Thursday, July 22, 2010

What Do You Think About This Obama Birth Certificate?

Wait, you did ask a short question, right? Well, here’s my not so short answer: I could expound on this as most conservatives would, but I will say that I think that we are on a train where the conductor, the brakeman, and the engineer (you could use the analogy of these as the three branches of our government) are all in agreement to run the train (our country) completely off the track (our Constitution).

These are the same people that claim the Constitution is a “living document” that can and should be changed at will (theirs), and they are determined to design and implement one to suit their agenda. They do not believe in truth as an absolute – or for that matter, period! Truth is only a perception…. Depends on what the definition of “is” is! So it’s no wonder that they believe a Hawaiian hospital certificate of live birth should suffice as “proof of birth”. Yeah, Hawaii, we all know he was born… the question is WHERE. Our Constitution has a restriction in that regard.


Through ignorance or design, those who agree with the agenda proposed by the Obama Campaign, and now Obama Administration, have succeeded in achieving part of the extreme liberals’ agenda by getting a man elected who refuses to be “transparent” not only about his birth or about his education – but anything about his personal history for that matter.

His offshore birthplace would obviously set a precedent that one does not need to be born in the US to “rule the US”, and is, in essence, the first step in re-writing the Constitution. Breaking down the foundational principles of the Constitution, like this very thing, is what is necessary to begin the total transformation of the United States of America (the only campaign promise Obama really intends to keep). I believe that the “shady way” that this topic has been dealt with is akin to acknowledgement of the fact that he was not born in the US. Further, I believe that a lie or at least a half-truth is being perpetrated, and with that lie they are forcing a perception of what is true for this situation. (I feel a blog article topic of situational ethics coming on! ) Because of bogus “legalities” and roadblocks (read Holder), though, there is no way that there is going to be any serious action taken to clear up the matter until it is too late and the precedent is fully established. And you know what? The entrenched GOP is just as guilty as the Dems, because they run around paying verbal homage to the “birther” concerns and liberal agenda issues, but they don’t really and genuinely care.

It certainly doesn’t stop with where Obama was born. Taking over corporations, banks, and regulating Wall Street make up Step Two, and a big move toward Wealth Distribution. Then Obamacare, Socialized Medicine, is Step Three and takes the US into a Social State….. and so on and so on. So, now we are coming quickly to the end of the track… Nov 2, 2010! The results of the mid-term elections will determine whether we have the same nation that was founded in 1776, in my humble opinion.

Got on my soapbox a little. Sorry. Short answer: I know that I can recreate a document like the one in the picture with Photoshop and a typewriter, plus a couple other tools. The ONLY way to verify its authenticity is to compare Obama’s footprint to that one on the certificate, which he will gladly do to clear up the matter - when Arabs kiss a pig.

Friday, June 11, 2010

President Obama Is Not Being Very Presidential

The President of the United States should be the country's leader. As a leader, he should attempt to represent the entire constituency to the best of his ability and to seek common ground among the varying points of view. I guess it's not news to you or to anyone that what Obama has succeeded in doing through much of his impromptu rhetoric, which may not be exactly what he had intended - or perhaps it is since he is not a stupid person! - is to send the country into a greater schism. Obama appears to be calculating in all his endeavors.

Even after campaigning on a platform of bringing unity, he has created a greater division among philosophical and political groups than ever existed before. In this, he receives support of his cronies and the mainstream media. Perhaps that is why he feels comfortable in being divisive even though he promised during his campaign to "bring the two sides" together. But, how can you call a significant group of your "constituency" derogatory names or "diss" them in public forums if you truly want them to be included in a unified group?

I know that this may be a peculiar claim, but President Obama has spent the last few years (well before his run for the presidency) establishing his own constituency. . . and obviously, it's not the American population at large! It has been evident from Day One of his presidency that Obama intended to establish himself not as a leader of a united American people, but as someone who will use his high office to repay those to whom he is indebted politically and those special interest groups who had financed his rise to the most powerful position in the country (dare I say the world anymore?). I could take up time and space listing all those entities, but we all know of whom I speak. Suffice it to say that he obviously has enormous debts to special groups of far left idealogues with whom he's been closely tied all of his life, and he also has political debts to repay to those within the political circles who heavily backed him in his run for the White House. To what end? I will answer that in a moment.

Rather than giving leadership to his own country, he behaves as a populist trying to "up" his image among national leaders who include the most despicable of despots. By trying to garner favorable standing with that part of the global community, he is failing miserably at maintaining his favor with the US allies; and thus, has strained if not done real harm to the foundation of those relationships. For example, one of our closest allies, Israel, has been treated with total contempt.

On the home front, in his role as leader of the free world, Obama certainly earns a low grade, perhaps an "F", surely nothing higher than a "D-". Many times he has shown he lacks the "class" and maturity that a national leader - yea, a world leader - should possess. Without his teleprompter (or when he goes off-script) he demonstrates a grammar-schoolish approach to handling himself, forgetting at times who he is. At those times, or when he has his "posse" with him, Obama likes to portray the "playground bully", belittling or "dissing" those who disagree with his politics, primarily those with a conservative point of view and who revere the Constitution as it was implemented by our forefathers.

So to what end? Ever the campaigner, Obama appears to be running for the office which is still being sought by former president Bill Clinton, that of President of the World. And, as he did as an inexperienced Senator, Obama is running for that position even before gaining experience in his present one. However, I believe he is finding it not quite as easy to do this time since there are more competitors in play. And too, Obama is finding that he's not "riding as high" as he once was in the polls with those he's supposed to be leading.

It would, of course, be important for him to remain in the good graces of the US population if he is to have any hope of a second term. (Or it may be that he's expecting to leapfrog quickly to that "new office" like he did to the White House!) In regards to 2012 elections, he obviously feels he needn't worry too much about his majority of his base of Democrats and Independents, and even some of the Republicans who "crossed over" (who have, as a rule, suffered from short-term memory loss spanning one to two elections). However, more and more of the independents, and even some of his more moderate Democratic base, are beginning to tire of his avant-garde style of presidency.

Let me remind you with examples from his own words and actions just how Obama shows the lack of character that a leader in his position should have, especially if Obama genuinely intended to make good on the claim he made to bring unity to the nation and peace to the world.

He denigrates the police force, the symbol of civil authority, who are doing their job as policy and laws dictate.

He snubs those who dare to present the opposing side of an issue, or who present both sides in fairness to all: http://tinyurl.com/mgwzbq and  http://tinyurl.com/37stlmm

He resort to name-calling when he doesn't have a legitimate response.

He employs underhanded tactics to push through his agenda rather than listening to the voice of the people and working on a compromise as a starting point to implement change.

He snubs our strongest allies: Canada, the UK, and Israel.

He embraces others with anti-American sentiments: Saudi Arabia (the infamous bow), Egypt the (Cairo University speech), and others (like the infamous handshake).




After seeing these few examples, I ask you this: Is Obama behaving like YOUR President? In my opinion, he's not acting like America's President.

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Obama and Kharsai - The Pot Calling the Kettle Black?

I first started this article a couple months ago, but didn't post it thinking that I would expound upon my thoughts; but even today, it's relevant. So, here goes.

Not too long ago, Obama made a "surprise" visit to Afghanistan to meet with Hamid Kharsai. It was also reported that Kharsai was told that he MUST (and the emphasis here is mine, although apparently it is the underlying purposed of the visit), MUST do more clean up the corruption in the Kharsai government. The old saying of "the pot calling the kettle black" came instantly to mind. If you don't like old clichés, then here's a better descriptor: Hypocrisy.

Here is an example of a "leader" who builds a regime of corruption by implanting and empowering czars to run his government while saying that another leader must clean up the corruption in their government. For example, Obama's czars are neither confirmed by Congress nor elected by the people, and as a general rule, have never experienced leadership in any type of major business, capitalistic venture, or industrial enterprise. However, Obama's czars now literally have control over large portions of the nation's economy (the automobile industry, banking industry, etc.) - let's not mention how the affectation of their decisions have far-reaching implications, impacting the daily lives of ordinary individuals. In fact, Obama recently put 15 more people into important positions while Congress was on a 2-week spring break, blaming the GOP for the timing of his actions. How absurd is that? These positions were not so critical to the function of the government that they could not be put off two more weeks for Congress to have the opportunity to at least put on their "show" of Congressional investigation prior to affirmation. He just circumvented "the old system" with his new one.

