New Year Countdown - New Year Layouts
HERE'S HOPING YOU ALL HAVE A SAFE & PROSEROUS 2010!
THANK YOU TO ALL OUR LOYAL READERS FOR A GREAT 2009!
2010 IS GOING TO BE A HOOT!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
POLITICS ON THE ROCKS "Networking Event Featuring Governor Jan Brewer" on Thursday, January 7 at 6:00pm.
Politics on the Rocks is proud to announce our inagural networking event of 2010 featuring Governor Jan Brewer on Thursday, January 7th 6:00 PM at the Estate House located at 7134 East Stetson Drive, Suite 200 in Scottsdale (directly across canal from Olive and Ivy). CLICK HERE FOR MAP & DIRECTIONS!Come hear Governor Jan Brewer speak about important issues facing Arizona and her bid for reelection in 2010. As the highest ranking female Republican leader in the state, we are honored to have Governor Brewer as our guest speaker at our free event. Join us
upstairs at Estate House for cool cocktails, delectable appetizers, light meals, and networking.
Sophistication meets swank with a mix of plush couches, comfortable chairs, and booths. Subdued lighting on dark hardwood floors, the gleaming bar and ice cold cocktails brings the room alive with upscale 'rat pack' swagger. The Estate House has provided Politics on the Rocks with discounts on both beer and wine.
Just outside, the rooftop patio presents an outdoor Scottsdale evening in style. Luxuriously furnished and heated, you will enjoy sweeping vistas of Camelback Mountain and overlook the lights and action of SouthBridge and downtown Scottsdale below. Join Arizona's largest Republican & Conservative networking group kick off the New Year.
We have many local and national politicians lined up to speak this year.
Please feel free to invite friends, co-workers, and fellow networkers to our free event.
Please visit our website at www.PoliticsontheRocks.com
Facebook RSVP: CLICK HERE
Evite RSVP: CLICK HERE
Obama Gets an "F" For Protecting Americans
Barack Obama gets an 'F' for protecting Americans
By Toby Harnden, UK Telegraph
There is no more solemn duty for an American commander-in-chief than the marshalling of "all elements of American power" - the phrase Obama himself used on Monday - to protect the people of the United States.
In that key respect, Obama failed on Christmas Day, just as President George W. Bush failed on September 11th (though he succeeded in the seven years after that).
Yes, the buck stops in the Oval Office. Obama may have rather smugly given himself a "B+" for his 2008 performance but he gets an F for the events that led to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarding a Detroit-bound plane in Amsterdam with a PETN bomb sewn
into his underpants. He said today that a "systemic failure has
occurred."
Well, he's in charge of that system. The picture we're getting is more and more alarming by the hour. Here are some key elements to consider:
1. Abdulmutallab's father spoke several times to the US Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria and visited a CIA officer there to tell him, apparently, that he feared his son was a jihadist being trained in Yemen. According to CNN, the CIA officer wrote up a report, which then sat in the CIA headquarters at Langley for several weeks without being disseminated to the rest of the intelligence community.
Ben Nelson's Snake Oil
Written by William Warren
Wednesday, 30 December 2009 15:32
With Ben Nelson's Health Care infomercial set to air this evening, let's remember what he did to the state of Nebraska:
Wednesday, 30 December 2009 15:32
With Ben Nelson's Health Care infomercial set to air this evening, let's remember what he did to the state of Nebraska:
%2520(500).jpg)
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Bill O'Reilly names Sen. John McCain the Person of the Year 2009
December 27, 2009Pity Ben Bernanke. He was named Time magazine’s Person of the Year, and the reaction rivaled fish sticks in the enthusiasm category. Old Ben might well be the guy of 2009, but few know who he is or understand what he does. Being chairman of the Federal Reserve may have advantages, but public visibility is not among them.
Here’s all you need to know: After being honored by Time, Ben did not get a call from Oprah.
When you think about persons of the year, the list is short. Perhaps Lady Gaga, Nancy Pelosi or the late Edward Kennedy, who drove the health-care bill. This was not a good year for actual people.
My person of the year is Sen. John McCain. He iced the honor last week when he hammered the insipid Al Franken for being disrespectful to Sen. Joseph Lieberman on the Senate floor. McCain smacked Franken good because the former actor known for playing Stuart Smalley would not give Lieberman a few extra moments to finish his remarks on health care - a major breach of Senate etiquette.
