am reminded of the wisdom of Congressman Long who mocked tornado drills and co-sponsored some controversial legislation.
Last night tornadoes hit Branson, Kimberling City, and Fair Grove as well as near by Buffalo who I am not sure but may be a victim of redistricting and now a part of the 7th District. I will have to research that. None the less we are once again reminded at how carelessly Congressman Long's words and actions are when it comes to the seriousness of storms that often hit Southwest Missouri, and with what seems like increasing frequency since Billy snubbed the weather gods.
Remember, it wasn't just the tweet. It's also the fact the Congressman Billy Long co-sponsored legislation to sell off HAM radio frequencies--the same frequencies that provide early warning for these dangerous tornadoes that continue to bombard Congressman Long's district.
Last night tornadoes hit Branson, Kimberling City, and Fair Grove as well as near by Buffalo who I am not sure but may be a victim of redistricting and now a part of the 7th District. I will have to research that. None the less we are once again reminded at how carelessly Congressman Long's words and actions are when it comes to the seriousness of storms that often hit Southwest Missouri, and with what seems like increasing frequency since Billy snubbed the weather gods.
Remember, it wasn't just the tweet. It's also the fact the Congressman Billy Long co-sponsored legislation to sell off HAM radio frequencies--the same frequencies that provide early warning for these dangerous tornadoes that continue to bombard Congressman Long's district.
Mike Church on Obama the Post Racial President and African Americans for Obama: Living in the Color Blind Utopia of Obamaland
Here is the video the King Dude is referring to:
Video of the 2012 Branson Leap Day Tornado
The tornado that hit Branson had a 22 mile track. I want to know where the sirens were in neighboring Christian County? I didn't hear any last night did you?
Strangely enough, God must not like Walmart. Like Walmart in neighboring Joplin, the Branson Walmart on Highway 76 was hit too.
Strangely enough, God must not like Walmart. Like Walmart in neighboring Joplin, the Branson Walmart on Highway 76 was hit too.
Branson Strip Hit by Tornado; Highway 76 Music Highway Takes Direct Hit
Five tornadoes hit Southwest Missouri. One hit Buffalo and the other hit popular tourist destination Branson putting a direct hit on 76 Music Highway known as the Branson Stirp where most of the shows and entertainment is at. Tourist season begins in just a few weeks.
What is African Americans for Obama?
What is African Americans for Obama?
a. a bus service with destination the polling places
b. a cigarette and booze exchange service for votes
c. the new incarnation of ACORN
d. Obama's plan for furthering a color blind society
e. a bunch of people who still believe their gas tanks will be filled and their mortgage payments will be paid for by Obama
But Caucasians for Romney would be Controversial: African Americans for Obama Proves Obama Wasn't the Final Piece of the Race Puzzle
Obama was supposed to bridge the gap. He was supposed to be the final piece of the puzzle that made America color blind. Four years later, it is Obama pushing the idea America is still a place that sees colors--prejudices. We now have African Americans for Obama.
Could you imagine what would happen if Mitt for Brains decided to organize Caucasians for Romney--a group of stiff white people in three-piece suits? I am sure the controversy of it would end the Romney campaign with labels of racism.
But rather, we have Obama the antagonist stirring to pot inspired by those who came before him like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in hopes of seeing more of this in 2012...
Could you imagine what would happen if Mitt for Brains decided to organize Caucasians for Romney--a group of stiff white people in three-piece suits? I am sure the controversy of it would end the Romney campaign with labels of racism.
But rather, we have Obama the antagonist stirring to pot inspired by those who came before him like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in hopes of seeing more of this in 2012...
The Obama Economy Turns Teenagers into Breadmakers: Teenagers Going to Work to Help Mom and Dad
An interesting development, which I partially blame on the federal income tax, which robs Americans of wealth by taxing their work, was women going to work to make ends meet in homes across the United States. There was a time when women stayed home and raised kids--and America was better for it as values in the home were taught by the people that were supposed to instill values in our children. While many of those values have been sacrificed, it appears some values haven't.
In a sign of just how bad the Obama economy is, teenagers are going to work to help their parents make ends meet. Just like wives a few generations ago decided to leave the kids at home in exchange of a paycheck, kids are now part of the making ends meet equation.
CBS news reports:
Born out of necessity in this brutal economy there is now a different type of child support. This one involves teenagers looking for work in record numbers — trying to help their parents make ends meet.
But it’s easier said than done. The most recent numbers from the labor department show California’s unemployment rate at 11.1 percent. For teenagers in our state, the unemployment rate is at a staggering 35 percent. It’s the highest in the nation behind only Washington, D.C.
In the tiny town of Lockeford just east of Lodi, inside this small well-kept home, just off main street there’s a fight going on, but it’s not what you think. There are no punches being thrown. No blood being spilled, but there are tears being shed -– tears from a young woman in a battle she never thought she’d have to fight at such a young age.
“It’s pretty overwhelming,” said the Melissa Zarate.
The battle is survival in this gut-wrenching economy.
“Yeah, it makes me feel good because I can help my mom now,” said Melissa.
See, these are tears of joy, satisfaction and pride of a job well-done. It’s a job born out of necessity.
“I feel like I need to help my mom,” she says.
Eighteen-year-old Melissa is doing just that — by going to work.
The high school senior doesn’t make much working just 15 hours a week inside a Lodi thrift store, but nearly every penny of her paycheck (her first was for $128) is going toward fighting the battle so many families are facing. It’s going to help pay the bills.
In a sign of just how bad the Obama economy is, teenagers are going to work to help their parents make ends meet. Just like wives a few generations ago decided to leave the kids at home in exchange of a paycheck, kids are now part of the making ends meet equation.
CBS news reports:
Born out of necessity in this brutal economy there is now a different type of child support. This one involves teenagers looking for work in record numbers — trying to help their parents make ends meet.
But it’s easier said than done. The most recent numbers from the labor department show California’s unemployment rate at 11.1 percent. For teenagers in our state, the unemployment rate is at a staggering 35 percent. It’s the highest in the nation behind only Washington, D.C.
In the tiny town of Lockeford just east of Lodi, inside this small well-kept home, just off main street there’s a fight going on, but it’s not what you think. There are no punches being thrown. No blood being spilled, but there are tears being shed -– tears from a young woman in a battle she never thought she’d have to fight at such a young age.
“It’s pretty overwhelming,” said the Melissa Zarate.
The battle is survival in this gut-wrenching economy.
“Yeah, it makes me feel good because I can help my mom now,” said Melissa.
See, these are tears of joy, satisfaction and pride of a job well-done. It’s a job born out of necessity.
“I feel like I need to help my mom,” she says.
Eighteen-year-old Melissa is doing just that — by going to work.
The high school senior doesn’t make much working just 15 hours a week inside a Lodi thrift store, but nearly every penny of her paycheck (her first was for $128) is going toward fighting the battle so many families are facing. It’s going to help pay the bills.
Another Romney and Obama Parallel: The Teleprompter
In case you haven't figured it out, we are in for four more years of Obama no matter the outcome in a Romney/Obama general election. On paper, from abortion to gun control and from cap and trade to healthcare, Romney looks like Obama on paper. Adjectives that describe their personalities include "mechanical", "robotic", "cold" and "soulless." Now there is another symbolic object that ties these two together--THE TELEPROMPTER.
We watched Obama mechanically move his head side to side reading the teleprompter for over four years. Obama is carefully scripted and when caught without the teleprompter is known to make a major gaffe--see Joe the Plumber for example--share the wealth. We also know Romney has said many things off script that alarm many.
The American Conservative observes the carefully scripted progressive trying to play a conservative on TV--Mitt Romney. This could just as easily be written about Barack Obama if you substitute a few issues and the names.
From the American Conservative:
Dan Schnur mistakenly believes that Romney’s mistakes are limited to talking about wealth (via Andrew):
The curious thing about Romney’s verbal missteps is how limited they are to this very specific area of public policy. He is usually quite articulate when talking about foreign affairs and national security. Despite his complicated history on social and cultural matters like health care and abortion, his explanations are usually both coherent and comprehensible, even to those who oppose his positions [bold mine-DL]. It’s only when he begins talking about economic issues – his biographical strength – that he seems to get clumsy.
This is just wrong. Romney has regularly made ridiculous statements on all of these other issues. It’s true that some of these date back to his first presidential campaign, and these tend to be issues where it takes some familiarity with them is required to recognize just how ridiculous they are, the candidate who once promised to “double Gitmo,” declares that there shouldn’t be an “inch of space” between the U.S. and allied governments, and rules out any and all negotiations with the Taliban does not deserve the credit he is getting here. Romney is “articulate” about foreign affairs in the sense that he has learned his rehearsed, scripted lines, and he can deliver those lines smoothly. That said, does he ever give non-Republicans the impression that he really understands what he’s talking about? No, he doesn’t.
Pro-life conservatives can readily spot the flaws in Romney’s statements on social issues. Romney has won over some pro-lifers by making statements that are considered merely good enough, but no one actually credits his story that it was ESCR that changed his mind about abortion. One of the things that got him into trouble last cycle was that he insisted on talking about these issues even though he was not very good at it. Romney’s awkwardness on questions of wealth and class is more apparent to more observers because these are not things he can handle by reciting party-line slogans, and there are many more people with stronger opinions about wealthy, out-of-touch politicians than there are critics of his foreign policy ignorance.
We watched Obama mechanically move his head side to side reading the teleprompter for over four years. Obama is carefully scripted and when caught without the teleprompter is known to make a major gaffe--see Joe the Plumber for example--share the wealth. We also know Romney has said many things off script that alarm many.
The American Conservative observes the carefully scripted progressive trying to play a conservative on TV--Mitt Romney. This could just as easily be written about Barack Obama if you substitute a few issues and the names.
From the American Conservative:
Dan Schnur mistakenly believes that Romney’s mistakes are limited to talking about wealth (via Andrew):
The curious thing about Romney’s verbal missteps is how limited they are to this very specific area of public policy. He is usually quite articulate when talking about foreign affairs and national security. Despite his complicated history on social and cultural matters like health care and abortion, his explanations are usually both coherent and comprehensible, even to those who oppose his positions [bold mine-DL]. It’s only when he begins talking about economic issues – his biographical strength – that he seems to get clumsy.
This is just wrong. Romney has regularly made ridiculous statements on all of these other issues. It’s true that some of these date back to his first presidential campaign, and these tend to be issues where it takes some familiarity with them is required to recognize just how ridiculous they are, the candidate who once promised to “double Gitmo,” declares that there shouldn’t be an “inch of space” between the U.S. and allied governments, and rules out any and all negotiations with the Taliban does not deserve the credit he is getting here. Romney is “articulate” about foreign affairs in the sense that he has learned his rehearsed, scripted lines, and he can deliver those lines smoothly. That said, does he ever give non-Republicans the impression that he really understands what he’s talking about? No, he doesn’t.
Pro-life conservatives can readily spot the flaws in Romney’s statements on social issues. Romney has won over some pro-lifers by making statements that are considered merely good enough, but no one actually credits his story that it was ESCR that changed his mind about abortion. One of the things that got him into trouble last cycle was that he insisted on talking about these issues even though he was not very good at it. Romney’s awkwardness on questions of wealth and class is more apparent to more observers because these are not things he can handle by reciting party-line slogans, and there are many more people with stronger opinions about wealthy, out-of-touch politicians than there are critics of his foreign policy ignorance.