So, how is this different from some of the shenanigans that are done in countries like Afghanistan or Venezuela or Russia or, for that matter, any other country where there is supposed to be some form of democratic practices - if only in theory? Rather than standing apart, being " a light in a dark world", being an example to be followed as the US once was, the Omabanation (AKA, the USA) has made enormous steps toward blending in with countries led by thugs, vandals, and despots.

How is being just like other countries that suppress the wishes of the majority of its people a good thing? Who will now be able to hold up a standard against corruption in those countries, or in this one? It will all be the same modus operandi, only now known by different monikers, depending upon which country and which leader. The difference used to be that in this country was the standard-bearer with checks and balances to help limit corruption in its government. However, this administration has made its own brand of corruption the standard from which to perpetuate their "change" while trying to persuade others to conform - but conform to what, the US form of corruption? A rose by any other name!

So, will all this said, and with obvious corruption in his own administration, how can Obama in any form of conscience make demands on the Kharsai regime? There's another quote that comes to mind: "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye', when you fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

While the US is in an obvious downward spiral, morally and ethically speaking (with the corruption which now is more blatant and commonplace at the highest levels of our government), and with places like Afghanistan and others are being touted as "supposedly" on an upward trend (though we've seen no difference in their behaviors), will that mean, again ethically and morally speaking, that our countries will meet somewhere in the middle? If so, the US loses big. Why? Because the US will no longer be the "example" that other countries have looked up to. Where the US once was the country who led the world by example, they now will be "eye to eye" on a lower plane - down in the muck and mire with corrupted countries.

So, there you have my take on it. Simply stated, Obama is trying his best to lower the prestige and moral strength of this country while trying to compel other countries - who, by the way, don't respect his leadership - to behave according to his set of standards for behavior. He suggests that the US should lower its "standards" and compel others to "meet us halfway." Thousands of years of history tells us that this won't happen. So, who really comes out ahead in this situation?

In my opinion, as far as the US is concerned, mediocrity is not a good thing. NOT A GOOD THING AT ALL!

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Obama and Kharsai: "Pot Calling Kettle Black", Ya Think?

So, as reported it is being reported today, Obama has made a "surprise" visit to Afghanistan to meet with Hamid Kharsai. It is also being reported that Kharsai is being told he MUST (and the emphasis here is mine, although apparently it is the underlying purposed of the visit), MUST do more clean up the corruption in the Kharsai government. The old saying of "the pot calling the kettle black" came instantly to mind. If you don't like old cliche's. Here's a better descriptor: Hypocrisy.


Here is a man who implants and empowers czars to run the government who are neither confirmed by Congress nor elected by the people. These czars have control over large portions of the nations economy (the automobile industry, banking industry, etc.) not to mention how the affectation of their decisions impact the daily lives of ordinary individuals. In fact, just this week, he has put 15 more people into important positions while Congress is on a 2-week break, blaming the GOP for the timing of it. How absurd is that? These positions are not that critical that they can't be put off two more weeks.

So, how is this different than some of the shenanigans that are done in countries like Afghanistan or Venezuela or Russia any other country where there is supposed to be some form of democractic practices? Rather than being standing apart, being " a light in a dark world", being an example to be followed, the Omaba-nation (once known as the USA) has made enormous steps toward blending in, being just like any other country that suppresses the wishes of the majority of its people. Who can now distinguish corruption in countries. It is all the same, but known only by different monikers, depending upon country and leader.

While the US is a downward spiral in regards to the corruption that is becoming commonplace in the highest level of government and places like Afghanistan are "supposedly" on an upward spiral, will that mean that our countries will meet somewhere in the middle - but still corrupt in its government? How can that be a good thing? With the obvious corruption in his own administration, how can Obama in good conscience demand better from Kharsai? There's another quote that comes to mind: "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Sunday, March 14, 2010

How Healthcare Works, and Why You Should Care

I haven't been able to keep posting to my blog for the last few months because I found one of those "non-existent" jobs... or rather it found me... and it has consumed all my time and energy. This new job happens to be in the medical field, an area that I have never worked in before. It has been interesting to be on the inside (in light of the healthcare debate now raging!) and to get glimpses of what is really going on. Not only have I learned how to do my job, I have been exposed to the hierarchy of the medical world and can comment more knowledgeably than I once could.

I work for a physician and here is what I have discovered. The physician can only charge fees based upon a CPT code, which is owned by the AMA (American Medical Association). Interestingly, only a small percentage of physicians in the US are actual members of this organization, and I've been told that many of those are in the area of research or teaching rather than actual practice. The physicians are required to pay a licensing fee for the use of the codes. It is also interesting that there are no other options. I believe that is called a monopoly! (By the way, do you remember the backroom deal that Obama had with the AMA EARLY ON in the healthcare debate? Don't you wonder what was negotiated at that time?)

Then there are the insurance companies that come along and create "service networks" and recruit physicians to join the network by enticing them to take less than the AMA's established fees. The insurance companies get that portion of the cut, and I don't know the percentage the insurance companies get, but you can bet your first born that they get quite a lot since insurance companies constitute a large portion of our economy. (And do you remember the backroom deals with Obama on lowering premiums on healthcare. Of course, they would negotiate on that. The mandated purchase of insurance opens up the field for them to get billions more patients into their pipeline!)

Each negotiated network is different, but I believe that you can estimate that the doctor's fees, as ascribed by the AMA, is cut by about 30 to 35%, sometimes as much as 80%, depending upon the procedure. Then Medicare and Medicaid come in and chop the AMA fees right off the top by two-thirds. What I found out over the past few months, especially in regard to the Medicare and Medicaid issue, is that in addition to that original chop, the rates they will pay have been reduced by another 21% from their "regular rates".

What the Obama healthcare plan would do is, in essence, make all healthcare a Medicare/Medicaid program. If doctors cannot make any money at 20% of what the AMA has determined as the fees, what doctor would want to remain in the profession? And where is the incentive to continue their education, to remain current in the latest techniques and procedures. That is expensive and time consuming. They would not be able to afford the staff they need to run their practices. There is a trickle effect in question here the same as there is an any business.

So, as I have been observing the healthcare issue from an "inside vantage point", I am beginning to see that it's not the doctors who are the villains in the healthcare issue, but rather the victims. Of course doctors make a good salary, but it's due to volume of patients, not the cost to the patients, where they receive their salaries. Another thing I've noticed in this particular doctor's practice is that more than 50% of the patients are Medicare patients. His income on these patients in only one-third of what he is supposed to make. (And the government wants EVERYONE in the US on a Medicare/Medicaid-type system! No wonder many physicians have threatened to leave their profession if this healthcare reform is passed. Who could blame them?)

I could go on with the above explanation, but I don't want to make this long and drawn out. It does substantiate what I have said before in my blog, and what I've read in other blogs, the problem doesn't lie in the "healthcare" provided. The US still has the best healthcare in the world. Rather, the problem lies in the system. Presently the system is a monopoly run by the AMA, complicated by the insurance industry, and though I haven't touched on this part of the equation, inflamed by the legal profession who are so eager to litigate and courts who award unreasonable settlements. These are the factors that contribute to the high cost of our healthcare and the issues that really need to be addressed. So, do we want to trade that for a government-run system as based upon the Medicare/Medicaid model, which is broken and corrupt?