Earlier this year, McCain told the world that the Iranian government was punishing its own people and urged President Obama to support dissidents inside Iran. The president did not, and McCain made a big deal out of it. Good for him.
Also, McCain has been articulate in warning Americans that the new health-care legislation will lead to financial and medical chaos. He may be wrong, but he’s been clear and consistent about his opposition to the bill, giving Americans another side to consider.
So where was this John McCain during the presidential campaign last year?
There are some Americans who now have buyer’s remorse because they voted for Obama. But McCain did not do much to inspire confidence. The former fighter pilot refused to launch aggressive attacks against the liberal positions of his opponent (like government-driven health care), and he shied away from raising questions about Obama’s dubious associations (Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers). If you believe Sarah Palin, she was salivating to make Wright the poster boy for Obama’s campaign. McCain shot her down. (Sorry for the choice of words.)
But in 2009, McCain became unleashed. He used his credibility and visibility to urge the president to commit more troops to Afghanistan and to stop putting America last in his foreign speeches.
Unburdened by expectations, McCain seemed almost gleeful to debate the Howard Deans of the world over fiscal responsibility. He also led the exposure of bribes to Democratic senators to vote for health care. It could not have been easy for McCain to lay out his colleague Ben Nelson of Nebraska, basically a good man, for accepting a unique Medicare deal for his state. If that wasn’t a vote bribe, nothing is.
Thus, John McCain is my person of the year. His ascendancy might have come a little late, but at least we know there’s an honest guy in the Senate who is taking no prisoners. (Sorry again.)
Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor.”
Obama's Real Grade: F
Obama's real report card
By Daniel Greenfield, The Canada Free Press
As Obama's first year in office approaches, his long calendar of corruption and failure flutters its windblown leaves into the abyss of the past. Let us take a brief look back at the full unmitigated ugliness of the Sham in Chief's first year in office- for a proper report card.
The Economy: Obama campaigned on promises to help create jobs and fix the economy. Instead he ballooned the deficit to record levels, failed to create jobs and then lied about it, implemented the same policies he had criticized under Bush, lied about them too, and by the end of the year not only is the economy worse off than it had been under Bush, but the national debt is far higher, the dollar is weaker and America's economic prospects look bleak.
Obama promised to help working class families, instead he burdened them with generations of debt, forced them to make mandatory payments to insurance companies and kept down job growth by promoting "green" projects over shovel ready infrastructure projects.
No wonder that Obama's fall has been hardest among working class families and even black leaders are protesting against his abandonment of the black community.
While Obama has shoveled untold billions of dollars into Wall Street brokerages, green tech companies with no real business model and insurance companies-the same working class families he has promised to help have been left behind and lied to, and worse yet forced to bear the burden of his corporate welfare.
Read More and Comment:
.jpg)
Napolitano Wants to Unionize TSA by Mark Hemingway
Monday, 28 December 2009
From the Washington Examiner:
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano hasn't exactly inspired confidence after proclaiming "the system worked" in response to the recent thwarted terrorist attack. A radical Islamic terrorist -- whose father had warned the U.S. embassy of his dangerous intentions -- smuggled explosives on board a flight into the U.S. and nearly detonated them. It was hardly a victory for Homeland Security. In fact, this paper called for her resignation this morning.
Well, as if that weren't bad enough, Napolitano was already at work undermining security measures long before the most recent terrorist attacks. Over the weekend, Senator Jim DeMint, R-S.C., sounded the alarm about the Obama administration's attempts unionize Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) employees:
The administration is intent in on unionizing and submitting our airport security to union bosses [and] collective bargaining, and this is at a time, as Senator Lieberman says, we've got to use our imagination we've got to be constantly flexible. We have to out
think the terrorists. When we formed the airport security system we realize we could not use collective bargaining and unionization because of that need to be flexible. Yet that appears to be the top priority of the administration.
The flexibility that DeMint speaks of is crucial. After a British airliner bombing plot was uncovered in 2006, the TSA overhauled security procedures in a matter of 12 hours to deal with the threat of liquid explosives. It's difficult to imagine that kind of flexibility under ossified union rules.