Conservatives for Romneycare: I'm Not Kidding...
In fact, we have already seen the start of this process in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney’s health care reforms were nearly identical to President Obama’s. Romney’s reforms increased the demand for health care but did nothing to expand the supply of physicians. In fact, by cracking down on insurance premiums, Massachusetts pushed insurers to reduce their payments to providers, making it less worthwhile for doctors to expand their practices. As a result, the average wait to get an appointment with a doctor grew from 33 days to over 55 days. The New York Post
People calling themselves conservatives are coming out in favor of Romneycare. Romneycare is the result of the 1994 Republican alternative to Hillarycare written by the Heritage Foundation, that, which you can see above, became Obamacare. Now there is a group claiming to be "conservative" coming out supporting for this progressive piece of legislation.
David French ignores that Romneycare is Obamacare and the fact Massachusetts healthcare premiums rose to the highest in the nation to give praise to the mandate that forces people to purchase healthcare insurance.
I enjoyed reading Veronique’s and Douglas’s posts analyzing the costliness of Romneycare. Count me as one of those conservatives who actually like what Mitt Romney did when faced with very real political challenges in Massachusetts. The Democratic alternative to Romneycare — a very high and punitive business tax — was far worse than the state individual mandate, and he did exactly what we want governors to do when faced with political challenges from the left: lead their state in a direction that is more conservative than the alternative, and consequently leave their citizens better off than they would have been under Democratic leadership.
How can we measure the success or failure of Romneycare? Veronique and Douglas emphasize cost, but of course cost is but one measure of success. In fact, cost containment wasn’t the primary goal of Massachusetts health-care reform — universal coverage was. And on that score Romneycare unquestionably succeeded. At a minimum, I’d suggest measuring the success of constitutionally appropriate government reform by asking three key questions: First, did it accomplish its stated goals? Second, does the reform maintain the consent of the governed? Third, is the program affordable and sustainable? (I added the constitutional qualifier because unconstitutional reform should be off the table regardless of its popularity or cost-effectiveness).
It’s undisputed that Massachusetts has the lowest percentage of uninsured citizens in the nation. As rare as it is for government programs to actually accomplish their stated goals, I’m not sure why we continue to glide over this fact as if it’s insignificant. Don’t we want more citizens to have health insurance? Doesn’t that actually help close the gap in uncompensated care created when Ronald Reagan signed into law the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act? Reagan’s law effectively ended a free market in health care when it mandated that every federally funded ER (which is virtually every ER in the nation) treat patients without regard for their ability to pay. There’s no such thing as a free market when a vendor has to provide a product without compensation. Romneycare was a logical response to not only the problem of uninsured citizens but also to the problem of uncompensated care.
This is the dishonesty that is coming with Romneycare. They will lie to the American people about what Romneycare really is, but for us true conservatives who know the truth, we know Obama will head this off at the past noting there is little difference between Obamacare and Romneycare.
People calling themselves conservatives are coming out in favor of Romneycare. Romneycare is the result of the 1994 Republican alternative to Hillarycare written by the Heritage Foundation, that, which you can see above, became Obamacare. Now there is a group claiming to be "conservative" coming out supporting for this progressive piece of legislation.
David French ignores that Romneycare is Obamacare and the fact Massachusetts healthcare premiums rose to the highest in the nation to give praise to the mandate that forces people to purchase healthcare insurance.
I enjoyed reading Veronique’s and Douglas’s posts analyzing the costliness of Romneycare. Count me as one of those conservatives who actually like what Mitt Romney did when faced with very real political challenges in Massachusetts. The Democratic alternative to Romneycare — a very high and punitive business tax — was far worse than the state individual mandate, and he did exactly what we want governors to do when faced with political challenges from the left: lead their state in a direction that is more conservative than the alternative, and consequently leave their citizens better off than they would have been under Democratic leadership.
How can we measure the success or failure of Romneycare? Veronique and Douglas emphasize cost, but of course cost is but one measure of success. In fact, cost containment wasn’t the primary goal of Massachusetts health-care reform — universal coverage was. And on that score Romneycare unquestionably succeeded. At a minimum, I’d suggest measuring the success of constitutionally appropriate government reform by asking three key questions: First, did it accomplish its stated goals? Second, does the reform maintain the consent of the governed? Third, is the program affordable and sustainable? (I added the constitutional qualifier because unconstitutional reform should be off the table regardless of its popularity or cost-effectiveness).
It’s undisputed that Massachusetts has the lowest percentage of uninsured citizens in the nation. As rare as it is for government programs to actually accomplish their stated goals, I’m not sure why we continue to glide over this fact as if it’s insignificant. Don’t we want more citizens to have health insurance? Doesn’t that actually help close the gap in uncompensated care created when Ronald Reagan signed into law the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act? Reagan’s law effectively ended a free market in health care when it mandated that every federally funded ER (which is virtually every ER in the nation) treat patients without regard for their ability to pay. There’s no such thing as a free market when a vendor has to provide a product without compensation. Romneycare was a logical response to not only the problem of uninsured citizens but also to the problem of uncompensated care.
This is the dishonesty that is coming with Romneycare. They will lie to the American people about what Romneycare really is, but for us true conservatives who know the truth, we know Obama will head this off at the past noting there is little difference between Obamacare and Romneycare.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Government Subsidized Union Retirement Bailout Inspires UAW Retirees to Vote Against Romney
 |
| Dennis Budziszewski, not the brightest light in the room. |
Union retirees living off federally subsidized union retirements that you know of as bailouts are getting their revenge on Mitt Romney tonight. While I am no fan of Mitt Romney, I feel it's important to put retired union members like Dennis Budziszewski of Canton, Michigan in their place. You see people like Budziszewki kept Detroit from being competitive by demanding more and more through the UAW while working for companies like Chrysler and General Motors, who became less profitable as the unions demanded more.
Budziszewski is a registered, lifelong Democrat. Today, he crossed the lines and voted for Rick Santorum as a protest vote because Mitt Romney didn't support the auto bailouts, although he did support TARP which was a stepping stone to the auto bailouts. The Detroit Free Press reports:
A diehard Democrat and retired autoworker, Budziszewski REALLY doesn’t like Romney, and instead cast a ballot for former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Come November, he will vote for President Barack Obama.
But today, he just wants to embarrass Romney.
“I’ve been pushing this on Facebook for days,” he said. “There’s a very real possibility we can pull this off.”
Some Democrats have put together a fairly organized effort to get Democrats to vote for Santorum or Ron Paul in order to rob victory from Romney. The Santorum campaign joined the effort Monday with a robocall aimed at Democrats urging them to vote for him because Romney opposed the bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler. The call didn’t note that Santorum also opposed the bailout.
So why would someone like Budziszweski be so passionate about voting in the Republican primary while proudly stating he is a Democrat. Because those bailouts that Romney opposed is going to pay Budziszewski's retirement--that's right, he's living on your tax dollars funded through bailouts that General Motors and Chrysler will never pay back--adding to nearly $16 trillion in debt.
The "auto bailouts" were really "union pension fund bailouts" pure and simple. It is what many states, most notably WI, were trying to avoid by restructuring pensions and labor contracts. GM & Chrysler should have been forced to do that sort of restructuring: they have a ridiculous pension program and ridiculous work rules. Their work rules have again put them in a bind.
So if you want to know what motivates Dennis Budziszewski, it's the fact the government is paying his union pension through bailouts. Budziszewski isn't the smartest guy in the room. It turns out Santorum didn't support the auto bailouts either.
Claire McCaskill's Save Medicare Ad is Misleading
Claire McCaskill's connection to Barack Obama is evident. She helped Obama create more debt and more unconstitutional federal powers like Obamacare. Rather than take ownership, Senator McCaskill is pointing fingers in her latest television ad.
Well Claire, I am here to tell you that we are from around here. We know your record that voted for Obamacare and stimulus spending--helping lead the fastest growing national deficit period in our lifetime while claiming her Republican opponents want to kill Medicare.
She seems to forget Republicans voted to expand Medicare to newer heights--creating more debt through Medicare Part D. That's not the point I want to make here.
Both Social Security and Medicare are broken, broken because reckless politicians on both sides borrowed against these accounts that were supposed to be set up for your "security" later on in life. It is politicians like Claire McCaskill who voted for Obama's stimulus producing nearly a $1 trillion more in federal debt--debt that will one day keep the federal government from paying out on these unfunded liabilities like Medicare.
In other words, when you look at the bottom line, Claire McCaskill is just as guilty as any other politician for destroying Medicare. If the government is so much in debt it can't borrow anymore, how do you expect the federal government is going to make your Medicare payments to your doctor?
That's something Senator McCaskill probably doesn't want to answer. She will point the fingers at special interest hoping you won't figure out the truth I spelled out for you.
Well Claire, I am here to tell you that we are from around here. We know your record that voted for Obamacare and stimulus spending--helping lead the fastest growing national deficit period in our lifetime while claiming her Republican opponents want to kill Medicare.
She seems to forget Republicans voted to expand Medicare to newer heights--creating more debt through Medicare Part D. That's not the point I want to make here.
Both Social Security and Medicare are broken, broken because reckless politicians on both sides borrowed against these accounts that were supposed to be set up for your "security" later on in life. It is politicians like Claire McCaskill who voted for Obama's stimulus producing nearly a $1 trillion more in federal debt--debt that will one day keep the federal government from paying out on these unfunded liabilities like Medicare.
In other words, when you look at the bottom line, Claire McCaskill is just as guilty as any other politician for destroying Medicare. If the government is so much in debt it can't borrow anymore, how do you expect the federal government is going to make your Medicare payments to your doctor?
That's something Senator McCaskill probably doesn't want to answer. She will point the fingers at special interest hoping you won't figure out the truth I spelled out for you.
Tom Stilson Files to Challenge Billy Long
Today was candidate filings for the August primaries in Missouri. A surprise entered the Missouri 7th Congressional District today. Tom Stilson, a standout for the Ozark Tigers in baseball and Stanford graduate has decided to run for Congress. To make things interesting, it appears Stilson has ties to Andrew Breitbart, whose Big Government Web site has been quite critical of Congressman Billy Long and his decisions to fund big government waste.
Here's what we know about Mr. Stilson:
Tom Stilson is a 24-year-old 2009 graduate of Stanford University with a Degree in Geological and Environmental Sciences.
Tom was born in the Colorado Rockies and raised in Sonoma County, CA, moving to the Ozarks when he was 14. Tom has traveled most of the US and Europe extensively, acting as an assistant or adviser on several geological and archaeological expeditions.
Tom graduated Summa Cum Laude from Ozark HS and pitched (and won) the Missouri State Championship baseball game for Ozark HS his junior year, making All-State. His sophomore year included placing third in State Competition for the Ozark JROTC Rifle Team. Tom played baseball as a left-handed pitcher for the Stanford Cardinal for 3 years. After several injuries, Tom left baseball to concentrate on his degree and was Editor-at-Large for the conservative Stanford Review his senior year.
In 2009, Tom went on to study Environmental Geochemistry at UC-Merced for two years. While in Merced, Tom was the VP of the UC-Merced College Republicans and served on the board of Directors for the Merced County Chamber of Commerce. Tom was instrumental in the campaign to defeat Measure C, a liberal effort at collectivizing property rights, recently on the ballot in Merced County.