In my opinion to mess with healthcare itself is a gross mistake. But what really needs to be addressed, and yea, even fixed, is the problems which lie within the system that behind our healthcare. That's where the greed lies. That's where the problems are. If the US government wanted to, they could get that under control, break the monopoly the AMA has on healthcare services provided, address the tort reform issue, then the whole issue of medical care would be just as the rest of the free market - healthily (pardon the pun) competitive. The GOP has been saying, and people are beginning to listen, that the government isn't interested in affordable healthcare in spite of what they're saying. They're interested in controlling healthcare. Healthcare is one of the more intimate and private areas of our lives. So, we as voters MUST think long and hard about this issue. Do we REALLY want to have the government involved in the most intimate and personal aspect of our daily lives?

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Obama's Transparency - It's Not Clear to Me

I have finally figured it out....

I have finally figured out just what President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid mean by "transparency". Mrs. Pelosi has said repeatedly that this is the most open and transparent Congress to date. How can she claim transparency when there are closed-door sessions where deals are cut with special interest groups and bribes for legislators? I'll tell you what Ms. Pelosi means. She looks right into the eyes of the media and says, "We're going to do this, and it's going to be done this way, by this time, and we won't accept any change or compromise." That's pretty clear.

Harry Reid has his own version of transparency. His transparency is that he tells people what the Senate is going to do (that's the transparent part), then in closed-door sessions he buys a vote or two that will put his plan over, and then ultimately proclaims the success he predicted. Come on, who cannot see what's really happening when senators exchange their votes for millions of dollars for their states? When Senators Nelson and Landrieu took Reid's bribes for their healthcare votes and support, it was well publicized on conservative talk shows on radio and TV, and through conservative blogs on the web. It became really transparent to Americans at that point that what was going on in Washington was "politics as usual" - or maybe on politics on steroids! The audacity of the Democrats was that they believed that they can get away with such underhanded dealings -- even out in the open -- because, after all, they had control in the White House, Senate, and the House of Representatives. Who was going to stop them? Seriously, who can expect real transparency when deals are negotiated behind closed doors, especially when only those of like-minds are invited inside and those holding opposing views are banned from participation in the sessions?

Obama's lack of his promised transparency has cost him in the polls, and yet he still spouts the same old rhetoric from his campaigning days, still tossing the blame for everything on Bush, still holding closed door meetings with special interest groups and congressional leaders, and still has his czars and others with far-left political views in policy-making positions who are not confirmed by Congress or elected by voters. Is that transparency? Not in my book. When Obama campaigned on transparency, the people took him at his word... And why was that? Because that would truly be the promised change and hope for a new way for Washington to operate. Who wouldn't vote for that? Only it hasn't happened - and it won't under THIS administration, for sure!

We were forewarned by deeds rather than words. Obama certainly didn't display any transparency during the campaign.... not about his collegiate career, college applications and transcripts; not by producing his actual birth certificate, not by explaining how he traveled about the globe as an unemployed individual of non-existent means, and other things - things that could be easily produced and would end the suspicions and speculations once and for all, assuming he really wanted to be transparent!

How can Obama proclaim his administration is transparent when there are special considerations for individuals and certain groups, and when what should be public information is hidden from the public? Again, what about the campaign promise of transparency, of the CSPAN-televised negotiations on healthcare reform which never materialized? In fact, Obama has laughingly shrugged that one off as a "just one of those many campaign promises politicians make" - and as everyone knows ALL campaign promises can't be kept, right? At this point, it's pretty obvious that we will never see the kind of transparency we had hoped for from this Administration or from Congress. Rather, the type of transparency now being promoted is the transparency of some of our national secrets under the guise criminally trying enemy combatants in our federal courts - the kind of transparency that can cost us our national safety - or de-classifying important documents and publicizing interrogation techniques used on terrorists. Just who is that transparency for?

As I've pointed out previously, Democrats say there is (by their own definitions) transparency in our government. I have noticed, though, there are some differences in the "applied definition" of transparency between the Legislative and Executive branches. The Obama White House tends toward (unintended) transparency where the various members of Obama's staff inadvertently reveal things simply because the players can't keep their stories in synch - or their mouths shut. The Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House do their "dirty" dealings behind closed doors, usually with a group of like-minded persons, and try to come up with a more palatable way of force-feeding their "transparency" to the voters. (Occasionally, politicians seeking the limelight will spill some beans though. I happen to be thankful that at least this kind of transparency has occurred because it has made for a wiser American public.)

Perhaps the differences between the White House and Congress "transparency successes" are because the Legislative branch happens to have had a lot more experience with "covert transparency" than the intellectuals and academics who are presently making up the Executive Branch and staff. Congress is full of professional politicians. The White House is amateurish on governing in this way, having their strength in organizing groups. However, because of the closer scrutiny by those on the right, and even independents, who have their eyes and ears open, both branches have come up short on executing their types of transparency.

For instance, remember the healthcare bill and the people who went to townhall meetings to express their opposition to HR 3200 and make their concerns known? When it came time to literally push through controversial legislation on healthcare that apparently was in direct opposition to the wishes of the majority of the American voters (you'll recall the uproar of the summer and fall townhall meetings!), Pelosi and Reid showed a surprising lack of understanding of the tenor of the public's sentiment and their grasp of what the bill actually contained. But they made no bones about what they were going to do .... that's their transparency! They had dismissed the fact that the voters were becoming more educated on the issues and beginning to become active in the process by using their freedom of speech to contact their legislators and following the examples of other grass roots organizations to come together. The conservative and independent voters have educated themselves on the issues as well as having gained a better understanding of "the game" of politics. While these newbies to politics began paying close attention to the activities of their legislators, they are also began to groom their own to rise up to replace those entrenched and out-of-touch members of Congress.

The legislators dismissed the American people and the subsequent polling that resulted from the discontent. However, with the strong showing in NYC 23 and with Scott Brown's senate seat win, there is a transparent national "routing out" of those who do backroom deals or who refuse to listen to their constituents. One only has to read the handmade placards at the rallies and look at the polls to see this is true. Concerned Americans are being transparent in their plans to unseat those who are not listening to the people who sent them to Washington. The people are outraged that their own legislators don't read the bills they are voting on, or even know what was in them. Yet the legislators will still push for a bill's passage while the people are aggressively telling them no! The people have had enough.

The biggest mistake made by the Democrats, which will cost them dearly in the mid-term elections is that they wouldn't consider that the emotion which was demonstrated in the townhall meetings was genuine, and that it would still rage strong or be as widespread this long. The people, who had placed their hope in the promises of transparency and openness and of a different Washington than previous administrations, were transparent when they expressed their concern all summer and fall. They had grown tired of Washington's favors and bribery, and they were expressing strong opposition to the Democrats' type of "transparency", yet they got more of the same.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the polls now reflect a sharp downturn for long-time incumbents who are up for relection in 2010. (Just as a reminder, it's not just Democrats who will find the going rough. Some Republicans should watch themselves as well.) Recently, public backlash has prompted several prominent, long-term, entrenched Democrats to"called it quits" rather than run for re-election and face certain defeat, and why? Perhaps they've seen the "handwriting on the wall". Or, as Rep. Snyder (D- AR) said, "I want to spend time more with my family". Perhaps they've come to realize that there really IS a grassroots movement -- NOT the "astroturf", as Nancy Pelosi called it -- that has taken hold and spread all across this nation and it will affect real change in our government and restore hope to American citizens.

When people have banded together in groups called "tea parties" and have an announced agenda of becoming politically savvy and involved for the purpose of routing out the politicians who don't really care about preserving the principles upon which this country was founded, but rather make a political career for themselves, I call this a type of transparency, too. Don't you?

The Scott Brown win has the Democrats scrambling to "embrace" the other side of the aisle, but they're still missing the transparency issue. They want the Republican "participation" but they don't want to hear Republican input! What they all should be doing is listening to the people! We'll see what happens over these next few months until the next election. At this point, though, what the Democrats are doing is pretty clear and transparent to me - more political games, not more transparency!

Saturday, February 6, 2010

UPDATE on the Reuter's Article That Was - Wasn't!