The reason why DeMint is concerned about unionizing TSA is twofold. One, the President's nominee to head up the TSA, Eroll Southers, refuses to say whether he would allow collective bargaining. And two, this exchange between Demint and Napolitano earlier this month probably did not reassure the Senator from South Carolina:
Sen. DeMint: My question to you is not whether or not you've seen it work at a state or local level, but the whole point of homeland security and particularly TSA is the security of our -- of the passengers, and if -- in the beginning -- and our debate -- and every previous administrator at TSA has said that collective bargaining is not consistent with the flexibility and the need to change. You were telling us that you're going to collectively bargain, even though there's apparently no reason to protect workers. There's not any reason to standardize various work requirements. Why do we need to bring collective bargaining into this process when we see TSA making the improvements that it needs to make our passengers more secure?
Sec. Napolitano: Well, thank you, senator, for noting the improvements of our -- of TSA and the employee workforce we have there, but again, I go back to the basic point that I do not
think security and collective bargaining are mutually exclusive, nor do I think that collective bargaining cannot be accomplished by an agency, such as TSA, should the workers desire to be organized in such a fashion.
Sen. DeMint: Okay. Thank you for answering my question.
To sum up, DeMint asks Napolitano what reason there is for collective baragaining in light of security concerns. Despite the pleasantries, it's clear Napolitano won't or can't answer the question, even though the safety of American travelers depends on her answer.
Monday, December 28, 2009
A Regime of Resentment By David Nace
12/28/2009 In 1980, Ronald Reagan ushered in a new era of optimism and prosperity. By reducing the burden of taxation and allowing ordinary Americans to achieve their potential, we ended an era of rampant inflation and produced a decade of prosperity. By pursuing a policy of Peace Through Strength, America won the cold war and forced the break up of the Soviet Union.
Contrast this to the policies pursued by the Obama administration. Since January 20th, we have ushered in a regime of resentment. The policies of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid show resentment toward the values that produced 230 years of the American Dream. They resent the fact that America has been a land of opportunity where hard work and personal sacrifice are ultimately rewarded. They resent that Americans are willing to forgo immediate gratification to achieve long term goals. They seek to replace the equality of opportunity that has been a hallmark of America’s success with equality of outcome, the hallmark of failed socialist governments throughout the world.
They believe in replacing the invisible hand of the market place with the heavy and easily corrupted hand of government. One need look no further than the take over of Chrysler and GM to see how these policies really work. Bankruptcy laws dictate that secured bondholders have the highest claim on the assets of a company. However in the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies, bond holders received 29% of their investment while the United Auto Workers, an unsecured creditor, received 78% of their claims and partial ownership of the company.
Each one of the major domestic policy bills introduced by the Administration demonstrates that they resent those that work hard and save. Although, they try to promote “spreading the wealth” as a noble concept, the reality is the policies they promote take money away from hard working Americans and give it to their political friends.
Card Check legislation allows the coerced unionization of thousands of workers without fully informing them of the financial conditions of the pension and health plans they will be contributing to. The health care bills do nothing to enable responsible Americans or their employers to purchase more affordable coverage by allowing purchases across state lines or reducing malpractice and defensive medicare costs. Cap and Trade uses the myth of global warming to impose on energy tax on all Americans to enrich environmental and corporate contributors to the Administration.
Not only do the triumvirate of Obama, Pelosi and Reid reject the American Dream when it comes to domestic policies but they reject the concept of Peace through Strength in foreign policy. We have become the laughing stock of the free world by naively pursuing
policies of accommodation toward the enemies of opportunity and free enterprise. Our allies clearly recognize that such policies embolden our enemies, even if the Obama Administration does not.
The real question is how much damage a Regime of Resentment can cause before it can be ousted and replaced by an administration that believes in the 230 year American Dream and promotes equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.
David Nace is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer for Americans for Limited Government.
.jpg)
ALG Releases Voting Records of 90 Blue Dog and Vulnerable House Democrats
In vote after vote, the Blue Dogs have been all bark and no bite."
– ALG President Bill Wilson
ALG Releases Voting Records of 90 Blue Dog and Moderate House Democrats
December 28th, 2009, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government today released the voting records of some 90 Blue Dog and what it dubbed "so-called moderate" House Democrats on what ALG President Bill Wilson called "some of the most controversial votes of 2009."
"So-called Blue Dog 'conservative' Democrats in the House have long touted their caucus as being fiscally-responsible, but what emerges from an analysis of their voting records is a pack of lapdogs who have voted largely in lock-step with their more radical counterparts in House leadership," said Wilson.
"In vote after vote, the Blue Dogs have been all bark and no bite. Although they had the votes to do so, they have not stopped a single piece of budget-busting legislation in a year that saw the largest budget deficit in American history: $1.4 trillion," Wilson explained.