Tom currently resides in rural Missouri with his two dogs, Gracie and Kimber. For now, he works at a local gun store while he is completing his Masters thesis and Missouri Geology Certification. Tom is an avid hunter and firearms enthusiast. A proud member of the NRA, he reloads his own ammunition and competitively shoots combat pistol.
Despite his student loans and limited employment opportunities, he is still maintaining personal hygiene and has no intention of camping out on Wall Street.
Mike Moon is also expected to file to challenge Congressman Billy Long.
Obama and Romney Personalities Described as the Same: Soulless Robots
There are many similarities between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. On paper, their political records are similar.
Both men were staunch defenders of a woman's right to abortion. Both men pushed for gun control. Both men grew government and increased spending. They both support global warming rhetoric and believe cap and trade taxes will cut down on CO2 emissions. Of course, Mitt Romney ran the pilot program for healthcare change that would soon be called Obamacare. You can't deny these parallels.
There is another comparison that I have noticed. In 2008, as Barack Obama mechanically moved his head right and left reading words from a teleprompter, many people suggested Obama was soulless, robotic, Manchurian. Obama appeared to be manufactured by the political establishment--the powers that be. He stayed on topic careful not to go outside his programmed lines--and the one exception to this was when Joe the Plumber walked up to him and answered a question. Obama slipped from his carefully programmed lines and a great controversy followed.
Well here we are four years later and the Republican candidate Mitt Romney is being called the same adjectives that once were used to describe Obama's scripted coldness. I find this very interesting and alarming at the same time as sterile candidates who receive little vetting are able to slip into the American mainstream without their records being properly examined. It happened four years ago with a robotic candidate who landed the highest office of the land, and the Republicans are copying this year.
I have noticed these adjectives many times this year. Take this quote from The Young Turks:
“This soulless candidate, this robot, this corporate machine, is going to talk about how he’s going to save the soul of America?"
If it was't for "this corporate machine" wouldn't you think this comment came from 2008 to describe Barack Obama? It very well could have.
Consider this comment:
"He talks like a robot. He is so cool he can't be human. He has like no human emotion. It is kind of scary no tears when his grandmother died, no mood fluctuation at all ever."
Soulless, robotic, Manchurian... These are words that tie Obama and Romney even closer together beyond their progressive political resumes. Why is it in America we are being delivered soulless politicians to lead this Republic in perhaps her darkest hour? I don't know about you, but the very idea of that scares the hell out of me, especially when you consider the moves against our Constitution like indefinite detainment.
Mark Levin, "Mitt Romney is 100% Better Than Obama": We Are in Trouble
On his radio show, Mark Levin said he is tired of Republicans coming up to him saying they will not vote for Mitt Romney in the general election. Levin says no matter how hard he has attacked Romney, we must come together after this battle for the nomination is over and rally around Romney because he is 100% better than Obama.
This is what 100% better than Obama looks like.
The New York Post reports:
In fact, we have already seen the start of this process in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney’s health care reforms were nearly identical to President Obama’s. Romney’s reforms increased the demand for health care but did nothing to expand the supply of physicians. In fact, by cracking down on insurance premiums, Massachusetts pushed insurers to reduce their payments to providers, making it less worthwhile for doctors to expand their practices. As a result, the average wait to get an appointment with a doctor grew from 33 days to over 55 days.
Mitt Romney on gun control:
Mitt Romney: Gun Grabber
Mitt Romney on abortion:
If this is 100% better than Obama, we are in real trouble. Of course, why should we come together and support Romney when the lefts next great moment in social engineering was around the corner known as the Great Society, which helped break this country, and it was the Romney family name leading a war against the conservative Barry Goldwater? Harmony has never really been a party of the progressive Romney name.
This is what 100% better than Obama looks like.
The New York Post reports:
In fact, we have already seen the start of this process in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney’s health care reforms were nearly identical to President Obama’s. Romney’s reforms increased the demand for health care but did nothing to expand the supply of physicians. In fact, by cracking down on insurance premiums, Massachusetts pushed insurers to reduce their payments to providers, making it less worthwhile for doctors to expand their practices. As a result, the average wait to get an appointment with a doctor grew from 33 days to over 55 days.
Mitt Romney on gun control:
Mitt Romney: Gun Grabber
Mitt Romney on abortion:
If this is 100% better than Obama, we are in real trouble. Of course, why should we come together and support Romney when the lefts next great moment in social engineering was around the corner known as the Great Society, which helped break this country, and it was the Romney family name leading a war against the conservative Barry Goldwater? Harmony has never really been a party of the progressive Romney name.
Stars and Stripes Interviews Author of Three Days in August and Shelves Interview
While reading Bob McCarty's Three Day's In August, I was a bit surprised how the military's "Stars and Stripes" publication gave itself some resemblance of a gossip rag during the OJ Simpson trial. To give you a quick Readers Digest version (see my review), the United States Army decided to make an example out of a special forces Iraq war hero charged of rape despite producing no evidence that went beyond a reasonable doubt against Sgt. First Class Kelly A. Stewart.
McCarty's book got the attention of "Stars and Stripes", leading McCarty to interview with the publication. However, it appears "Stars and Stripes" has shelved the interview. McCarty writes:
On Nov. 21, I was interviewed by John Vandiver, a Stuttgart-based reporter for Stars and Stripes, the newspaper published continuously since 1942 for members of the U.S. military community in Europe. The subject of the interview was my book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice, which chronicles the life story and wrongful conviction of a highly-decorated Green Beret combat veteran, Sgt. First Class Kelly A. Stewart.
Near the end of my interview with Vandiver, he told me, “I really appreciate you taking some time to talk about the book and the case, so we can have a story out shortly about the efforts of Kelly to have a retrial.” I was hopeful.
It's been over three months since the interview and "Stars and Stripes" still hasn't published anything about McCarty's book which outlines the government's weak case against Sgt. First Class Stewart. McCarty continues:
For some reason, however, Stripes hasn’t published Vandiver’s article.
On Feb. 21, Vandiver forwarded bad news in the most recent of many email exchanges since the interview. His editors had told him they “need a more solid news development in order for the story to run” and, as a result, he’s “in a holding pattern until the hearing is held on Kelly’s appeal request.”
Apparently, the publication of a book that essentially shreds the government’s case against a soldier is either not considered “newsworthy enough” by Stripes editors or it’s simply too hot for them to publish. I suspect the latter.
It could be that Stripes editors are intentionally suppressing the story in an attempt to maintain good relations with German government officials while keeping U.S. military personnel in the dark about the case, the details of which might cause them to think, “That could’ve been me!”
You can read more at Bob McCarty writes: http://bobmccarty.com/2012/02/27/is-story-of-green-berets-wrongful-conviction-too-hot-for-editors-at-stars-and-stripes-newspaper/
McCarty's book got the attention of "Stars and Stripes", leading McCarty to interview with the publication. However, it appears "Stars and Stripes" has shelved the interview. McCarty writes:
On Nov. 21, I was interviewed by John Vandiver, a Stuttgart-based reporter for Stars and Stripes, the newspaper published continuously since 1942 for members of the U.S. military community in Europe. The subject of the interview was my book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice, which chronicles the life story and wrongful conviction of a highly-decorated Green Beret combat veteran, Sgt. First Class Kelly A. Stewart.
Near the end of my interview with Vandiver, he told me, “I really appreciate you taking some time to talk about the book and the case, so we can have a story out shortly about the efforts of Kelly to have a retrial.” I was hopeful.
It's been over three months since the interview and "Stars and Stripes" still hasn't published anything about McCarty's book which outlines the government's weak case against Sgt. First Class Stewart. McCarty continues:
For some reason, however, Stripes hasn’t published Vandiver’s article.
On Feb. 21, Vandiver forwarded bad news in the most recent of many email exchanges since the interview. His editors had told him they “need a more solid news development in order for the story to run” and, as a result, he’s “in a holding pattern until the hearing is held on Kelly’s appeal request.”
Apparently, the publication of a book that essentially shreds the government’s case against a soldier is either not considered “newsworthy enough” by Stripes editors or it’s simply too hot for them to publish. I suspect the latter.
It could be that Stripes editors are intentionally suppressing the story in an attempt to maintain good relations with German government officials while keeping U.S. military personnel in the dark about the case, the details of which might cause them to think, “That could’ve been me!”
You can read more at Bob McCarty writes: http://bobmccarty.com/2012/02/27/is-story-of-green-berets-wrongful-conviction-too-hot-for-editors-at-stars-and-stripes-newspaper/
Juan Pablo Montoya Hits the Jet Dryer Under Cauton: Biggest Wreck of 2012 Daytona 500
Under caution, Juan Pablo Montoya produced the most exciting wreck of the 2012 Daytona 500. Losing control of the #42 Target Chevy, Montoya caused a huge explosion that brought out the red flag for nearly an hour. Luckily no body was hurt.
Monday, February 27, 2012
The Heritage Foundation Wrote Obamacare, Now Sending Women Out to Protest Obamacare
Obamacare began in 1989 as Republicans looked for unconstitutional, big government solutions to beat the Democrats to the power grab of healthcare control. The Republicans worked with the Heritage Foundation to come up with the plan that would be introduced as the alternative to Hillarycare in 1994.
The Heritage Plan included tax credits--which is the primary difference between their plan and Obamacare. The Heritage Foundation, claiming to be conservative and Constitutional, planned their system around the federal mandate, in which the federal government forces Americans to purchase healthcare insurance.
A few years later, Governor Mitt Romney pushed this plan in Massachusetts and to this day won't apologize for any of it including the mandate. Romney is on record saying mandates are good and conservative--even though it clearly conflicts with the Constitution.
The New York Post reports:
In fact, we have already seen the start of this process in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney’s health care reforms were nearly identical to President Obama’s. Romney’s reforms increased the demand for health care but did nothing to expand the supply of physicians. In fact, by cracking down on insurance premiums, Massachusetts pushed insurers to reduce their payments to providers, making it less worthwhile for doctors to expand their practices. As a result, the average wait to get an appointment with a doctor grew from 33 days to over 55 days.
So what is the Heritage Foundation doing today? They have organized a group of women to go to Washington, DC, to protest Obamacare.
So the Heritage Foundation suddenly cares about freedoms despite the fact they wrote most of the Obamacare legislation--including the mandate that robs Americans of their freedom to choose while creating more big government. Do you see why the Heritage Foundation isn't this conservative think tank that should be trusted? In 1994, the Heritage Plan was good. In 2012, it's bad. I doubt the Heritage Foundation would be marching in the streets had Republicans pushed this through as first intended.
The Heritage Plan included tax credits--which is the primary difference between their plan and Obamacare. The Heritage Foundation, claiming to be conservative and Constitutional, planned their system around the federal mandate, in which the federal government forces Americans to purchase healthcare insurance.
A few years later, Governor Mitt Romney pushed this plan in Massachusetts and to this day won't apologize for any of it including the mandate. Romney is on record saying mandates are good and conservative--even though it clearly conflicts with the Constitution.
The New York Post reports:
In fact, we have already seen the start of this process in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney’s health care reforms were nearly identical to President Obama’s. Romney’s reforms increased the demand for health care but did nothing to expand the supply of physicians. In fact, by cracking down on insurance premiums, Massachusetts pushed insurers to reduce their payments to providers, making it less worthwhile for doctors to expand their practices. As a result, the average wait to get an appointment with a doctor grew from 33 days to over 55 days.