See my posting on 2/2/10 http://tinyurl.com/yjgrkg6 . It has now been reported that the person who wrote the article that was taken down almost immediately is longer with Reuters - under unknown circumstances. Terri Cullen, wrote an article that wasn't favorable at all to the way the Obama Administration has broken out how his social programs will be paid for. How this information was obtained isn't clear, but the article in question, which is no longer available on Reuters, was removed with supersonic speed (though some of the article has been reposted on blogs and elsewhere) amidst speculation that the White House ordered it removed. Why? Because it reveals that every working American will see a significant increase in the income taxes they pay. That is a direct and flagrant about-face from the campaign promises Obama made... and one of the main reasons that MOST of the Americans who voted for him gave him their support. Indeed, most of the people who supported Obama were the working middle class, the very ones who will shoulder the bulk of the cost of his programs -- and the trillions and trillions of dollars of debt.


I don't claim that this is MY interpretation of policy as presented by the Obama Administration. I'm just saying that anyone who can add 2 and 2 and come up with 4 should be able to see that money has to come from more than just the very small percentage of "wealthy" to pay for all this spending the Obama Administration is bent upon. Thus, I am issuing this statement as Liza Doolittle did: Just you wait, 'Enri Higgins', just you wait!" Just don't let it be too late before you wake up to the fact - WE ALL WILL BE PAYING HIGHER TAXES - very soon!

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Obama’s Promises to Not Raise Taxes on Middle Class – YOU LIE!

If you were actually stupid enough to believe what Obama promised as far as who was going to pay for all this socialist programs, you will VERY SHORTLY be feeling the full impact of your stupidity. Why? Because YOUR taxes are going up. Yes, YOURS! And you probably aren't in the bracket of $250,000 annual income bracket. Check this out.... and see who's going to be financing Obama's programs: Taxes are on the rise.

The White House, I'm sure, didn't want this information out. They haven't even constructed their political "spin" yet to "sell it to the masses." However, Reuters put out an article from which the information in the link above comes. But mysteriously, the article was immediately pulled. This is not the FIRST time that some unfavorable reporting on what's really going on with this Administration has been squelched. Who's pulling the plugs on these news items - and more importantly, WHY? It would stand to reason that it's probably because the Obama administration has seen what happens when concerned citizens find out the truth and share it with one another. They get angry. They get together. They make a difference. And they put the brakes on those runaway programs. A case in point is what happened to Obamacare.

So, now that you have read what lies ahead for your tax situation, share that information with others and let's see what will happen when concerned Americans take on Obama's agenda once more.

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Political Shenanigans, Like Executive Orders, Can Mean a DECISIVE Change in Direction for USA

Shenanigans! That's a word used by then Senator Obama on the campaign trail when he accused the opposition of trying to impose their own political "rules of game". Now, this NOT to say that both sides of the political aisle don't employ their own brand of shenanigans; after all, that IS politics! But as it has been revealed since January 20, 2009 we have seen shenanigans that have been unprecedented in American History under this administration. And our Commander in Chief - commands the game of shenanigans.

Does ANYONE have any idea how many executive orders have been signed by our current president? The president does not have explicitly stated constitutional authority for executive orders, however, there is a vague statement regarding "executive power" found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and could be corroborated by the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. Regardless, US presidents have used these Constitutional "reasonings" for assuming the authority to issue their executive orders while declaring these orders to be a part of the President's sworn duties. Humbug! (Sorry, still in the holiday frame of mind, I guess!)

There are approximately 38 executive orders (not counting executive orders WITHIN those executive orders) that Obama has implemented in just under one year in office. If you are interested to know the scope of their impact, here they are from the National Archives website http://tinyurl.com/yedxj4j.

As you probably would expect, critics have suspected presidents, and particularly the current one, of abusing their use of executive orders to make laws without Congressional approval, which is our national check and balance system -- if not actually MAKING laws through the executive order, and of moving existing laws further away from their original intent or mandates.

But I'm not going to try to convince you of how biased toward the left's agenda President Obama's executive orders are. I will let you take a look at them and make a determination for yourself. One thing I would challenge you to do is examine how close to center - which is what reflects the views of the majority of Americans - these executive orders fall politically in their scope of political perspective. What concerns me is that this President's executive orders are an insidious way for the liberal agenda, particularly the ideals of the far left, to be implemented and to become common place in our country without the benefit of representation of or input from the citizens. You and I do not have ANY say when it comes to these executive orders - and particularly insidious are the ones that change the way our laws will be interpreted and/or implemented going forward.

When I was thinking about this topic in light of the vacations Obama has taken in his first year, I would have to say that he probably IS tired.... tired from remaining on the campaign trail since very early in 2007, tired from running around the globe making his apologies for his perceived "America's evils", tired from traveling to accept awards that he really has not earned, tired from spending the trillions upon trillions of dollars that our nation DOES NOT HAVE or WILL NOT HAVE for the next several generations (unless we print worthless paper!), tired from signing executive orders that implement many policies that should be put before the public prior to implementation.

This year, however, concerned people from both sides of the political aisle, who see that things aren't what they thought they would be under this president, and those who are attending the tea parties who are fed up with the political parallels that exists in the two parties, will have a chance to make a profound statement with the mid-term elections. I suspect that it's not going to be a simple swing back toward the right by just putting Republicans in office. Rather, I believe we may see, not a new party per se, but more of a vote for the individual candidate's ideals. those which reflect the founding principles of this country. And I pray that we see the thing that we have all been clamoring for come about by 2012 -- term limits for our national representatives. Term limits could be the best protection for the ideals and values that most Americans hold dear.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Tareq and Michaele Salahi Attend Dinner by Obama's Executive Order

With today's reality show wanna be's, it's easy to jump on the band wagon of accusations when someone turns a public or media event into a faux pas. When, Tareq and Michaele Salahi recently appeared at an important White House Dinner, it was said that they were looking for publicity for a possible reality show, or perhaps a book, or maybe both. Adding to the mystique was Michaele's reported gushing to her hair dresser of her invitation to the dinner, but somehow she was never able to produce that invitation - especially at the White House when they arrived!

Well, that was enough to set tongues a waggin'. Who had allowed this "security breach"? Was it the fault of the White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers? Was it the fault of the Secret Service? The Salahis insisted they were invited and not "party-crashers", so who had actually invited them? Where was that mysterious invitation? Were these people really able to slip through the tightest security known to the US?

Here's something I want you to look closely:



Look at the expression on Obama's face. This is not his normal "formal" smile that he uses when saying, "Hi, how are you?" to people he's not familiar with. In fact, the expressions on all three of their faces suggest that they are sharing some intimate information.

Now, the buzz has been about how these people could get into this event with no formal invitation. No one is confessing to having any knowledge of them being on the guest list. Again, they haven't produced that formal invitation that everyone was required to have and they weren't on the list that had been approved and cleared for attendance.

Now, look at this picture VERY CLOSELY:



Just who is that guy in the center? Who is that man in the white jacket? Who is the blonde on the right? Hmmmm. This picture was taken at a fashion event in 2005 when Obama was a Senator.

It's obvious that this couple who are under suspicion of "crashing" a White House dinner event, weren't strangers to the occupants of the White House. So, if it wasn't any of the White House staff who approved their attendance, and the Secret Service let them it - it obviously had to be by EXECUTIVE ORDER!

Again, when you "hear" the campaign rhetoric from Obama echoing in your ear about transparency and everything above board, add this incident to the multitude of "behind closed doors, back-room deals, etc.

Face it, America. We've been hoodwinked by a pathological liar who lives by his own devised set of rules of conduct and propriety while governing by a totally different set. The old political machines of which we had all grown tired have given way to a newer, but much more insidious one - and it's rolling over us at an alarming speed.

I'm asking you to judge someone by their actions, not their words. Make your decisions based upon facts, not emotions. In regards to our national and even our local leaders - particularly the ones who have been in office a while - evaluate what they have done and are presently doing that isn't in agreement with what they have proclaimed they would do. Don't listen to their promises, because as we have found from this last election, politicians will say whatever it takes to keep their positions of power - and they have shown, especially this year, that they have no intention of listening to the people they are supposed to represent.