"By over a 4 to 1 margin, so-called 'moderates' in the House have voted with the bankrupt Pelosi agenda of Big Government," Wilson added.
The analysis shows 856 Yea votes and 207 Nay votes, which Wilson said "was not enough to stop anything."
According to the Blue Dogs' website, "In the 111th Congress, the Coalition intends to continue to make a difference in Congress by forging middle-ground, bipartisan answers to the current challenges facing the Country. A top priority will be to refocus Congress on balancing the budget and ridding taxpayers of the burden the debt places on them."
"By its own measure, the Blue Dog coalition has not succeeded," Wilson noted. "The House of Representatives this year alone has voted to spend more than $3.6 trillion, to nationalize the health care system, to strangle the nation's access to energy, and to bankrupt the Treasury—and yet the Blue Dog and so-called 'moderate' Democrats have done nothing to stop the profligate financial catastrophe unfolding at the nation's Capitol," Wilson said.
Wilson pointed to the record national debt which currently stands at over $12 trillion, as placing an "insurmountable burden on the next generation of Americans." The total debt is projected to top the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2011 at over $14 trillion. By 2020, it will top $20 trillion.
Wilson said that if entitlement spending is not reined in, it will soon half of the entire budget. According to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), entitlement spending as a percentage of budget outlays will continue to increase over the next decade. In 2019, OMB projects that entitlements spending will stand at $2.482 trillion (45.93 percent of outlays totaling $5.403 trillion).
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, by 2050 entitlement spending "will consume nearly the entire federal budget."
Attachments:
"Blue Dogs and Moderate Democrats Voting Records, 2009," Americans for Limited Government.
– ALG President Bill Wilson
ALG Releases Voting Records of 90 Blue Dog and Moderate House Democrats
December 28th, 2009, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government today released the voting records of some 90 Blue Dog and what it dubbed "so-called moderate" House Democrats on what ALG President Bill Wilson called "some of the most controversial votes of 2009."
"So-called Blue Dog 'conservative' Democrats in the House have long touted their caucus as being fiscally-responsible, but what emerges from an analysis of their voting records is a pack of lapdogs who have voted largely in lock-step with their more radical counterparts in House leadership," said Wilson.
"In vote after vote, the Blue Dogs have been all bark and no bite. Although they had the votes to do so, they have not stopped a single piece of budget-busting legislation in a year that saw the largest budget deficit in American history: $1.4 trillion," Wilson explained.
"By over a 4 to 1 margin, so-called 'moderates' in the House have voted with the bankrupt Pelosi agenda of Big Government," Wilson added.
The analysis shows 856 Yea votes and 207 Nay votes, which Wilson said "was not enough to stop anything."
The ALG analysis includes votes on the $789 billion "stimulus", bankruptcy mortgage "cramdowns," ACORN funding, a $108 billion
International Monetary Fund expansion, the Waxman-Markey carbon emission caps, the $2.1 trillion "public option" health system, the $154 billion assistance program for bankrupt states, and the $290 billion debt limit expansion.
According to the Blue Dogs' website, "In the 111th Congress, the Coalition intends to continue to make a difference in Congress by forging middle-ground, bipartisan answers to the current challenges facing the Country. A top priority will be to refocus Congress on balancing the budget and ridding taxpayers of the burden the debt places on them."
"By its own measure, the Blue Dog coalition has not succeeded," Wilson noted. "The House of Representatives this year alone has voted to spend more than $3.6 trillion, to nationalize the health care system, to strangle the nation's access to energy, and to bankrupt the Treasury—and yet the Blue Dog and so-called 'moderate' Democrats have done nothing to stop the profligate financial catastrophe unfolding at the nation's Capitol," Wilson said.
Wilson pointed to the record national debt which currently stands at over $12 trillion, as placing an "insurmountable burden on the next generation of Americans." The total debt is projected to top the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2011 at over $14 trillion. By 2020, it will top $20 trillion.
Wilson said that if entitlement spending is not reined in, it will soon half of the entire budget. According to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), entitlement spending as a percentage of budget outlays will continue to increase over the next decade. In 2019, OMB projects that entitlements spending will stand at $2.482 trillion (45.93 percent of outlays totaling $5.403 trillion).
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, by 2050 entitlement spending "will consume nearly the entire federal budget."