So what is the Heritage Foundation doing today? They have organized a group of women to go to Washington, DC, to protest Obamacare.
Co-hosted by the National Review Institute
Religious liberty has become an early casualty in Obamacare’s collision course with liberty. Obamacare’s anti-conscience mandate forces employers to provide health insurance coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization -– regardless of religious or moral objections to such services.
The mandate’s coercion of employers is a serious affront to religious liberty and a warning sign of the problems inherent in a centralized health care system. Conflicts between individual liberty and the dictates of government bureaucrats on deeply personal health care decisions will only increase as implementation of what Obamacare deems to be an “essential benefits” package continues.
Join us as an expert panel discusses the specific religious liberty violations of the Obamacare anti-conscience mandate and the health care law’s profound threat to personal freedom.
More About the Speakers
The Honorable Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY)U.S. House of Representatives
Followed by a panel discussion with
Hadley HeathPolicy Analyst, Independent Women’s Forum
Hadley HeathPolicy Analyst, Independent Women’s Forum
Maggie KarnerDirector, Lutheran Church Missouri-Synod Life and Health Ministries
Pia de SoleniDiotima Consulting, LLC
Lori WindhamSenior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Co-hosted byJennifer MarshallDirector, DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, The Heritage Foundation
Kate O'BeirnePresident, National Review Institute
Jennifer MarshallSo the Heritage Foundation suddenly cares about freedoms despite the fact they wrote most of the Obamacare legislation--including the mandate that robs Americans of their freedom to choose while creating more big government. Do you see why the Heritage Foundation isn't this conservative think tank that should be trusted? In 1994, the Heritage Plan was good. In 2012, it's bad. I doubt the Heritage Foundation would be marching in the streets had Republicans pushed this through as first intended.
"Why Obamacare is Wrong for America" Advertises on the Heritage Foundation's Web Site, but...
There is a new book coming out called Why Obamacare is Wrong for America. It appears the Heritage Foundation may be behind the book--at least they are accepting advertising dollars to promote this book on their Web site.
Isn't this a bit hypocritical of the Heritage Foundation?
You see, the Heritage Foundation didn't think Obamacare was wrong for America when they wrote most of the legislation along with the Republican party in 1994 as an alternative to Hillarycare--federal mandate and all. They thought their solution was worthy enough for debate in Congress.
In a nutshell, Heritage proposes that consumers be able to choose from among a host of health-care options ranging from traditional insurers to health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Using refundable tax credits that decrease as income grows, Heritage would empower families to choose plans on the basis of coverage, service, and price. As part of the “healthcare social contract” thus formed, Butler says, heads of households would be required by law to buy basic health-care coverage “to protect society from citizens who would try to exploit the good nature of ordinary Americans” by free-riding on the system.
The tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance would be phased out, in favor of the family-based tax credit. Families could still choose to join group plans. But by helping people buy insurance directly, rather than relying on employers to provide it, Heritage would solve the “portability” problem, in which employees are trapped in undesirable jobs because they’re afraid of losing health coverage.
Butler and health-care analyst Edmund Haislmaier introduced the key elements of the Heritage plan in a 1989 book, A National Health System for America. In 1992, Heritage began to tout the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) as a model for how a national consumer-choice system in health insurance might function. Robert Moffit, deputy director of domestic policy studies at Heritage and a former manager of FEHBP, became one of the foundation’s key spokesmen on the issue.
Heritage’s embrace of FEHBP–a regulated and flawed government program, according to some critics–nevertheless provided a great “hook” that may well have enhanced the foundation’s overall sales pitch on health-care reform. As voter disaffection with elected leaders soared, Heritage could say, “What is available for Congress and its employees should be made available to every American family.” This message resonated with the public.
But here's the kicker:
Solutions from the Pauly and Heritage plans soon found their way into Republican- and Democrat-sponsored health bills-including the individual mandate that was vital to both.
And what happens when the Heritage Foundation and Republican's 194 alternative to Hillarycare is put in place? Well we have Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts based on the Heritage plan to show us.
The New York Post reports:
In fact, we have already seen the start of this process in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney’s health care reforms were nearly identical to President Obama’s. Romney’s reforms increased the demand for health care but did nothing to expand the supply of physicians. In fact, by cracking down on insurance premiums, Massachusetts pushed insurers to reduce their payments to providers, making it less worthwhile for doctors to expand their practices. As a result, the average wait to get an appointment with a doctor grew from 33 days to over 55 days.
Isn't this a bit hypocritical of the Heritage Foundation?
You see, the Heritage Foundation didn't think Obamacare was wrong for America when they wrote most of the legislation along with the Republican party in 1994 as an alternative to Hillarycare--federal mandate and all. They thought their solution was worthy enough for debate in Congress.
In a nutshell, Heritage proposes that consumers be able to choose from among a host of health-care options ranging from traditional insurers to health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Using refundable tax credits that decrease as income grows, Heritage would empower families to choose plans on the basis of coverage, service, and price. As part of the “healthcare social contract” thus formed, Butler says, heads of households would be required by law to buy basic health-care coverage “to protect society from citizens who would try to exploit the good nature of ordinary Americans” by free-riding on the system.
The tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance would be phased out, in favor of the family-based tax credit. Families could still choose to join group plans. But by helping people buy insurance directly, rather than relying on employers to provide it, Heritage would solve the “portability” problem, in which employees are trapped in undesirable jobs because they’re afraid of losing health coverage.
Butler and health-care analyst Edmund Haislmaier introduced the key elements of the Heritage plan in a 1989 book, A National Health System for America. In 1992, Heritage began to tout the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) as a model for how a national consumer-choice system in health insurance might function. Robert Moffit, deputy director of domestic policy studies at Heritage and a former manager of FEHBP, became one of the foundation’s key spokesmen on the issue.
Heritage’s embrace of FEHBP–a regulated and flawed government program, according to some critics–nevertheless provided a great “hook” that may well have enhanced the foundation’s overall sales pitch on health-care reform. As voter disaffection with elected leaders soared, Heritage could say, “What is available for Congress and its employees should be made available to every American family.” This message resonated with the public.
But here's the kicker:
Solutions from the Pauly and Heritage plans soon found their way into Republican- and Democrat-sponsored health bills-including the individual mandate that was vital to both.
And what happens when the Heritage Foundation and Republican's 194 alternative to Hillarycare is put in place? Well we have Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts based on the Heritage plan to show us.
The New York Post reports:
In fact, we have already seen the start of this process in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney’s health care reforms were nearly identical to President Obama’s. Romney’s reforms increased the demand for health care but did nothing to expand the supply of physicians. In fact, by cracking down on insurance premiums, Massachusetts pushed insurers to reduce their payments to providers, making it less worthwhile for doctors to expand their practices. As a result, the average wait to get an appointment with a doctor grew from 33 days to over 55 days.
Wyoming House Bill 85 Prepares for Secession if Federal Government Melts Down
There is a lot of talk about federal government control. In case you are unaware, Obama thanks to Republicans in the House and Senate, the federal government prepares to declare Martial Law ready to indefinitely detain any American it deems an enemy of the state without due process. Of course, the federal government is overstepping the Constitution in even considering such plans. The state of Wyoming must see the writing on the wall.
State representatives on Friday advanced legislation to launch a study into what Wyoming should do in the event of a complete economic or political collapse in the United States.
House Bill 85 passed on first reading by a voice vote. It would create a state-run government continuity task force, which would study and prepare Wyoming for potential catastrophes, from disruptions in food and energy supplies to a complete meltdown of the federal government.
The task force would look at the feasibility of
Wyoming issuing its own alternative currency, if needed. And House members approved an amendment Friday by state Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie, to have the task force also examine conditions under which Wyoming would need to implement its own military draft, raise a standing army, and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.
Read more: http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/wyoming-house-advances-doomsday-bill/article_af6e1b2b-0ca4-553f-85e9-92c0f58c00bd.html#ixzz1na60PMp0
State representatives on Friday advanced legislation to launch a study into what Wyoming should do in the event of a complete economic or political collapse in the United States.
House Bill 85 passed on first reading by a voice vote. It would create a state-run government continuity task force, which would study and prepare Wyoming for potential catastrophes, from disruptions in food and energy supplies to a complete meltdown of the federal government.
The task force would look at the feasibility of
Wyoming issuing its own alternative currency, if needed. And House members approved an amendment Friday by state Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie, to have the task force also examine conditions under which Wyoming would need to implement its own military draft, raise a standing army, and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.
Read more: http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/wyoming-house-advances-doomsday-bill/article_af6e1b2b-0ca4-553f-85e9-92c0f58c00bd.html#ixzz1na60PMp0
Maryland Governor Says Republicans Should Return to the Party of Lincoln (The Party of Progressives)
The idea the Republican party's roots are based deep in conservatism is a total misrepresentation of history. As Republicans court the most liberal Republican in a while, Mitt Romney, it's important to look at the rise of the Republican party, which was based in anti-Constitutional, progressive, big government, walk all over you politics. Abraham Lincoln was no conservative.
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley says it's time the Republican party moves back to its progressive roots.
"It'd be nice to see that 'party of Lincoln' emerge again, instead of this extreme right control that they submit themselves to in their own primaries."
The Rockefeller Republicans are coming out again just like George Romney in did 1964 in his intraparty attacks on Barry Goldwater in hopes of killing conservatism once and for all.
Obama Biden 2012 iPhone Accessories
Hope and change, or whatever it will be in 2012, is about to dress up your iPhone. The Obama campaign is hoping to spread its message my decorating the popular iPhone hoping you will dish out $40 for an Obama iPhone cover. I didn't realize the economy was that good that people have $40 to dish out for a small piece of plastic to give Obama free advertising. Last I looked, it wasn't based on all indicators out there.
$40? 40? I just hope Peggy Joseph gets a free one for doing her part.
My iPhone looks better naked.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Bruce Springsteen's Wrecking Ball Written to be the Obama Reelection Soundtrack
If you have doubts, just listen to the first song, which sounds like it was written to support Obamacare. It's called "We Take Care of Our Own."
As you know, Obama came out on stage to Springsteen's "The Rising" in 2008, and it appears The Boss doesn't want to take second stage this year. While nothing is official, wanna bet Springsteen's new song will be featured in Obama's reelection theatrics.
Here's the Rising, which Obama used four years ago.
It didn't take long to figure Springsteen wants a roll in Obama's reelection bid this year. Anyone watching the Grammy Awards and paying attention the opening act and the lyrics of Springsteen's new song could easily see the intentions behind it. Recent interview with a Springsteen who seems just as angry as ever even after four years of Obama really hits on Springsteen's desire to help define the American landscape for 2012.
I guess only time will tell. I am confident "We Take Care of Our Own" will be Obama's theme song.