Remember, too, that all of them, including the President, are employees of We the People! Therefore, as their employer, we must demand that they do what we want - that being open and transparent - or risk being fired and replaced with someone who will. We will have a chance in the near future to drive this point home.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Obama Opens US Courts to the "Citizens of the World"

As you are probably aware, President Barack Obama claims himself a citizen of the world.  Not only does he view himself as a citizen of the world, but he views the world as citizens of the United States, with the same rights to US housing, US financial aid, US protections, US freedoms, et al, as any natural born or naturalized citizen.  In fact, he has ordered the military to Mirandize the enemy in the throes of war.  That's insane!  The Miranda warning is a right for US citizens, to give them protection against making incriminating statements against themselves.  It never was - and should never be - intended as blanket protection for all people of the world, anywhere in the world, and especially in time of war - for our enemies!

People with half a brain should know that before the US declared war on the terrorists, war was declared on the US by the terrorists.  Their actions were notched up way beyond what could be called civil disorder, way beyond a protest against major socio-political or religions positions.  They slaughtered thousands of innocents with their carefully orchestrated attack on the US.  Their actions should strongly suggest to Obama and his other Progressive/Liberal cohorts that the terrorists established the rules - the rules of war - and that they did not perpetrate a civil crime as of one US citizen against another US citizen, and therefore should be treated and tried differently - by the conventional rules of war, and not in civil courts.

I found this blog while scrolling through Blogsurfer.  I hope they don't mind me using it here because it demonstrates the Obama Administration's version of the Miranda Rights for our enemies at Gitmo and those on the battlefield:

FEDFILTER

"Post-War on Terror” Miranda Rights - Posted in In the News by tymothyson on November 19, 2009

"You have the right to remain silent or shout any obscene, blasphemous religious propaganda you may want. Anything you say or do could, but will not be used against you in a court of military law. You have the right to a[n] civilian attorney who could leak information to terrorist cells outside of your terrorist jail cell, though you should really be tried as an enemy combatant war criminal and never again see the light of day. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you as part of the $75-100 Million of our tax dollars to move your keister from Gitmo to the land where our fathers died. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you? Of course you don’t, you didn’t even have to learn English to take up residency on the dole, plant a dirty bomb, or get a license to fly a jumbo jet.

“If you are not a United States citizen, you need not contact your country’s consulate prior to any questioning because we will treat you like one anyway.”

Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder sees Al-Qaeda in the same light as Obama.  He has made it abundantly clear that he plans to try five of the main Gitmo terrorists/detainees as if they mugged an old lady in Central Park. 

Our laws require that accused US citizens be tried before a jury of their peers.  WHO, then, are the peers of these men, these non-citizens?  Holder himself said that if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed pleads guilty and testifies the same as he has before, Holder can guarantee a conviction.  What conviction?  He's an enemy combatant and has admitted to his role in the planning of the 9-11 attack.  He declared jihad against the US... that's a declaration of war!

Further, Holder is also getting pressure from Germans that the testimony they may contribute during the trial not be used if the prosecution plans to seek the death penalty.  So, has Holder created his own Catch-22?  If KSM and the four others are given life in prison, what prison will they be sent to?  If in the US, the US citizens will pay again for the crimes of this man by providing him with three squares (a special diet by the way) special prayer times, and more civil rights that most US citizens exercise in their lifetime -- for the rest of his!

In another instance, Navy seals are being prosecuted for bloodying the lip of another terrorist/enemy who is known to be responsible for the atrocious murders and abuse of the corpses of four civilian US security personnel in Iraq.  Now, during declared wartime, every action of military personnel is under the microscope of liberal interpreters, and the enemy is afforded US Citizens rights when they aren't US citizens, it's NOT war anymore - it's insanity!

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Send Thanksgiving Message to These Democrats for Healthcare Sell Out!

Many thanks to Redstate.com for this information.   Take this information, and let your Senators know that they should be especially thankfully this Thanksgiving holiday for the career that they once HAD in the Senate.  Adios, Amigos y Amigas!

Below is a list of the Democratic Senators up in 2010, and the email contact links for each of their offices:


Bayh, Evan - (D - IN) Class III 131 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5623 Web Form: www.bayh.senate.gov/contact/email/

Bennet, Michael F. - (D - CO) Class III 702 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5852 Web Form: www.bennet.senate.gov/contact/

Boxer, Barbara - (D - CA) Class III 112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-3553 Web Form: www.boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm

Burris, Roland W. - (D - IL) Class III 387 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-2854 Web Form: www.burris.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Dodd, Christopher J. - (D - CT) Class III 448 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-2823 Web Form: www.dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130

Dorgan, Byron L. - (D - ND) Class III 322 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-2551 Web Form: www.dorgan.senate.gov/contact/contact_form.cfm

Feingold, Russell D. - (D - WI) Class III 506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5323 Web Form: www.feingold.senate.gov/contact_opinion.html

Inouye, Daniel K. - (D - HI) Class III 722 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-3934 Web Form: www.inouye.senate.gov/Contact/Email-Form.cfm

Leahy, Patrick J. - (D - VT) Class III 433 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-4242 Web Form: www.leahy.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Lincoln, Blanche L. - (D - AR) Class III 355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-4843 Web Form: www.lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Mikulski, Barbara A. - (D - MD) Class III 503 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-4654 Web Form: www.mikulski.senate.gov/Contact/contact.cfm

Murray, Patty - (D - WA) Class III 173 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-2621 Web Form: www.murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm
Reid, Harry - (D - NV) Class III 522 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-3542 Web Form: www.reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Schumer, Charles E. - (D - NY) Class III 313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-6542 Web Form: www.schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contact.cfm

Specter, Arlen - (D - PA) Class III 711 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-4254 www.specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Wyden, Ron - (D - OR) Class III 223 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5244 Web Form: www.wyden.senate.gov/contact/

Obama's Plan to Spread the Wealth -- TO THE WEALTHY!

According to Edmunds.com, 690,000 Americans took advantage of the Cash for Clunkers Program.  Under this Obama brainfart, it cost the taxpayers $24,000 for EACH one of those cars.  Remember the head-slap "I coulda had a V-8?  Well you, too, could have had at least a V-6 -- along with all the other folks who got their new cars if you'd been given your OWN money to spend!

So, my point here is that SOMEONE took some of your wealth and gave it to someone else!  AHHH--- that would be Obama's promise to Joe the Plumber when he said he thought that spreading the wealth around would be good for everyone.  Well, was it good for you?  Seriously, who got that $24,000?  It wasn't the car dealers.  Some of them are still awaiting their money from the government to cover the rebates given to those who purchased the cars... So, WHO got that money?

We're all, by now, familiar with the fact that the reported "jobs saved or created" numbers that have been posted on the recovery.com site are absolutely false.  I'd like someone to PROVE that any job was actually saved due to the economic strategies of the Obama Administration. They like to use the nice round number of one million jobs, even though it's much, much less than that.  But we'll go with data the Obama administration has posted, just for the sake of this argument. 

The Administration says that they've created and/or saved one million jobs and they spent $160 billion doing it.  That means that government had spent  paid $160,000 on each job.  Hmmm.  Will someone please introduce me to the person who got a job created by the stimulus with a starting salary of $160,000?  The Obama Administation likes to say that some of the jobs saved are "the waitress who's still on the job," --  as Joe Biden himself used this example.  (I'd like to meet the waitress who makes that kind of money!)

In fact, Jared Bernstein, chief economist and senior economic advisor to Vice President Joe Biden says that the cost per job was more like $92,000.  So, even if the "shovelers" on the shovel-ready jobs, and the waitresses, and teachers, or whoever, got $92,000 on average, and didn't actually get their fair share of that $160,000 average - WHO did?

Are you beginning to get the picture?  The Obama Administration has borrowed billions upon billions of dollars in only 11 months in office.  And only a small portion of that money has trickled down to the people who are hurting and need to work.  Millions, if not billions have been documented as wasted - mostly in million-dollar chunks that include rebates to the long-dead, rebates to prisoners, yada, yada..... 