"While the nation is going bankrupt, House Blue Dogs and
'moderate' Democrats pretend that their support for these terrible pieces of legislation is 'deficit-neutral.' They have done nothing to stop the madness, which will only bankrupt the Treasury, destroy the dollar, and saddle American taxpayers without a debt that cannot be paid."
Attachments:
"Blue Dogs and Moderate Democrats Voting Records, 2009," Americans for Limited Government.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
POLITICO MAFIOSO THE WEEK IN REVIEW FOR W/E DEC 26TH
HOPE YOU ALL HAD A MERRY CHRISTMAS! IF YOU MISSED ANYTHING LAST WEEK ON PM, JUST CLICK BELOW TO READ THE ARTICLES:
Saturday, December 26, 2009
HOMERGOPRANO FOOTBALL PROGNOSTICATOR NFL WEEK #16
Friday, December 25, 2009
MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM POLITICO MAFIOSO!
Thursday, December 24, 2009
A Different Christmas Poem
GRIFFITH'S PARTY SWITCH ILLUSTRATES THE DEATH OF MODERATE DEMOCRATS By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Obama Shows Disdain For Christmas
A Sale On Democrats By William Warren!
When legerdemain is used to pass an unpopular bill By: Michael Barone
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
DAY ONE: HOW OBAMACARE WILL ALIENATE AMERICANS By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
ALG Blasts Sen. Majority Leader Reid for Making Health Care Rationing Board Unrepealable
TV Ad: Harry Reid Failed!
How The Grinch Stole Health Care By William Warren
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
WINSTON CHURCHILL: "NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP" By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Obama Tramples Constitution To Socialize Healthcare
Abortion deal may be hard to keep in health bill By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Neb Sen. Ben Nelson sees backlash on health reform plan By MARGERY A. BECK
Monday, December 21, 2009
Brad Marston Speaking at historic Faneuil Hall in Boston
SEN JOHN McCAIN ON FOX NEWS SUNDAY!
The Public Option Endures By Robert Romano
Capitol South 76 By William Warren!
Obama's Copenhagen Boondoggle
Governor Brewer issues executive order about Christmas and Hanukkah
Saturday, December 26, 2009
HOMERGOPRANO FOOTBALL PROGNOSTICATOR NFL WEEK #16
LAST WEEK: 10 - 8
OVERALL RECORD: 155 - 69
THE ARIZONA CARDINALS PLAY THE RAMS SUNDAY IN GLENDALE. CARDINALS HAVE A CHANCE AT THE #2 SEED IF MINNESOTA CONTINUES TO LOSE AND THEY WIN THE LAST 2 GAMES. WOULD GIVE THEM A FIRST ROUND BYE IN THE PLAYOFFS. CARDS STOMP THE RAMS!
Sun, Dec 27, 2009
JAC @ NE PATRIOTS 31 - JAGS 24
HOU @ MIA DOLPHINS 31 - TEXANS 27
SEA @ GB PACKERS 35 - SEAGULLS 0
CAR @ NYG GIANTS 31 - PANTHERS 24
OAK @ CLE BROWNS 24 - RAIDERS 21
BAL @ PIT STEALERS 27 - RAVENS 24
KC @ CIN BENGALS 35 - CHIEFS 21
BUF @ ATL FALCONS 31 - BILLS 21
STL @ ARI ARIZONA CARDINALS 35 - RAMS 21
DET @ SF 49ERS 27 - LIONS 14
DEN @ PHI EAGLES 31 - BRONCOS 21
NYJ @ IND COLTS 45 - JETS 21
DAL @ WAS COWPIES 31 - REDSKINS 21
Mon, Dec 28, 2009
MIN @ CHI UPSET SPECIAL OF THE WEEK: BEARS 27 - VIKINGS 24
Friday, December 25, 2009
MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM POLITICO MAFIOSO!
THE ENTIRE POLITICO MAFIOSO FAMILY EXTENDS TO YOU A SAFE AND JOYOUS CHRISTMAS! WE WISH YOU ALL A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS:
CLICK HERE TO SEE 'WE WISH YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS'
THEME SONG FROM THE BEST CHRISTMAS MOVIE EVER:
CLICK HERE TO HEAR 'CHRISTMAS VACATION' THEME SONG!