Mitt Romney's Abortion Record Should Concern Pro Life Conservatives
Romney's record speaks for itself and if you really look at it, you see Romney only changed his stance on abortion as he realized he was going to have to gain conservative votes if he ever wished to live in the White House. Here's the Romney record on abortion according to AbortionWiki:
Attended Planned Parenthood Fundraiser
On June 12, 1994, Mitt Romney attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser held in in Cohasset, Massachusetts. At the time he was running against Sen. Ted Kennedy for the Massachusetts Senate seat.[1]
1994 Financial Support
In May 2007, Romney's campaign acknowledged that his wife, Ann Romney made a $150 contribution to Planned Parenthood in June 1994.[2]
However Nicky Nichols Gamble, the Planned Parenthood official who accepted the $150 cheque, stated that it was from the Romneys as a couple.. She further said that she had no reason to believe at the time that Romney was "not 100 percent behind the pro-choice public policy position."[1]
2002 Support for Status Quo on Abortion
In 2002, Mitt Romney responded to the Massachusetts Planned Parenthood candidate endorsement questionnaire. He answered "yes" to the following questions:
Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?
Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women?
Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?
Appointed Planned Parenthood Rep. to MassHealth Board
Chapter 58, Section 16M. (a) of the bill passing Commonwealth Care into law provided for the establishment of a MassHealth payment policy advisory board. The board was to consist of a number of different representatives, including a member appointed by the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.[3]
Romney Agency Approved $5m Loan to Planned Parenthood
Former governor Mitt Romney's economic development agency granted initial approval to a tax-exempt bond last year for a Planned Parenthood clinic in Worcester that will provide abortions, just two months before he left office and began highlighting his anti-abortion position as a presidential candidate. Asked about the $5 million financial deal yesterday, the Romney campaign said the former governor was not aware it was under consideration when Planned Parenthood won preliminary approval in November 2006. In the case of the abortion clinic funding deal, the Republican candidate's spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said Romney would have attempted to block it - if he had known about it. "Mitt Romney is prolife," Fehrnstrom said. "He did not know about this loan. It was made by an agency that does not report to the governor. If it did, he would have told them not to do it." In additon to providing abortion services, the 10,000-square-foot Planned Parenthood clinic planned for Worcester will offer Plan B emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill," which also is opposed by antiabortion advocates.
Jeffrey M. Berry, a political science professor at Tufts University, said he was surprised that Romney and his aides did not catch such a politically sensitive financial deal making its way through his economic development agency. Now, Berry said, the campaign will be put in the position of defending Romney at a time when he is heading into the most critical days of his candidacy.[4]
Told Catholic Hospitals to Administer Abortion Pills
In 2003, the Massachusetts legislature considered an "emergency contraception" mandate. It would have allowed pharmacists to sell Plan B - an abortifacient - without a prescription and without parental consent. It also would have required all hospitals to inform rape victims of the availability of such "emergency contraceptives" and provide them to the rape victim if she wanted them even when they would cause an abortion.
This law was in direct conflict with a law passed in Massachusetts in 1975 declared, "No privately controlled hospital .. shall be required to permit any patient to have an abortion ... or to furnish contraceptive devices or information to such patient ... when said services or referrals are contrary to the religious or moral principles of said hospital..."
On July 26, 2005 Governor Romney published an op-ed in the Boston Globe, acknowledging that Plan B could act as an abortifacient:[5]
"The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception. The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception."
However on December 7, 2005, Governor Romney held a press conference where he said that his legal counsel had advised him the new emergency contraception law trumped the 1975 conscience law:[5]
"On that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view. In my personal view, it's the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape."
Commonwealth Care covers Abortion
Romney's health care legislation, Commonwealth Care (sometimes refered to as RomneyCare) provides taxpayer-funded abortions for a co-pay of $50.[6]
Praising the healthcare plan at a May 3, 2007, Republican debate in Simi Valley, California, Romney stated,[7]
"I love it. It's a fabulous program. Now I know there's some people who wonder about it. Sen. Kennedy at the signing of the bill, we were all there together, he said, 'You know, if you've got Mitt Romney and Ted Kennedy agreeing to the same bill, that means one thing -- one of us didn't read it.' But I helped write it. And I knew it well."
Soros: Obama, Romney 'Not Much Difference'
In an interview in late Jan. 2012 in Davos, Switzerland, Billionaire financier George Soros stated that if Mitt Romney was to win the presidency in 2012, that there would be "little difference" between him and Barack Obama in the White House.[8]
"Well, look, either you’ll have an extremist conservative, be it Gingrich or Santorum, in which case I think it will make a big difference which of the two comes in. If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them. Romney would have to take Gingrich or Santorum as a vice president and you probably have some pretty extreme candidates for the Supreme Court. So it won't be that great a difference [if Romney becomes president]."
Rating Sodastream Flavors
Sodastream is that at-home soda machine that will save you money and help lessen your global impact when it comes to trash. It's a simple concept. Carbonate the water and add the soda flavoring. It takes less than a minute to have a fresh soda right from your tap water.
So here's the low down on the flavors:
Cola and Diet Cola--It's got a good unique cola taste. It doesn't measure up to Coke or Pepsi but it's pretty darn good and you don't have to worry about high fructose corn syrup and aspartame in their flavors.
Cream soda--a little medinciny for my liking. Wish it was a nice smooth vanilla flavor but it's a little on the harsh side. Going to try to mix it with orange and see about a orange cream.
Orange--a fun flavor full of taste that delivers.
Grape--also a winner.
Fountain Mist and Diet Fountain Mist--it tries to bring out your inner Dew but it fails miserably.
Lemon Lime and Diet Lemon Lime--hard to mess up this flavor. It delivers but like Sprite and Seven Up, a little boring.
Dr. Pete--my favorite. Definitely has a Dr. Pepper taste, and the best part of it is no aspartame.
Cranberry Raspberry--Surprisingly refreshing
Diet Grape Fruit--believe it or not, this is the sleeper flavor. It's really good.
Energy and Diet Energy Drink--never getting on the energy drink bandwagon because of the price, I have had enough Red Bulls given out free at RAGBRAI, a bicycle ride across Iowa. This is a great copy that will save you money from the overpriced energy drinks found in convenience store.
BBCW Featured in Politico Article on Mitt Romney and Clear Channel
BBCW was featured on a key piece in Politico about how Mitt Romney's Bain Capital purchased Clear Channel--this countries largest radio broadcast company. The story focuses on the impact this may have considering all the conservative talk radio shows Clear Channel owns.
In 2006, Bain Capital, the company Romney founded and still draws profits from in his retirement, joined with another private-equity firm to buy Clear Channel, the largest radio station owner in the country. Clear Channel owns Premiere Radio Networks, the syndicator of Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck.
“If you are wondering why so many talk show hosts are being so incredibly kind to Mitt Romney, this just might be the answer,” wrote Michael Snyder, who blogs at The American Dream. “In the media world, there is a clear understanding that you simply do not bite the hand that feeds you.”
Clay Bowler, who blogs as Bungalow Bill, wrote that the financial connection between Romney and Clear Channel may explain what he considered the otherwise baffling decision of Michael Savage to throw his weight behind Romney. Savage, whose show is broadcast on some Clear Channel-owned stations, made headlines in December by offering Gingrich $1 million to drop out of the race, writing, “Mitt Romney is the only candidate with a chance of defeating Barack Obama.”
Politico reporter Keach Hagey contacted me by phone on Friday about the Romney/Clear Channel connection.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73281_Page3.html#ixzz1nUUTpwI5
In 2006, Bain Capital, the company Romney founded and still draws profits from in his retirement, joined with another private-equity firm to buy Clear Channel, the largest radio station owner in the country. Clear Channel owns Premiere Radio Networks, the syndicator of Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck.
“If you are wondering why so many talk show hosts are being so incredibly kind to Mitt Romney, this just might be the answer,” wrote Michael Snyder, who blogs at The American Dream. “In the media world, there is a clear understanding that you simply do not bite the hand that feeds you.”
Clay Bowler, who blogs as Bungalow Bill, wrote that the financial connection between Romney and Clear Channel may explain what he considered the otherwise baffling decision of Michael Savage to throw his weight behind Romney. Savage, whose show is broadcast on some Clear Channel-owned stations, made headlines in December by offering Gingrich $1 million to drop out of the race, writing, “Mitt Romney is the only candidate with a chance of defeating Barack Obama.”
Politico reporter Keach Hagey contacted me by phone on Friday about the Romney/Clear Channel connection.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73281_Page3.html#ixzz1nUUTpwI5
Republicans Handed Obama a Victory in the Debt Debate
The Reaganite Conservative posted the above political cartoon in their collection of Sunday Funnies. It's a sad but true perspective about Republican politics in 2012. They gave away the ranch and they will pay come November.
The cartoon shows a pachyderm too afraid to challenge Obama on the debt. The truth is, the Republicans can't challenge Obama on the debt. Thanks to the John Boehner Congress and members like the Tea Party Turncoat Billy Long who voted to raise the debt ceiling while getting minimal spending cuts in return, they took the debt debate off the table in 2012 as they passed the largest debt ceiling increase in history--paving the way for $2.4 trillion more in deficit spending.
It's no wonder you don't hear the words "national debt" inflamed against Obama. The Republicans don't want to remind voters they had a hand in this too. So as the national debt crushes what is left of our Republic, all Republicans have are social issues to convince voters they are more worthy than Obama. How sad is that!
Neither party has proven serious about reducing spending and lessening this burden. They just plan to pass it off to the next generation of Americans.
2012 Daytona 500 Gets an Anti-Romney Flavor: Does NASCAR Dad's Connect With Mitt for Brains
This year's Daytona 500 gets an anti-Mitt Romney flavor. During the race, a word bird--an small aircraft with a long ribbon with a message flying behind it--will provide an anti-Romney message for race fans.
With Romney's boyhood state of Michigan on the line, Detroit autoworkers may help put Santorum over the edge in what might be a crushing defeat for Romney. The bailed out with your federal tax dollars UAW is paying big bucks to have it's anti-Romney declaration heard.
In advance of this year's Daytona 500, one of America's favorite past times, UAW is taking their message to the track and to the air. With 31 of 43 cars racing tomorrow made by one America's big three auto makers, UAW will fly a plane and banner from 10:30-11:30 with Romney's dooming declaration that we should have "let Detroit go bankrupt." The banner - which will read "Mitt Romney: Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" - the same message that UAW delivered outside of Romney's disastrous speech in Detroit on Friday - will fly over the famous track reminding NASCAR and its fans that no thanks to Mitt Romney the Auto Industry is back and here to stay.
Had the country taken Romney's advice, turning his back on the Auto Industry and the millions who depend on it during their darkest hour, what would have become of NASCAR? An American race ruled by European cars? Porches, BMW and Audi's circling the track? NASCAR, like baseball and the American Auto Industry itself, is an iconic part of this country and its spirit. UAW's message to Mitt Romney? Don't bet against us, don't bet against America.
Their press release is just funny. The idea the UAW is building stock cars for NASCAR is just funny. Everyone knows these cars only have a manufacturer's name on them and little more when it comes to the big three. Take for instance Penske Racing who runs Dodge Chargers and Challengers in NASCAR's two biggest series. The bodies are designed in a race shop adhering to NASCAR regulations, and Penske uses Jasper engines in their cars.
I think Mitt Romney is going to have trouble with NASCAR dads period. The haughty liberal governor of a Yankee state probably isn't going to win many fans at Southern tracks that where the Stars and Bars flies proudly. While the UAW's message may affect a few, by the time it flies the beers will be already poured and all fans will be thinking about are three important words. "Start your engines" not "let Detroit go bankrupt."
With Romney's boyhood state of Michigan on the line, Detroit autoworkers may help put Santorum over the edge in what might be a crushing defeat for Romney. The bailed out with your federal tax dollars UAW is paying big bucks to have it's anti-Romney declaration heard.