I CAN tell you where jobs were actually created. There are 30-some-odd czars and they have sizeable staffs. There are innumerable advisors and expanded staff roaming the White House halls on any given day.  All the czars make at least high six-figure incomes. Their operating budgets/expenses have not been made public. But just their combined salaries run in the millions of dollars. Government is the sector where the greatest amount of job creation has taken place.

Where is the rest of it going, though?  Is it going to some middleman?  To some corporation (cash for clunkers) perhaps?  To local governments (shovel-ready projects) perhaps?  To banks (bailouts) perhaps?  To financial insurers (AIG) perhaps? 

Out of the "Dollars" Obama is getting from China, he's sending "pennies" down to the the people.  And the wealth of our nation is being re-distributed to the wealthy GROUPS .  The "have nots" NEVER have gotten theirs... just look at all cultures and civilizations throughout history.  So, if you're looking for your share of Obama money!  Don't hold your breath! 

Friday, November 20, 2009

"Lousiana Boudin" in the New Senate Health Care Bill

Pork, whether it's negotiated for or not, is pork.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is desperate to get his necessary votes for his health care bill to make it onto the floor of the Senate and be passed on Saturday.  In order to get all his democratic senators in lock-step, he has decided to resort to bribery.  According to Bloomberg.com,  "Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu (D), one of three lawmakers being wooed by Senate Democratic leaders to back health-care legislation, won the inclusion of an extra $100 million in federal aid for low-income people in her state."

Was the same consideration given to the Arkansas Senator, Blanche Lincoln?  No, not that has been made known yet anyway.  However, it's bribery to include such "favors" in turn for a single vote needed on Reid's "pet project" -- and it's pork!  More importantly it's wrong.  PLUS it's plain stupid to make it so very obvious!

The American people have finally become aware of the shenanigans that go on in Washington all the time.  This type of behavior is so commonplace that all the players in Congress simply ignore it, turn blind eyes to it and consider it usual legislative activity, but it's appalling to ordinary citizens.  However, Americans aren't likely to grow numb to the "pay to play" tactics or the bribery tactics that the House and Senate are using routinely, because they know that if normal American citizens conducted their businesses and personal dealings in like manner, they'd be imprisoned for bribery and other felonies.

Why won't the politicians wake up to the fact that their constituents are onto their games, and it's not going to be "politics as usual" anymore.  Politics isn't the same as it used to be.  Americans are more educated, becoming more involved in government, and demanding accountability from their representatives.  If Congress members don't wake up to that fact, then perhaps in 2010 and 2012, when corrupted House and Senate members are removed from the premises, they'll finally understand that Americans really are mad as hell and not going to take it any more!

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Obama's Fuzzy Math

I don't think anyone should be in the least surprised about the arbitrary (kindest word I could think of) numbers that are thrown around by Obama and his administration.

I mean, after all, during his campaign he said he visited ..... let's see how many states was it he said?



And how many jobs does his administration say they've saved with the Stimulus Package I?

It is obvious that the only long term jobs (or positions) that have been created are those he created in government. Most jobs that have been "created" on "main street America" are mostly temporary jobs and/or short-term project work. Yet, the Administration's website touts large numbers from mystical congressional districts all over the country that simply do not exist.... just like the promised jobs!  Each of these jobs cost you the taxpayer an average of $173K. And if a worker made as much as $53K for this job, where did the other $120K go? And really.... you cannot count jobs saved!

In regard to mystical healthcare numbers, Obama's administration had said at first that there are from 46 to 47 million people in the US who are without health insurance. Then somehow it became more like 30+ million. So, who really knows? Here are some of the factors that make determining this number difficult to pinpoint - but let's illustrate worst-case scenario using numbers from 2007:

Of the 46 million who the Administration claimed are uninsured, 6.4 million are already on government-funded healthcare program but consider themselves as non-insured. One reason for this is that these people were automatically enrolled or pre-enrolled by a medical facility after receiving treatment at an emergency room or free clinic. They may not be paying insurance premiums, but they certainly have access to medical care any time they need it!

Another group of 4.3 million people are eligible to go on a federally funded Medicaid or SCHIP or something similar, but they simply have not signed up. If they were to go to a free clinic or emergency room, they, too, would automatically be shifted into the group above, and while they aren't paying insurance premiums, they technically have no healthcare coverage risk.

Approximately 10 million are non-citizens. How many of these are illegals is not known, but it would most likely be a staggering amount.

More than 10 million don't fit into either of the above groups, but they have substantial incomes. In fact, usually more than three times the poverty level. Included in that group, as well, are single income earners whose income is over $30K per year, and a family of four has an income of more than $62,000 per year who simply have chosen not to acquire healthcare coverage or they may be influx between an old job and new job and are awaiting the new coverage to "kick in".

From the remaining group, approximately 15.6 million, 5 million are adults between 18 and 34 without kids. They are US citizens, some of whom fall below poverty level and somehow are not eligible for federally funded health insurance program, and most are not a childless adult between age 18-34.

So, given the above breakdown, we're talking about only 15.6 million who currently may not have healthcare coverage because they cannot afford it or because they simply cannot get it. These people should be the ones that the government focused on - the ones who need some kind of intervention for the Democrats to be satisfied that everyone had access to healthcare.

But they aren't satisfied... for two reasons. Number one and most importantly, they don't have control of the healthcare industry. Don't be fooled; that is their goal. Second, they will be forcing those younger Americans who want to spend their money on something other than healthcare into a healthcare plan.... or be penalized. Either way, the government is getting deeper into their pockets, too! (Plus stripping them of a personal choice.)

My math is not that great, but that appears to be that only about 5% of Americans are presently the ones who actually need healthcare coverage and cannot afford or obtain it. YET, Harry Reid's latest proposed Senate healthcare bill is being touted as covering 94% of Americans. Does that mean the last group listed above will be left out - again? How has that improved any situation for other Americans? Isn't this hoopla about healthcare reform then much ado -- all for 1% of Americans? Would somebody explain this in plain ENGLISH?

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Abortion Will Be Federally-funded in the New Overhauled Healthcare System

If you don't believe it.  Read this:  http://tinyurl.com/yfwcvls

Let's say that the healthcare bill gets through the Senate and returns to the House and both House and Senate manage to come together on a healthcare bill.  If the Stupak Amendment remains attached at that point, (MOST unlikely that the House would allow it to stand - but if it did...) Obama plans to strip it from the final bill as he prepares to sign it.

Neither Obama or the House of Representatives are at all listening to the people.  The majority of Americans oppose federal funding of abortion at this point, and the most of them who oppose it do so under any circumstances except where it is necessary to save the life of the mother or in the cases of incest.  So, why won't they listen to the people and abide by their wishes?  Simple.  They are NOT in office to do the will of the people, but to use the power of their offices to push through their liberal/progressive agenda which does not reflect the majority of Americans but the few who happen to agree with them - special interest groups, both political and corporate.   Isn't this supposed to be a DEMOCRACY where the majority rules.... or a Republic where the PEOPLE rule?  Apparently the United States of America is neither anymore! 

It's amazing what one can learn when they get out of the small world of their own minds. Jeremiah Wright spewed hatred against the government for causing hardship on the black population.  Here is one very interesting quote: 

“The great irony is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.... Roughly one quarter of the black population is now missing.” Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., has long been a strong opponent of killing the unborn.

NOTE:  There's a slight of hand going on here as well..... the hubbub over the abortion portion of this bill is overshadowing the Public Option portion.  Don't be distracted on either of these issues as this healthcare debate continues.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

ObamaCare Will Contribute Hugely to National Debt Crisis!

All too often we're hearing conflicting numbers when Democrats talk about what some of their new programs will cost and how many people will be affected by it.  We hear that the "simple language" version of the healthcare bill will cost less than a trillion dollars.... but at the same time the full version will almost double that amount.  It's the same bill with the same provisions - AND ultimately the same costs, but it allows them to present a lower cost to the ears of those who are looking for more palatable numbers.  You and I, however, are the ones that are going to have to come up with the real cost.  If we can't, the debt will be carried over to our children and their children, and with the combined indebtedness of all of Obama's programs, our grandchildren's children.  And to just get caught up, folks, that would mean that the government would cease spending and implementing any new programs from here on out until the national debt is repaid.  That is not reality.
 