Wishing We Had a White Christmas:
CLICK HERE TO HEAR 'WHITE CHRISTMAS'
Since We Can't Use our Fireplaces on Christmas:
CLICK HERE TO WATCH FIREPLACE VIDEO
Thursday, December 24, 2009
GRIFFITH'S PARTY SWITCH ILLUSTRATES THE DEATH OF MODERATE DEMOCRATS By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Parker Griffith's decision to step out of line and refuse to drink the Democratic Kool-Aid illustrates the Achilles Heel of the Democratic regime in Washington: The radical reign of Pelosi and Reid is held up by pillars of moderate and conservative Democrats who come from districts that regularly vote Republican. To survive in these red precincts, Democrats must act like Republicans, advocating a balanced budget, opposing big spending, and fighting against socialized medicine. But, in Washington, Pelosi and Reid use their backing to bring a radical left leadership to Congress.
Once it sufficed for a moderate Democrat merely to vote "no." But American voters are onto their tricks and realize that a Democrat -- any Democrat -- will vote "yes" when his party leaders need it. The unanimous Senate Democratic support for Obamacare shows that there are really only two types of Congresspeople: Democrats and Republicans. All other shadings and adjectives are mere decoration.
The Senate deal-making that produced party unity has gone on in full public view, a vindication of Otto Von Bismark's wisdom in proclaiming that the public should never witness either a sausage being made or a law being passed. We are watching, real time, as moderate Democrats fold for tiny, dirty little payoffs to their states and their egos.
A moderate Democrat is just someone who will demand a higher price for caving into what Reid and Pelosi and Obama want him to do. By focusing on his so-called moderation and hoping for his support, we just drive up his market price and elevate the bribe he will get. (We only know now about the publicly funded bribes these moderate members of Congress are getting. We will learn, as the years unfold, what private commitments were exchanged for their health care votes.
Follow the judgeships, ambassadorships, and cabinet positions to see where these folks land after their voters have thrown them out.) So Parker Griffith realized -- as others will -- that merely voting against the legislation he did not like would not be sufficient to inoculate him against voter anger. To get out of the way of the looming tsunami of 2010, he had actually to switch political parties and become a Republican.
In 2010, voters will realize that their can vote only for one of the two parties. Individuals don't matter. Candidate personalities, preferences, backgrounds, and even ideologies don't matter. Once the smart voter said that he votes for the person, not the party. Now, this once virtuous citizen would be a fool. There is no such thing as a moderate Democrat or a centrist or a conservative or a Reagan Democrat. There are only Democrats who, when the chips are down, will vote as his leaders need him to vote.
Congressman Parker Griffith, the newly minted Republican, is typical of his class of freshmen Democrats from heavily McCain districts. For them to survive, they need to switch parties. Otherwise, they -- and the damage they have done -- will be two year footnotes to history.
Obama Shows Disdain For Christmas
Away with the Manger
By Chuck Norris, WND
I'm willing to bet that President Obama's Christmas address this week will shine with religious significance about as bright as his unusually short Thanksgiving Proclamation, which gave a token reference to God via a quote from George Washington.
Even in Obama's superstar Christmas interviews with Oprah and Gloria Estefan, there were discussions about Santa, Christmas trees, ornaments, gingerbread houses and even their dog's Christmas stocking.
Obama even gave a Christmas shout-out to all Hispanics. But there was not one discussion of religion or a hint of the real reason for the season. Gone are the days when presidents and most politicians publicly rejoice in the birth of Christ. But things were not always this way. As with many of you, I still remember a day even in Washington when Christ was central to Christmas.
It was an America that was far less politically correct - an America that wasn't afraid to stand up for its belief in the babe who was born in Bethlehem.
Here's a small sample of that America represented in personal and public presidential Christmas proclamations and events, as documented in presidential library archives, at White House ChristmasCards.com and by historian David Barton in his treatise "Christmas with the presidents."
Read More and Comment:
.jpg)
When legerdemain is used to pass an unpopular bill By: Michael Barone
December 23, 2009 It's time to blow the whistle on two erroneous statements that opponents and proponents of the health care legislation being jammed through Congress have been making. Republicans have been saying that never before has Congress passed such an unpopular bill with such important ramifications by such a narrow majority. Barack Obama has been saying that passage of the bill will mean that the health care issue will be settled once and for all.
The Republicans and Obama are both wrong. But perhaps they can be forgiven because the precedent for Congress passing an unpopular bill is an old one, and the issue it addressed has long been settled, though not by the legislation in question.