In advance of this year's Daytona 500, one of America's favorite past times, UAW is taking their message to the track and to the air. With 31 of 43 cars racing tomorrow made by one America's big three auto makers, UAW will fly a plane and banner from 10:30-11:30 with Romney's dooming declaration that we should have "let Detroit go bankrupt." The banner - which will read "Mitt Romney: Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" - the same message that UAW delivered outside of Romney's disastrous speech in Detroit on Friday - will fly over the famous track reminding NASCAR and its fans that no thanks to Mitt Romney the Auto Industry is back and here to stay.
Had the country taken Romney's advice, turning his back on the Auto Industry and the millions who depend on it during their darkest hour, what would have become of NASCAR? An American race ruled by European cars? Porches, BMW and Audi's circling the track? NASCAR, like baseball and the American Auto Industry itself, is an iconic part of this country and its spirit. UAW's message to Mitt Romney? Don't bet against us, don't bet against America.
Their press release is just funny. The idea the UAW is building stock cars for NASCAR is just funny. Everyone knows these cars only have a manufacturer's name on them and little more when it comes to the big three. Take for instance Penske Racing who runs Dodge Chargers and Challengers in NASCAR's two biggest series. The bodies are designed in a race shop adhering to NASCAR regulations, and Penske uses Jasper engines in their cars.
I think Mitt Romney is going to have trouble with NASCAR dads period. The haughty liberal governor of a Yankee state probably isn't going to win many fans at Southern tracks that where the Stars and Bars flies proudly. While the UAW's message may affect a few, by the time it flies the beers will be already poured and all fans will be thinking about are three important words. "Start your engines" not "let Detroit go bankrupt."
Democrats are Now Chanting Drill Baby Drill as Obama's Election Chances Decline with Rising Gas Prices
The sign of ultimate hypocrisy and desire for power in Washington is evident in the latest rhetoric of Democrats. Obviously nervous what $5 a gallon gas prices does for Obama's reelection chances, Democrats are starting to chant drill baby drill.
No surprise, Republicans are reviving their "Drill, Baby Drill" catcalls from 2008, but liberals in Washington are getting nervous and asking President Barack Obama to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a potential panacea for escalating gasoline prices.
So with their power in jeopardy, Democrats are admitting bringing more American oil to market will help lower gas prices. Funny, how when they were longing to be in power, gas prices could not reach high enough highs so they could point their fingers at George W. Bush and the Republicans with their big oil rhetoric. Now when their power on the line, it's time to get serious and work on lowering the costs.
Those who claim Democrats are for the working man need to look no further than this to the see the flaw in their arguments. The only working man Democrats are for are the jobs they possess in Congress and the executive branch.
No surprise, Republicans are reviving their "Drill, Baby Drill" catcalls from 2008, but liberals in Washington are getting nervous and asking President Barack Obama to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a potential panacea for escalating gasoline prices.
So with their power in jeopardy, Democrats are admitting bringing more American oil to market will help lower gas prices. Funny, how when they were longing to be in power, gas prices could not reach high enough highs so they could point their fingers at George W. Bush and the Republicans with their big oil rhetoric. Now when their power on the line, it's time to get serious and work on lowering the costs.
Those who claim Democrats are for the working man need to look no further than this to the see the flaw in their arguments. The only working man Democrats are for are the jobs they possess in Congress and the executive branch.
Mitt Romney Would Be a Liberal's Wet Dream if Only He Was a Democrat
Mitt Romney's wife says Mitt won't debate anymore this primary season. Stumping for her husband Mitt for Brains in Michigan, Ann Romney said no more debates.
"Maybe I should just do all the talking and let him just stand here and watch me," she said. "I've also decided no more debates. If we're going to do another debate, he's going to sit in the audience and watch me. And that'll be it."
Hillary complex already Mrs. Romney?
This is probably a wise decision. After all, if Romney had a D behind his name, he would be a liberal's wet dream touting a record quite similar to Barack Obama's record. Isn't if funny that in 2008, Republicans made the case the mainstream media didn't vet Barack Obama, and in 2012 the Republicans pray the media won't vet Mitt Romney--or at least the public will be too stupid to realize the parallels between the Romney and Obama records?
After all, Romney fought viciously against Ted Kennedy to prove who was the greater friend to a woman's right to choose. He supported key gun control legislation. Pushed for bigger government and approving higher fees (taxes) to support more spending. He pushed for cap and trade, supported TARP, stimulus, and the bailouts. Who can forget he ran the pilot program for Obamacare. Romney would be a liberal's wet dream if only he was running as a Democrat.
So perhaps that's why Ann Romney hopes the Republican primary debates are over.
"Maybe I should just do all the talking and let him just stand here and watch me," she said. "I've also decided no more debates. If we're going to do another debate, he's going to sit in the audience and watch me. And that'll be it."
Hillary complex already Mrs. Romney?
This is probably a wise decision. After all, if Romney had a D behind his name, he would be a liberal's wet dream touting a record quite similar to Barack Obama's record. Isn't if funny that in 2008, Republicans made the case the mainstream media didn't vet Barack Obama, and in 2012 the Republicans pray the media won't vet Mitt Romney--or at least the public will be too stupid to realize the parallels between the Romney and Obama records?
After all, Romney fought viciously against Ted Kennedy to prove who was the greater friend to a woman's right to choose. He supported key gun control legislation. Pushed for bigger government and approving higher fees (taxes) to support more spending. He pushed for cap and trade, supported TARP, stimulus, and the bailouts. Who can forget he ran the pilot program for Obamacare. Romney would be a liberal's wet dream if only he was running as a Democrat.
So perhaps that's why Ann Romney hopes the Republican primary debates are over.
Excuses Made for Romney: But Romney Had to Say that to Get Elected in Massachusetts
I hear a lot of excuses made for Mitt Romney's liberal leanings. As conservatives expose Romney as a liberal, a common rebuttal made by Republicans and Romney supporters is Romney had to say those things to get elected in Massachusetts. I think ignoring the Romney record--which is quite liberal--and not vetting Romney is a dangerous proposition that will cost the Republican party both in the short run and the long run.
Mitt Romney finding conservatism is a lot like a death row inmate finding God just minutes before the switch is to be pulled to send a million volts to the electric chair. Mitt Romney is only a friend of conservative because he wants the power of the presidency. The Romney family going way back to his father George Romney, the former governor of Michigan, have never offered conservatism much. Like George Romney spoke ills of Barry Goldwater and Goldwater conservatism in 1964 leading to divide in the Republican party and eventually Goldwater's defeat, Mitt Romney spoke similar ills of Ronald Reagan.
When you show this clip and others that clearly provides a far distance between Romney and Reagan politically, Republicans make excuses for Romney. "Well he had to say those things to get elected in Massachusetts."
Really?
Why is that? Ronald Reagan never lost in Massachusetts. He carried the state in both 1980...
... and 1984.
There seems to be no reason to distance yourself from Reagan considerably unless like Mitt's father before him, you just can't stand the conservative lessons of Goldwater and Reagan.
Mitt Romney finding conservatism is a lot like a death row inmate finding God just minutes before the switch is to be pulled to send a million volts to the electric chair. Mitt Romney is only a friend of conservative because he wants the power of the presidency. The Romney family going way back to his father George Romney, the former governor of Michigan, have never offered conservatism much. Like George Romney spoke ills of Barry Goldwater and Goldwater conservatism in 1964 leading to divide in the Republican party and eventually Goldwater's defeat, Mitt Romney spoke similar ills of Ronald Reagan.
When you show this clip and others that clearly provides a far distance between Romney and Reagan politically, Republicans make excuses for Romney. "Well he had to say those things to get elected in Massachusetts."
Really?
Why is that? Ronald Reagan never lost in Massachusetts. He carried the state in both 1980...
... and 1984.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Need a War? Just Say WMD and the USA is Ready to Take Up Arms
There were no weapons of mass destruction to justify an attack on Iraq. Oh sure, George W. Bush had a laugh or two as service men and women lost their lives, their faces, their arms, and legs fighting a war of aggression rather than obey the Constitution and using the military for a common defense to expand the American empire.
For the past two months, the USA has prepared for war against Iran chasing a phantom nuclear weapon--a legendary WMD used to justify war with Iran for nearly 20 years. They are so close--so close. Republicans and Democrats hear war, attack Iran, and the chants of U.S.A. U.S.A. roar louder as the security of American Idol is just an hour and a half away viewed in a living room far away.
Now, there is a call to arms again and those familiar initials W.M.D. are once again used as rhetoric. This time the same Democrats who attacked Bush for his WMD lies are now boldly stating the WMD lies themselves to justify war. From Foreign Policy:
The State Department has begun coordinating with Syria's neighbors to prepare for the handling of President Bashar al-Assad's extensive weapons of mass destruction if and when his regime collapses, The Cable has learned.
This week, the State Department sent a diplomatic demarche to Syria's neighbors Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, warning them about the possibility of Syria's WMDs crossing their borders and offering U.S. government help in dealing with the problem, three Obama administration officials confirmed to The Cable. For concerned parties both inside and outside the U.S. government, the demarche signifies that the United States is increasingly developing plans to deal with the dangers of a post-Assad Syria -- while simultaneously highlighting the lack of planning for how to directly bring about Assad's downfall.
Syria is believed to have a substantial chemical weapons program, which includes mustard gas and sophisticated nerve agents, such as sarin gas, as well as biological weapons. Syria has also refused IAEA requests to make available facilities that were part of its nuclear weapons program and may still be in operation.
The State Department declined to provide access to any officials to discuss the private diplomatic communication on the record, such as the author of the demarche Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Tom Countryman. In a meeting with reporters earlier this year, Countryman expressed confidence that the United States knows where Syria's WMD stockpiles are, but warned that they could become a very serious security issue for Syria and the region going forward.
"We have ideas as to the quantity and we have ideas as to where they are," Countryman said. "We wish some of the neighbors of Syria to be on the lookout... When you get a change of regime in Syria, it matters what are the conditions -- chaotic or orderly."
Today, in response to inquiries from The Cable, a State Department official offered the following statement:
"The U.S. and our allies are monitoring Syria's chemical weapons stockpile. These weapons' presence in Syria undermines peace and security in the Middle East, and we have long called on the Syrian government to destroy its chemicals weapons arsenal and join the Chemical Weapons Convention," the State Department official said. "We believe Syria's chemical weapons stockpile remains under Syrian government control, and we will continue to work closely with like-minded countries to prevent proliferation of Syria's chemical weapons program."
It just cracks me up. We funded Saddam Hussein's war against Iran, which chemical weapons were used at the end. We seem to forget that Saddam was an American influence monster just like Osama Bin Ladin--who was trained by the CIA. So really it's like any foreign policy situation proving WMD's only matter when the US needs a new war to expand the empire.
It's no different with Iran. How many billions to we sent to Pakistan. They are dangerous. They have nukes and harbor terrorists like Osama. Yet, Iran, who has not invaded a country in over 150 years has unproven WMDs, it's time to bomb the snot out of them, while Pakistan still gets billions of our dollars.
Seems a bit hypocritical if you ask me.
For the past two months, the USA has prepared for war against Iran chasing a phantom nuclear weapon--a legendary WMD used to justify war with Iran for nearly 20 years. They are so close--so close. Republicans and Democrats hear war, attack Iran, and the chants of U.S.A. U.S.A. roar louder as the security of American Idol is just an hour and a half away viewed in a living room far away.