We're also learning that we'll be paying the taxes to pay for this healthcare bill for years before it actually goes into effect.  So, let's just think about this.  They're projecting that healthcare in 2013 will cost less than $1 trillion on the low side and twice that or more on the higher side.  I once used the analogy that it's like buying a car, paying for it for four years before you can ever drive it.  By the time you can drive it, its technology is outdated AND the purchase price doubled.  Think about that for a moment  WHY would anyone pay double for something that they can't take advantage of in the very near future?  And even more, why would people want to pay for something that other people will be using as well - and some for no contribution to the cost?  That just doesn't make sense to me.

The cost of these latest programs that the Obama Administration is shoving through Congress is passed through the Congressional Budget Office.  This office is responsible for adding up the numbers to come up with the cost of these proposed programs.  However, they can only work with the information that is given them and sometimes they're given incomplete information or proposals.  (Senator Baucus sent over a partial bill for them to figure the costs on so the numbers would fall below $1 trillion!)  Even though the Director of the CBO has made some public statements, we ordinary citizens aren't usually privy to that information unless it's televised on CSPAN and we happen to know when the Director will appear before some committee. 

So, if you'd like to hear from someone who know how these bills are calculated, here's a former Director of the Congressional Budget of Office sharing her perspective on the proposed healthcare bill and its impact on YOU.



The debt for each person in the country for the national debt as of today is $39,054.98.  (THAT MEANS WHAT YOU OWE, what each person owes - including children and infants (calculate YOUR own family's total!) - for the entitlements and government spending thus far!) If the taxman came knocking on your door to collect your portion of the national debt, how long would it take you to pay that amount? 

As Ms. O'Neill states, the national debt goes up another $5 million each day - just in interest.  So, we're compounding that national debt number very rapidly and your amount owed continues to go up!  That $39,054.98 amount is also without including the cost of the healthcare overhaul (this healthcare bill) - let's not deceive ourselves, it's not reform, it's overhaul! - and again, it doesn't include the cost of Cap and Trade/Cap and Tax (Clean Energy legislation which is before the Senate) which will come to us not as "a tax" but come DIRECTLY out of each person's pocket each and every month.  It will drive up simple day to day living expenses to levels which will be unsustainable for many Americans. 

During the Bush Administration, there was a term introduced, "fuzzy math".  The Bush Adminstration may have coined the phrase, but the Obama Administration has certainly mastered it! 

It's way past time to put the brakes on government spending.  The Congress doesn't speak in millions of dollars anymore (that's pocket change to them), or even billions of dollars  (that's folding money - in small bills), but in TRILLIONS of dollars without the least hesitation and without acknowledgement that, though we're considered a rich nation, we do not have that kind of money!  You are smart enough to know that if you don't have money, you should not go on spending.  Why shouldn't the government understand and adhere to the same?

It would be smarter and much wiser to slow things down, get the national debt reduced, make changes to the health care where there is an obvious need for change, and implement change as we can pay for them.  Our government should run its business like we should run our homes and businesses:  you pay as you go.  Congress, as you have observed, is not going to do that.  The Democrats are apparently "drunk" with the power of having control over the House, Senate, and the White House and they are not weighing the impact of their hugely expensive programs on the American people.  They're "just making hay while the sun shines", pushing through their ideaological legislation while they can. 

So it is up to you and me as voting citizens to communicate our concerns at the time of next elections and clearly send our message that they are not considering American's interests and well-being or the country's financial integrity in the global economy.  Congress and the White House need to understand that people have had enough of their extravagences and that they cannot label as extremists everyone who has deep concerns about where we're headed as a nation.  If they don't pay attention to the people, they must be made to pay with their political careers. 

(Note:  Here's an excellent article by Rich Lowry on why healthcare issue should be slowed in the Senate:  http://tiny.cc/HPtrH.)

Abortion in a Legislative Disappearing Act

Now you see it, now you don't, now you see it....  First abortion coverage was included in the House healthcare bill, then it was until Stupak Amendment clarified that it would not be covered, and then ...

In regard to whether this Healthcare Bill will or will not contain government-funded abortion, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who is the Democrats’ chief deputy whip, says that there's no doubt that the "last minute insertion" of the Stupak anti-abortion amendment to the House's recently passed Healthcare Bill HR3962 will be stripped out when the bill comes back to the House in its final form from the Senate.

The Liberal Democrats planned to use the Stupak amendment as only a ploy to appease the Moderate
Democrats, and snagged the single, turncoat Republican in the end who voted for the bill based primarily on that restriction to the bill. These pro-abortion Democrats in the House knew they'd ultimately have another chance to get that government-funded abortion slipped back into the final healthcare bill. You can look for it to happen most likely late at night, on the weekend and/or in the very late night hours with a super fast move to a final vote.

Now, you would think that those "moderates" who went ahead and voted for HR 3962 after the Stupak amendment would know that - I mean even I can see it coming! But that, folks, is how Washington plays the game and all the members of Congress will feign "horror" at such a move when they're in front of media cameras and microphones! This is typical of so many maneuvers that are commonplace in Washington. Both sides of the aisle play it, and the side that is not in power is always crying "foul" when these are used by the side that is in the majority. Don't you love hypocrisy?

I wish someone would make an exhaustive list of the tactical procedures and/or "playing instructions" (with all their twists and turns including terminology - or what I call politi-speak) to this Washington Game so the most ignorant American would have the opportunity to learn how to recognize it. Then people could contact their Congressmen and say, "Whoa! I know what you guys are up to. You're doing this and that, and I don't like it!"

Here are a few I've noticed:

1. After a meeting, never appear alone in front of cameras to make comments; having a crowd standing behind you adds credibility to your futility.
2. Be vague when talking; never say anything in simple terms, stutter or stammer if you have to buy you "thinking time" to evade difficult questions and don't give a direct answer - even better, change the subject.
3. Never say what you mean; you might be held accountable.
4. Coin a new phrase; it makes you sound so intelligent.
5. Never refer to the Constitution as authority to cover your political view; it's never there.
6. Place all blame on the opposing party for the same tactics that you have used in the past to push your own agendas and make the opposition look as ridiculous as you did when you espoused it.

And there are many more. Start your own list. You can share with me, if you like!

So, watch for what comes out of the Senate. Let's see how many pages are either taken out or added to this already hefty bill (at 4 reams of paper presently!) Don't forget to contact your Senators and let them know you're tired of being lied to, you're tired of back-room deals, you're tired of pork, and that you won't turn a blind eye to their shinanigans any more. (Even Obama knows what THAT word is!)

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Is ObamaCare DOA in the Senate?

So, the House squeaked out enough votes to pass their horrendous healthcare bill against the wishes of the majority of Americans. I had assumed it primarily had to do with the fact that the uber-liberals were just hell-bent on pushing through their agenda based upon their socialistic ideals, or that they were running on the stale "mandate" of 2008 Obama campaign. However, the polls suggest that Americans have changed their mind on Obama's change!

So, that gave me pause to think, why would so-called "intelligent" people and large organizations be in favor of this vastly aggressive bill. I happened on to an article that Dick Morris and his wife, Eileen McGann, wrote on The Hill. Now, I'm not necessarily a big fan of Dick Morris. I'm always suspicious of someone who changes political allegiances, and especially when they change back again. In this case Dick was a republican who went over to the left to work for Clinton, and now is on the right again. In fact, I have about as much respect for him as I do Arlen Specter.

However, in their article, Morris and McGann did shed some light on that nagging questions. They claim that there was some "bribery" involved. I must say that makes sense. But, isn't that "business as usual" that Washington is known for and what Obama vowed to change? Oh, but no, it wasn't that kind of Washington change he meant, was it? He meant that he would have a sub-cabinet that that was neither elected or approved, that wasn't answerable to Congress, and that had no restrictions upon them - but that's for another time.  In today's blog I'm dealing with why would groups like AMA and AARP be in favor of Obamacare. Morris and McGann pointed out that there was a little wheeling and dealing in a back room at the White House.