That legislation was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Its lead sponsor was Stephen A. Douglas, at 41 in his eighth year as senator from Illinois, the most dynamic leader of a Democratic Party that had won the previous presidential election by 254 electoral votes to 42.
Douglas' legislative prowess far exceeded that of current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. To hold together his 60 Senate Democrats, Reid simply dispensed favors -- eternal Medicaid
financing for Ben Nelson's Nebraska, a hospital grant for Chris Dodd's Connecticut, more rural health money for Byron Dorgan's North Dakota and Montana's Max Baucus.
Douglas did something far more difficult. He got the Senate to pass a bill some of whose provisions were supported by half of the Senate plus Douglas and some of which were supported by the other half plus Douglas. After passage, Douglas spent a day getting drunk -- a consolation unavailable to the teetotaling Reid.
The issue that Douglas said the Kansas-Nebraska Act would settle forever was slavery in the territories. His bill repealed the 34-year-old Missouri Compromise prohibiting slavery in territories north of Arkansas and substituted popular sovereignty -- territory residents could vote slavery up or down.
We cannot say with assurance that the Kansas-Nebraska Act was unpopular; Dr. Gallup didn't start polling until 81 years later. But the results of the next election were pretty convincing. The Republican Party was suddenly created to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the 1854-55 elections transformed the Democrats' 159-71 majority to a 108-83 Republican margin.
Democrats didn't win a majority of House seats for the next 20 years.
On the health care bill, there can be little doubt about public opinion. Quinnipiac, polling just after the Senate voted cloture, found Americans opposed by a 53 percent to 36 percent margin. Polls suggest that Democrats may suffer as much carnage in the 2010
elections as they did in 1854.
Nor did the Kansas-Nebraska Act settle the issue it addressed. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers fought it out in "bleeding Kansas," and Douglas felt obliged to break with the Democratic administration and disown election stealing by the pro-slavery side. The issue roused a former congressman named Abraham Lincoln to re-enter politics, and he beat Douglas in the popular vote (but not in the legislature) in 1858 and then was elected president in 1860.
A health care bill like the Senate's is unlikely to settle all health care issues either, though the ensuing political struggles will stop somewhere short of civil war. "We aren't done talking about health care," writes Atlantic blogger (and Obama voter) Megan McArdle. "We haven't even really started. Our budget problems are as big as ever, and we just used up both political capital, and some of our stock of tax increases and spending cuts, to pay for something else."
The Senate bill contains provisions that are likely to be revisited. Its language channeling federal and consumer dollars to abortion coverage is opposed, according to Quinnipiac, by a 72 percent to 23 percent margin. Its provision establishing an Independent Medicare Advisory Board and stating that it cannot be abolished except by a two-thirds vote of the Senate is of dubious constitutionality, and even if upheld in a court of law may not pass muster in the court of public opinion. Since when has Congress passed laws that cannot be repealed?
Kansas-Nebraska was an attempt to settle a fundamental issue by legislative legerdemain and political trickery. The Democrats' health care bills are an attempt to settle a fundamental issue by partisan maneuver and cash-for-cloture. As Stephen Douglas learned, such tactics can work for a while, but the country -- and the Democratic Party -- can end up paying a heavy price.
Michael Barone, The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His columns appear Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on www.ExaminerPolitics.com ExaminerPolitics.com.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
DAY ONE: HOW OBAMACARE WILL ALIENATE AMERICANS By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on December 22, 2009Printer-Friendly Version
Obama's health care bill, the poisoned Kool-Aid making its way through the Senate, will not confer any of its supposed benefits on Americans until 2013. But they will find themselves chafing at its restrictions and paying its taxes immediately after the law takes effect. Then, they will see no gain, but plenty of pain, for the next three years.
This odd juxtaposition of "suffer now, benefit later" is the byproduct of the Administration's sleight of hand in specifying ten years worth of cuts and taxes in the legislation, but deferring its benefits for the first four years.
By comparing six years of spending with ten years of taxing, it managed to appear deficit neutral under the rules of the Congressional Budget Office. In fact, the annual revenues fall far short of covering any single year's worth of spending, adding to the deficit for each of the last six years over the next ten, but, viewing the decade as a whole, it appears deficit neutral.
Yet the political price is hardly neutral. Democrats who misguidedly vote for this monstrosity will face immediate political repercussions.
The harshest of these backlashes will come from the elderly who will suddenly visit their doctors and be told "no" when they ask for therapies or treatments. The rationing of medical care will start immediately on enactment and, one hopes, the outraged phone calls will start to descend on those whose votes enabled it.