Now, there is a call to arms again and those familiar initials W.M.D. are once again used as rhetoric. This time the same Democrats who attacked Bush for his WMD lies are now boldly stating the WMD lies themselves to justify war. From Foreign Policy:
The State Department has begun coordinating with Syria's neighbors to prepare for the handling of President Bashar al-Assad's extensive weapons of mass destruction if and when his regime collapses, The Cable has learned.
This week, the State Department sent a diplomatic demarche to Syria's neighbors Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, warning them about the possibility of Syria's WMDs crossing their borders and offering U.S. government help in dealing with the problem, three Obama administration officials confirmed to The Cable. For concerned parties both inside and outside the U.S. government, the demarche signifies that the United States is increasingly developing plans to deal with the dangers of a post-Assad Syria -- while simultaneously highlighting the lack of planning for how to directly bring about Assad's downfall.
Syria is believed to have a substantial chemical weapons program, which includes mustard gas and sophisticated nerve agents, such as sarin gas, as well as biological weapons. Syria has also refused IAEA requests to make available facilities that were part of its nuclear weapons program and may still be in operation.
The State Department declined to provide access to any officials to discuss the private diplomatic communication on the record, such as the author of the demarche Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Tom Countryman. In a meeting with reporters earlier this year, Countryman expressed confidence that the United States knows where Syria's WMD stockpiles are, but warned that they could become a very serious security issue for Syria and the region going forward.
"We have ideas as to the quantity and we have ideas as to where they are," Countryman said. "We wish some of the neighbors of Syria to be on the lookout... When you get a change of regime in Syria, it matters what are the conditions -- chaotic or orderly."
Today, in response to inquiries from The Cable, a State Department official offered the following statement:
"The U.S. and our allies are monitoring Syria's chemical weapons stockpile. These weapons' presence in Syria undermines peace and security in the Middle East, and we have long called on the Syrian government to destroy its chemicals weapons arsenal and join the Chemical Weapons Convention," the State Department official said. "We believe Syria's chemical weapons stockpile remains under Syrian government control, and we will continue to work closely with like-minded countries to prevent proliferation of Syria's chemical weapons program."
It just cracks me up. We funded Saddam Hussein's war against Iran, which chemical weapons were used at the end. We seem to forget that Saddam was an American influence monster just like Osama Bin Ladin--who was trained by the CIA. So really it's like any foreign policy situation proving WMD's only matter when the US needs a new war to expand the empire.
It's no different with Iran. How many billions to we sent to Pakistan. They are dangerous. They have nukes and harbor terrorists like Osama. Yet, Iran, who has not invaded a country in over 150 years has unproven WMDs, it's time to bomb the snot out of them, while Pakistan still gets billions of our dollars.
Seems a bit hypocritical if you ask me.
What Are The Privileges of Being an American, Mr. Geithner?
With a Republican House sent to Washington to control spending, we are learning they aren't delivering. It appears since Republicans helped pass the largest debt ceiling in history, thanks to self-described Tea Party turncoats like Congressman Billy Long, we are quickly racing towards another debt ceiling increase that should have many of these politicians shaking in the boots, or cowboy boots in the case of Congressman Long. The largest debt ceiling increase in history may be matched just before November, which means this Congress would have committed to $2.4 trillion in deficit spending in about a year's time. Way to go Republicans!
Analysts from the Bipartisan Policy Center projected that the United States will hit its $16.4 trillion debt ceiling between late November 2012 and early January 2013.
So Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is making the rounds with a soundbite that clearly upsets me.
"That’s the kind of balance you need," said Geithner. "Why is that the case? Because if you don't try to generate more revenues through tax reform, if you don't ask, you know, the most fortunate Americans to bear a slightly larger burden of the privilege of being an American, then you have to -- the only way to achieve fiscal sustainability is through unacceptably deep cuts in benefits for middle class seniors, or unacceptably deep cuts in national security."
So now the federal government is a privilege generator in this game of class warfare they play to keep the country divided. And what are these privileges Mr. Geithner?
Reading the founding documents, I don't see where any of the founding fathers described the federal government as creating privileges. Yet our founding documents do extend certain unalienable rights granted by God and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which of course people like Giethner are destroying as their policies create more debt, make the dollars we make worth less, and of course infringe of our God given rights.
The federal government was never set up to create privileges. It was set up to keep government out of the way so Americans could create their own privileges by limiting the power of government.
Analysts from the Bipartisan Policy Center projected that the United States will hit its $16.4 trillion debt ceiling between late November 2012 and early January 2013.
So Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is making the rounds with a soundbite that clearly upsets me.
"That’s the kind of balance you need," said Geithner. "Why is that the case? Because if you don't try to generate more revenues through tax reform, if you don't ask, you know, the most fortunate Americans to bear a slightly larger burden of the privilege of being an American, then you have to -- the only way to achieve fiscal sustainability is through unacceptably deep cuts in benefits for middle class seniors, or unacceptably deep cuts in national security."
So now the federal government is a privilege generator in this game of class warfare they play to keep the country divided. And what are these privileges Mr. Geithner?
Reading the founding documents, I don't see where any of the founding fathers described the federal government as creating privileges. Yet our founding documents do extend certain unalienable rights granted by God and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which of course people like Giethner are destroying as their policies create more debt, make the dollars we make worth less, and of course infringe of our God given rights.
The federal government was never set up to create privileges. It was set up to keep government out of the way so Americans could create their own privileges by limiting the power of government.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Obama's Detroit Success Story
During the 2012 campaign, you are going to hear Obama tout his Detroit success story. Obama will claim personal responsibility for making Detroit work again, but nothing could be farther from the truth.
A central theme of the Obama administration has been green energy, and Obama's Detroit centers around the Chevy Volt--a car once promised to get over 200 miles per gallon. Of course it gets an mediocre 35 miles per gallon. The story revolves around how GM and the federal government worked together and still failed, but you will never hear the word failure coming from Obama and Government Motors.
It costs $41,000 to build a Chevy Volt. They sell for an average of $42,000--a lot of money for an average Chevy with average fuel economy. Sales have been weak. Last July, only 125 volts had been sold across the country as GM claimed the cars were virtually sold out. In other words, your tax dollars went to bail out GM so Chevrolet could produce another failure. It gets better.
The government is giving free money way to those who purchase it. When the Volt was introduced, there was a $7,5000 tax credit--money our government is borrowing from China and other places--to entice Americans to purchase the Volt. Recently, because of low sales and the need for Obama to have a Detroit success story, that tax credit was increased to $10,000.
This is the Obama Detroit Success story that you aren't going to hear about. A government owned car company paying people $10,000 to purchase a car, which has been known to be a fire hazard--the next Ford Pinto shall we say--thus creating a huge loss based on GM's profit margin. This is the Obama economy on display at its finest.
It costs $41,000 to build a Chevy Volt. They sell for an average of $42,000--a lot of money for an average Chevy with average fuel economy. Sales have been weak. Last July, only 125 volts had been sold across the country as GM claimed the cars were virtually sold out. In other words, your tax dollars went to bail out GM so Chevrolet could produce another failure. It gets better.
The government is giving free money way to those who purchase it. When the Volt was introduced, there was a $7,5000 tax credit--money our government is borrowing from China and other places--to entice Americans to purchase the Volt. Recently, because of low sales and the need for Obama to have a Detroit success story, that tax credit was increased to $10,000.
This is the Obama Detroit Success story that you aren't going to hear about. A government owned car company paying people $10,000 to purchase a car, which has been known to be a fire hazard--the next Ford Pinto shall we say--thus creating a huge loss based on GM's profit margin. This is the Obama economy on display at its finest.
The Republican Presidential Field Sucks
You know, I don't like Arlen Specter but I have to agree with him. On CNN last night, he said the Republican field doesn't impress him and Obama wins in November. I think he's right.
I don't agree with him for the same reasons on the Republican field. In fact, considering how progressive Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum are, I am a bit surprise Specter isn't doing back flips on CNN. The words Obama wins proves just how badly the Republicans suck this year.
Consider this, Obama pushed the largest three year deficit in the history of this country--over $5 trillion now in just three short years. Unemployment hasn't gone down despite spending trillions on job creation. Oh the media is trying to sell you on the idea we are recovering, but many Americans have simply given up on finding a job and are no longer counted. The numbers are considerably higher than when Obama took office.
Gas prices are skyrocketing ensuring there won't be a recovery anytime soon as Americans will begin tightening down the hatches and possibly canceling summer vacations as gas will hit more than $5 a gallon in coming weeks.
I could go on and on, but the polls show Americans aren't impressed with this field of Republicans who embrace big government over limited Constitutional government. In polls done in the last week with fuel prices rising--Obama wins reelection.
If Republicans lose this election in 2012, it will be because they turned their backs on conservatism once again--like they have so many times since 1964 when one George Romney staged an intra party coup against conservatism and Barry Goldwater. I mean do you know how bad you have to suck to lose against Obama this year? I don't know how else to say it.
I don't agree with him for the same reasons on the Republican field. In fact, considering how progressive Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum are, I am a bit surprise Specter isn't doing back flips on CNN. The words Obama wins proves just how badly the Republicans suck this year.
Consider this, Obama pushed the largest three year deficit in the history of this country--over $5 trillion now in just three short years. Unemployment hasn't gone down despite spending trillions on job creation. Oh the media is trying to sell you on the idea we are recovering, but many Americans have simply given up on finding a job and are no longer counted. The numbers are considerably higher than when Obama took office.
Gas prices are skyrocketing ensuring there won't be a recovery anytime soon as Americans will begin tightening down the hatches and possibly canceling summer vacations as gas will hit more than $5 a gallon in coming weeks.
I could go on and on, but the polls show Americans aren't impressed with this field of Republicans who embrace big government over limited Constitutional government. In polls done in the last week with fuel prices rising--Obama wins reelection.
If Republicans lose this election in 2012, it will be because they turned their backs on conservatism once again--like they have so many times since 1964 when one George Romney staged an intra party coup against conservatism and Barry Goldwater. I mean do you know how bad you have to suck to lose against Obama this year? I don't know how else to say it.
Ann Coulter Needs Rehab: Asks the Question What is Our Problem with Mitt Romney
Ann Coulter needs to go to rehab. She's addicted to the Republican progressive Kool Aid and someone needs to intervene and get the blonde bimbo some serious help. In her column two days ago, she asks the question, what's our problem with Romney and proceeds to make excuses for the progressive Republican.
Her article starts with abortion. That takes guts but it also shows stupidity on Coulter's part.
Romney became deeply pro-life as governor of the aforementioned liberal state and vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. (Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich lobbied President George W. Bush to allow embryonic stem cell research.)
Of course she is talking about this guy...
Romney's stance on abortion changed somewhere around 2005 when he was governor of Massachusetts. It was at that same time rumors began to circulate that Romney was interested in larger stage as residents of Massachusetts soon learned he would not run for reelection and would seek the presidency. In other words, Romney only changed his position because it was politically advantageous.
Yet Coulter attacks the conservatives who bought her books and praised her through the years because we are intelligent enough to realize Romney is a fake. Ms. Coulter, there won't be anymore of your books downloaded to my Kindle.
Coulter's rhetoric gets even worse. Consider this:
Romney pushed the conservative alternative to national health care that, had it been adopted in the 49 other states, would have killed Obamacare in the crib by solving the health insurance problem at the state level.