Morris and McGann stated that the AMA,, under the current law, was facing a 21% cut in physicians' Medicare reimbursements that have accumulated over year after year rather than being repealed by Congress. Obama promised to kill the cut if they would endorse his bill. (Ah, now that makes some sense.... and perhaps why the trustees okayed the endorsement without the support of the membership.)

Likewise, AARP apparently got a financial windfall for their support as well. It appears that they are doing like some of the non-banks that are now banks. That is to say, they dabbled in insurance through their subsidiary company, so they are morphing from an advocacy group into a full-fledged insurance. They had their own Medi-gap insurance which is costly for seniors. This Medi-gap picked up where Medicare left off... but Bush passed Medicare Advantage program. It did the same thing, but at a lower cost. (And where was it now that Obama was going to cut Medicare to pay for his plan? Oh, yeah, Medicare Advantage! Hmm. That eliminates competition for AARP, doesn't it?)

But there's one other entity that I had questions about and not a lot has been said about it. That is the negotiated deal between Obama and the drug companies. So, what kind of deal did Obama do for them? Well, let's see... Morris and McGann say in their article that for backing his ObamaCare bill, the drug industry could get a 10-year limit of something in the neighborhood of $80 billion on prescription drug costs, plus there would be a ban on imported Canadian drugs, and the drug industry was to also make their huge advertising budget available to the Obama Administration.

So, who are the other winners? How about the Insurance industry itself. I haven't heard them screaming bloody murder about this governmental competition. Perhaps that because they will have potentially 40 million new customers whose premiums will be paid by the government. But wait, they were perhaps a little premature in their elation. It appears that the honeymoon with ObamaCare ended when the Senate Finance Committee bill lowered the penalty from $3,500 to $1,500. That meant that the penalty was more affordable than their insurance premiums.

Among the losers in this scenario is the industry that makes medical devices. They wouldn't go along with ObamaCare and it's cost them. The BaucuScare bill imposed a tax on their devices. These include arterial stents, prosthetics, hip and knee joints, pacemakers, and automated wheelchairs.

Now that these facts have come to light, people are becoming better informed than ever before and the Senate needs to understand that when Americans say they don't want ObamaCare, they mean it! If they don't listen, the American people will be the real losers here. They will lose the quality of care that is the envy of the whole world. They will lose the right to choose their insurance coverage, to choose their doctor, and to choose the type of medication and/or treatment.  Is ObamaCare DOA in the Senate?  I hope so!

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Pelosi' HR3962 Is Worst Socialist Legislation - Ever!

If you're looking for more deficit spending and higher taxes for everyone, increased costs for insurance coverage, rationed care (particularly for elderly and the sick), a long waiting period for coverage under the new healthcare plan for those with pre-existing conditions, and "creative" (if not illegal) Congressional accounting, then The Pelosi healthcare bill has it all! The health bill she unveiled last Thursday (and which President Obama quickly proclaimed a "critical milestone") is probably the worst piece of socialist legislation ever introduced and, quite frankly, forced upon Americans.

Rumor has it that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said to her fellow Democrats that she is "all in" and prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it will take to pass ObamaCare. Well, if that's the case, I say let her's be the first one to go! (No single person should have as much power as she THINKS she has. She's got the representatives in the House by the -- well, she'd got them literally dominated!)

The Democrats under Pelosi's dictatorship leadership are no longer even making the pretense of wanting "bipartisan" support for this bill. Instead they are using pure political power plays to shove through what is probably an unrepealable middle-class entitlement that will continue to expand over time and raise taxes steeply. This ObamaCare will expand government control of healthcare, and that means that all medical care will be administered through the Congress - what kind of healthcare, how much healthcare, who gets it and who doesn't, how much it costs, etc. Do you really want some other Congressman or Senator from some other state having a say in meeting your health care needs?

It is almost beyond comprehension that the Democrats have begun such a purely political power play, especially with the unpopularity of their own agenda. People from all political positions are expressing great concern over this governmental seizure of this large portion of the nation's economy. But the goal of these liberal (and wimpy moderate) Democrats is to ram through this part of Obama's overall income-redistribution plan. It's all about gaining more CONTROL in every aspect of American lives.

Congress claims that HR 3962 is "universal coverage" - but keep in mind they have admitted that it's still NOT going to cover everyone. The actual result if this is passed will be destruction of the world's best healthcare system, of our country's fiscal stability, of private industries, of opportunities for prosperity, and ultimately, the personal freedoms fo every American.

This proposed legislation that Pelosi is ramming through the House with super-sonic speed costs considerably more than it was supposed to. It costs even more than the HR 3200! And again, it doesn't even offer healthcare to everyone - as the Obama campaign promised. It does NOTHING to change the things that are wrong with the present system. Instead it creates the framework for even more problems -- in spades! And further, as we have seen time and time again, the estimated costs of government programs are always only a portion of its actual costs. This bill was supposed to come in at around $900 billion or Obama wouldn't sign it. But it's now well over $1 trillion at this writing and he doesn't sound hesitant at all in his praises of this bill! (Some have calculated that over 10 years, this bill will have a price tag of $2.4 trillion!)

(Note: Remember how Obama used the "Republicans/Bush's deficit" as a talking point in his campaign and how he was going to turn it around... well, instead he has created a mountain of debt that makes the Bush deficit look like a tiny blip on the deficit screen - and he isn't through - the Cap and Tax is working its way through the Senate now!)

"House Call" on Washington

Tens of thousands of people marched on the House on Thursday at noon to protest this healthcare legislation. (Interesting how no one will give a solid estimate of how many people there really were, but it was literally a sea of people encompassing the Congressional buildings. But if Code Pink were to stage a protest, they'd have a pretty good headcount and post that amount (times 100 - or 1000!) Regardless, the message from these people is that this bill is a piece of crap! If you asked people in that group if they believed that we need healthcare reform, most of them would say that we do. However, they don't want an overhaul. They would tell you, "Let's fix what is wrong with the one we have!"

Sure our present system has flaws - that is something that no one disputes. But we have identified where the problems are and everyone in Congress knows where they are. The FIRST flaw is that we don't have a cap on non-economic compensation when there is a malpractice lawsuit. Everyone also knows that the lobbyists for trial lawyers have paid off most if not all of our lawmakers. Suspiciously, this is the one segment of professionals that have had absolutely no comment or been seen taking a position during this hotly contested debate, but if we really fixed what was wrong with our present healthcare system, they certainly have a dog in the hunt.

Like Rats From a Sinking Ship! (After the public spoke in NJ and VA!)

The voices of the "tens of thousands" is being heard, though. The Blue Dogs saw what happened in Virginia and New Jersey last week. On the heels of that demonstration, they saw how quickly a very large group of people could be called to and attend a march on Congress. Now, they're considering their options. Some are wring their hands moaning, "What to do, what to do." The question is are they more afraid of Nancy Pelosi - or their constituents! Will they "walk the plank" for Ms. Pelosi and the trial lawyer lobby?

Not only are the Blue Dogs in a quandary about which side they're willing to commit to, the members of AMA (American Medical Association) who Obama proclaimed again this week supported his Obamacare, are now saying that the AMA should not be supporting the House's health care plan because the issue of endorsement hadn't been formally approved by the membership.

Actually, it was a board of trustees for the AMA that made the endorsement without taking an official vote among the members of the organization. This week, there's been some developing outrage among AMA members who feel like this endorsement was made against the general consensus of the AMA’s members. So, in a few days, probably on Monday, the members will cast a vote on a resolution that could officially reverse the AMA's Obamacare endorsement. (Note: If Pelosi gets her way this weekend, though, it's too late in the game to be withdrawing a much-publicized endorsement and would be nothing less than a token gesture. Where have the AMA members been all this time??? Have they, too, seen the handwriting on the wall?)