The first "no" will hit the ten million elderly who now rely on Medicare Advantage to pay for the care Medicare itself does not cover. In a payoff to AARP, Obama gutted this program in his bill, ending over $100 billion in federal premium subsidies. These ten million voters will get the grim news that their premiums are going up and their benefits dropping early in 2010.
The goal, of course, is to force them to drop Medicare Advantage and sign up, instead, for Medigap insurance -- offered, not coincidentally, by the AARP -- which provides less coverage at higher cost.
Young people without health insurance can expect to start writing $750 annual checks to Washington to pay the fines written into the bill. (And, after the Conference Committee finishes its work, the fines may be higher).
All Americans will soon find their insurance premiums rising as a result of the bill. The young, uninsured will not buy policies. Why should they? Why not just pay the $750 fines each year? Why pay between 2% and 10% of their household income before subsidies kick in? It makes no financial sense for anyone making more than $30,000 to pay for coverage. (And most of those under that threshold will be covered by Medicaid, not by private insurance).
There is no reason for the young to buy private insurance.
The legislation requires that health insurers take all comers and not raise rates based on pre-existing conditions. So the young can get coverage when they need it, having only paid $750 per year beforehand.
The difference in cost will, of course, be borne by families throughout America who will see their health insurance premiums increase. President Obama and his Democratic rubber stamps may appreciate that they are not raising taxes on the middle class, just raising mandatory health insurance premiums, but the distinction is likely to be lost on swing voters.
From now on, any increase in health insurance premiums will become the political responsibility of the Obama Administration. As General Colin Powell once said of Iraq "You break it. You own it."
Since these premiums have been rising by an average of 10% per year for more than the past decade, this is a legacy most politicians would sensibly avoid if they could.
Ready To Rebuild Your Retirement - Click Here!
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
ALG Blasts Sen. Majority Leader Reid for Making Health Care Rationing Board Unrepealable
"[O]nce passed, any attempt to remove the health care rationing board will be
deemed out of order forevermore. People are going to die." – ALG President Bill Wilson
ALG Blasts Sen. Majority Leader Reid for Making
Health Care Rationing Board Unrepealable
December 22nd, 2009, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today condemned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for inserting language into the Senate health care bill that would make it nearly impossible to repeal what Wilson called a "health care rationing board."
"The Independent Medicare Advisory Board will become the
Healthcare Soviet—dictating rules, rates and procedures in America's health care system with no appeal. That is why Reid has given it the most protection," Wilson explained.
In the Reid Substitute, under Section 3403 in a section entitled "Limitations on Changes to this Subsection," it states, "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
Section 3403 establishes the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), which would "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending" under the Reid substitute. Wilson said that is "rationing."
"The whole purpose of this panel is to ration health care to seniors, no question," Wilson said.
"To hide that, the bill states that 'The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care' right after it gets through establishing the power for the IMAB to ration health care," Wilson explained.
"This is Orwellian Newspeak of the first order," Wilson declared, adding, "Right in this section, Harry Reid is saying that they're going to ration health care away from seniors, but they're just not going to call it that."
"And then, to lock it in place, Reid goes as far as to require a two-thirds vote in order to amend or repeal the rationing board," Wilson explained.
The Senate rules change was exposed on the floor of the Senate by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), as reported by the National Review Online. Senator DeMint said,
"This is not legislation. This is not law.
This is a rule change. It's a pretty big deal. We will be passing a
new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or repeal the law."
DeMint said that under Senate rules, it should take a two-thirds vote of the Senate to invoke cloture on legislation that contains such rules changes.
And, that, "[A]s the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting."
However, the Senate President ruled that the rules change was not a rules change, but a change in procedure.
"This is completely unconstitutional," Wilson noted, pointing to Article I, Section 5 of the Federal Constitution, which states: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings…"
However, the Senate President ruled that the rules change was not a rules change, but a change in procedure.
"This is completely unconstitutional," Wilson noted, pointing to Article I, Section 5 of the Federal Constitution, which states: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings…"
"Under current rules, the Reid substitute, which includes a rules change making it out of order to amend or repeal a section of
the bill, should require a two-thirds vote in order to be enacted," Wilson explained, concluding, "That has not happened, and will not happen, meaning that once passed, any attempt to remove the health care rationing board will be deemed out of order forevermore. People are going to die."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