Who does she think she is kidding? Obamacare is Romneycare is the Republican and Heritage Foundation's alternative to Hillarycare. That's right--the Republicans created the blue prints for the Obamacare law, and she wants to act like Mitt Romney is some savior. Please!
Here's what the New York Post wrote about Romneycare:
In fact, we have already seen the start of this process in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney’s health care reforms were nearly identical to President Obama’s. Romney’s reforms increased the demand for health care but did nothing to expand the supply of physicians. In fact, by cracking down on insurance premiums, Massachusetts pushed insurers to reduce their payments to providers, making it less worthwhile for doctors to expand their practices. As a result, the average wait to get an appointment with a doctor grew from 33 days to over 55 days.
Ann Coulter tries to get away with one sentence paragraphs in her piece like this one:
As governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, Mitt Romney did something even Ronald Reagan didn't do as governor of California: He balanced the budget without raising taxes.
The truth is Mitt Romney raised lots of taxes and increased spending in Massachusetts.
Mitt Romney claims to have cut the Massachusetts budget by "$2 billion." Sometimes he claims he cut it "$3 billion." The media gives him free advertising by parroting this myth repeatedly. They repeat it so often that even some libertarians assume it must be true.
But these "cuts" were merely budget games. Spending cuts in one area were simply moved into another area of the budget.
In fact, not only did Mitt Romney refuse to cut the overall Massachusetts budget, he expanded it. Dramatically.
The Massachusetts state budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003.
When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion – plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took "off budget." (Romney never reminds us of this fact.)
The net effect of budgets proposed and signed into law by Mitt Romney? An additional $5.2 billion in state spending – and a similar increase in new taxes. Every year.
Mitt Romney likes to talk like he's against taxes, but his record in Massachusetts is about pushing all sorts of new taxes. Carla Howell laid out Romney's new methods of taking more money from the people of Massachusetts to pay for his expansion of government.
Romney claims to be anti-tax. He even "took" a "no new taxes" pledge when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. "Took" is in quotes because he refused to sign that pledge. His signature wasn't necessary, he claimed. He assured us that he's a man of his word.
But Mitt Romney has been a champion of new taxes.
Mitt Romney proposed three new taxes while campaigning for governor: a new tax on vehicles, a new tax on campaign donations, and a new tax on building construction. They didn't get much fanfare in the media and were quickly forgotten.
Right before the 2002 election, he ran millions of dollars in ads portraying himself as a "no new taxes" governor. The media refused to set the record straight.
But that was only the beginning.
Each of the four years Romney served as governor, he raised taxes – while pretending he didn't. He claims he only raised mandatory government "fees." But government mandatory fees are nothing but taxes, and taxes are nothing but mandatory government fees. Romney's new tax-fees raised hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax revenue for the state government every year.
He also increased several taxes by "closing loopholes" to enable collection of a new Internet sales tax and by passing legislation that enables local governments to raise business property taxes. This, he claims, is not raising taxes.
Then there is this lie not only spread by Coulter but also the Republican establishment:
The entire NFM (non-Fox media) hate Romney because he is the only candidate who stands a chance of beating Obama.
Recent polls in the last week shows Romney losing to Obama in all but the USA Today Gallup Poll.
Romney's problem is he isn't conservative. He comes from a long line of progressive Romneys like his father who led a coup within the Republican ranks in 1964 to destroy Barry Goldwater's brand of conservative Republicanism. The conservative Republican base understands Romney isn't one of us, which is why Romney hasn't run away with the nomination. So not political thugs like Ann Coulter must insult the base asking what the hell is wrong with us conservatives as she whores herself to the Republican establishment to keep her career as a pundit in tact. (This is how it works--the power comes from pleasing the establishment.)
Coulter ignores Romney supported the Brady Bill and a ban on semi-automatic weapons. She attacks the other two Republican establishment candidates, which gives her just a hint of credibility in the entire piece.
The obsession with sticking it to the Establishment (which includes Christine O'Donnell, but excludes Bill Kristol) by voting for a loose cannon demagogue or a crusading Catholic who can't seem to move the conversation past contraception is as pie-in-the-sky delusional as anything dished by Democrats carrying on about "green jobs."
Those are valid points when it comes to Gingrich and Santorum, but that by no means makes Romney a conservative. Ann Coulter needs rehab. She has drank the progressive Kool-Aid and is delusional in her attempt to sell Romney as the conservative messiah.
Her article starts with abortion. That takes guts but it also shows stupidity on Coulter's part.
Romney became deeply pro-life as governor of the aforementioned liberal state and vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. (Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich lobbied President George W. Bush to allow embryonic stem cell research.)
Of course she is talking about this guy...
Romney's stance on abortion changed somewhere around 2005 when he was governor of Massachusetts. It was at that same time rumors began to circulate that Romney was interested in larger stage as residents of Massachusetts soon learned he would not run for reelection and would seek the presidency. In other words, Romney only changed his position because it was politically advantageous.
Yet Coulter attacks the conservatives who bought her books and praised her through the years because we are intelligent enough to realize Romney is a fake. Ms. Coulter, there won't be anymore of your books downloaded to my Kindle.
Coulter's rhetoric gets even worse. Consider this:
Romney pushed the conservative alternative to national health care that, had it been adopted in the 49 other states, would have killed Obamacare in the crib by solving the health insurance problem at the state level.
Who does she think she is kidding? Obamacare is Romneycare is the Republican and Heritage Foundation's alternative to Hillarycare. That's right--the Republicans created the blue prints for the Obamacare law, and she wants to act like Mitt Romney is some savior. Please!
Here's what the New York Post wrote about Romneycare:
In fact, we have already seen the start of this process in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney’s health care reforms were nearly identical to President Obama’s. Romney’s reforms increased the demand for health care but did nothing to expand the supply of physicians. In fact, by cracking down on insurance premiums, Massachusetts pushed insurers to reduce their payments to providers, making it less worthwhile for doctors to expand their practices. As a result, the average wait to get an appointment with a doctor grew from 33 days to over 55 days.
Ann Coulter tries to get away with one sentence paragraphs in her piece like this one:
As governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, Mitt Romney did something even Ronald Reagan didn't do as governor of California: He balanced the budget without raising taxes.
The truth is Mitt Romney raised lots of taxes and increased spending in Massachusetts.
Mitt Romney claims to have cut the Massachusetts budget by "$2 billion." Sometimes he claims he cut it "$3 billion." The media gives him free advertising by parroting this myth repeatedly. They repeat it so often that even some libertarians assume it must be true.
But these "cuts" were merely budget games. Spending cuts in one area were simply moved into another area of the budget.
In fact, not only did Mitt Romney refuse to cut the overall Massachusetts budget, he expanded it. Dramatically.
The Massachusetts state budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003.
When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion – plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took "off budget." (Romney never reminds us of this fact.)
The net effect of budgets proposed and signed into law by Mitt Romney? An additional $5.2 billion in state spending – and a similar increase in new taxes. Every year.
Mitt Romney likes to talk like he's against taxes, but his record in Massachusetts is about pushing all sorts of new taxes. Carla Howell laid out Romney's new methods of taking more money from the people of Massachusetts to pay for his expansion of government.
Romney claims to be anti-tax. He even "took" a "no new taxes" pledge when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. "Took" is in quotes because he refused to sign that pledge. His signature wasn't necessary, he claimed. He assured us that he's a man of his word.
But Mitt Romney has been a champion of new taxes.
Mitt Romney proposed three new taxes while campaigning for governor: a new tax on vehicles, a new tax on campaign donations, and a new tax on building construction. They didn't get much fanfare in the media and were quickly forgotten.
Right before the 2002 election, he ran millions of dollars in ads portraying himself as a "no new taxes" governor. The media refused to set the record straight.
But that was only the beginning.
Each of the four years Romney served as governor, he raised taxes – while pretending he didn't. He claims he only raised mandatory government "fees." But government mandatory fees are nothing but taxes, and taxes are nothing but mandatory government fees. Romney's new tax-fees raised hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax revenue for the state government every year.
He also increased several taxes by "closing loopholes" to enable collection of a new Internet sales tax and by passing legislation that enables local governments to raise business property taxes. This, he claims, is not raising taxes.
Then there is this lie not only spread by Coulter but also the Republican establishment:
The entire NFM (non-Fox media) hate Romney because he is the only candidate who stands a chance of beating Obama.
Recent polls in the last week shows Romney losing to Obama in all but the USA Today Gallup Poll.
Romney's problem is he isn't conservative. He comes from a long line of progressive Romneys like his father who led a coup within the Republican ranks in 1964 to destroy Barry Goldwater's brand of conservative Republicanism. The conservative Republican base understands Romney isn't one of us, which is why Romney hasn't run away with the nomination. So not political thugs like Ann Coulter must insult the base asking what the hell is wrong with us conservatives as she whores herself to the Republican establishment to keep her career as a pundit in tact. (This is how it works--the power comes from pleasing the establishment.)
Coulter ignores Romney supported the Brady Bill and a ban on semi-automatic weapons. She attacks the other two Republican establishment candidates, which gives her just a hint of credibility in the entire piece.
The obsession with sticking it to the Establishment (which includes Christine O'Donnell, but excludes Bill Kristol) by voting for a loose cannon demagogue or a crusading Catholic who can't seem to move the conversation past contraception is as pie-in-the-sky delusional as anything dished by Democrats carrying on about "green jobs."
Those are valid points when it comes to Gingrich and Santorum, but that by no means makes Romney a conservative. Ann Coulter needs rehab. She has drank the progressive Kool-Aid and is delusional in her attempt to sell Romney as the conservative messiah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Join the Constitution Party!
I Took the Founders Red Pill!
What's Right
-
It's Tuesday... (bonus feel good video)15 hours ago
-
The New America1 week ago
-
Private Lessons1 week ago
-
When Will The SHTF In The USA10 months ago
Blog Archive
- June 2013 (39)
- May 2013 (22)
- April 2013 (20)
- March 2013 (68)
- February 2013 (120)
- January 2013 (178)
- December 2012 (136)
- November 2012 (119)
- October 2012 (158)
- September 2012 (263)
- August 2012 (288)
- July 2012 (138)
- June 2012 (209)
- May 2012 (197)
- April 2012 (192)
- March 2012 (198)
- February 2012 (196)
- January 2012 (221)
- December 2011 (243)
- November 2011 (223)
- October 2011 (84)
- September 2011 (17)
- August 2011 (187)
- July 2011 (464)
- June 2011 (587)
- May 2011 (888)
- April 2011 (441)
- March 2011 (340)
- February 2011 (392)
- January 2011 (361)
- December 2010 (431)
- November 2010 (706)
- October 2010 (658)
- September 2010 (560)
- August 2010 (300)
- July 2010 (96)
- June 2010 (105)
- May 2010 (304)
- April 2010 (565)
- March 2010 (626)
- February 2010 (564)
- January 2010 (779)
- December 2009 (550)
- November 2009 (433)
- October 2009 (256)
- September 2009 (367)
- August 2009 (430)
- July 2009 (317)
- June 2009 (342)
- May 2009 (349)
- April 2009 (363)
- March 2009 (374)
- February 2009 (296)
- January 2009 (302)
- December 2008 (176)
- November 2008 (111)
- October 2008 (30)
