Friday, September 25, 2009

Obama Loves The Little Children

I swiped this from the Underground Conservative who swiped it from The Other McCain

Song 1:

Mm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand

To make this country strong again

Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today

Equal work means equal pay

Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand

To make sure everyone gets a chance

Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white

All are equal in his sight

Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama


Mmm, mmm, mm

Barack Hussein Obama

Song 2:

Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!

For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say “hooray!”

Hooray, Mr. President! You’re number one!

The first black American to lead this great nation!

Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans

To make this country’s economy number one again!

Hooray Mr. President, we’re really proud of you!

And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!

So continue —- Mr. President we know you’ll do the trick

So here’s a hearty hip-hooray —-

Hip, hip hooray!

Hip, hip hooray!

Hip, hip hooray!

Image and lyrics originally found at Protein Wisdom.

From The NAGR

September 25, 2009

California's Backdoor Gun Registration

The California General Assembly just passed AB 962, a bill that purportedly outlaws online ammunition purchases.
Unfortunately, banning online ammo purchases is just a subterfuge -- a ploy to register all gun owners in the state of California.
If Governor Schwarzenegger signs AB 962:

All ammunition purchases must be made in person.
All ammunition purchases must be accompanied by a thumbprint and a driver's license.
All records obtained by the seller during a purchase, as mandated by law, must be readily accessible for California state agents to collect and inspect.

Well, if you can't buy ammo without divulging your identity in three separate ways, thereby entering yourself into a database...

You're a registered gun owner then, aren't you?

The Morning Bell

The Morning Bell

FRIDAY, SEPT 25, 2009

Obamacare Puts Transparency and Accountability on Death Bed

The New York Times released a new poll today finding that 55% of Americans believe President Obama has not clearly explained his plans for changing the health care system and 59% said they thought the health care changes under consideration in Congress were confusing. In a follow-up interview, Paul Corkery, a Democrat from Somerset, N.J, said: “The Obama administration seems to have a plan, but I’m not understanding the exact details.” Corkery shouldn’t feel that bad. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the independent nonpartisan agency responsible for reviewing legislative initiatives with budgetary implications, has no idea what is in the legislation either. During yesterday’s Senate Finance Committee mark-up, the CBO realized only after the vote, that they had made a $600 million mistake in scoring an amendment by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).

Recent Entries

In the Green Room: Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)

Obamacare: Day One Finance Committee Amendments

What’s Next? Two-Ply Need Not Apply

Obama Must Return Clarity and Focus to Afghanistan War

No Courage from White House on Detainees

The issues that the CBO does not have enough information to analyze are not minor either. In letters released on September 22nd, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf told Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA) respectively that his agency simply had not been provided with sufficient legislative language and time to analyze whether insurance premiums would go up under Obamacare or how many unauthorized billions of dollars in health benefits illegal immigrants would receive.

To ensure that the Senate would actually know what they were voting on, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) offered an amendment that would have required that actual legislative text, as well as a final Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of the cost of the bill, be posted for 72 hours on the Senate Finance Committee website for public review before the Senate Finance Committee could vote on its final passage. The Bunning amendment was defeated on a largely party-line vote, with all Senate Democrats - with the exception of Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AK)- voting against it.

Since proponents of Obamacare have shown themselves to be completely indifferent to what their legislation will actually do to the American people, conservatives have offered other amendments that would hold President Obama accountable for his promise that Obamacare would not cause Americans to lose their current doctor or health care coverage:

Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) offered an amendment that would have required the Secretary of HHS to certify that at least 75 percent of the physicians in the United States would accept Medicaid patients before the proposed mandatory Medicaid expansions are implemented. That amendment was defeated.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) offered an amendment that would have required the Secretary of HHS to certify Obamacare would not cause more than 1,000,000 Americans to lose the current coverage of their choice. That amendment failed on a party line vote.

Another Hatch amendment provided that if the Medicare funding reductions in the Medicare Advantage program were to result in a loss of benefits for seniors using Medicare Advantage, those provisions would be nullified. That amendment was also rejected.

The majority in the Senate has completely gutted any semblance of transparency or accountability in the health care debate. They refuse to provide the legislative language and time necessary for the CBO to analyze their legislation and they have rejected all measures that would protect the Americans people from Obama’s broken health care promises. Common sense dictates that Congress needs to step back and start over instead of passing a plan that would reorganize one-sixth of our entire economy without even understanding what the consequences to average Americans would be.


According to a new New York Times poll, the percentage of Americans who approve of President Obama’s handling of the economy had dropped from 61% in April to 50% today while the percentage of people who approve of the way he has dealt with Afghanistan has dropped to 44% from 56% in April.

White House adviser Paul Volcker today criticized the Obama administration’s sweeping financial regulatory reform proposals, specifically one that he warned could lead to future bailouts by designating certain firms as “too big to fail.”

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez told the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday that he smells “hope” not sulfur in the United States now that Obama is President, and he later told reporters he “felt there was chemistry” between him and Obama.

Documents released Thursday show that leaders of the ACORN community organizing network transferred several million dollars in charitable and government money meant for the poor to arms of the group that have political and sometimes profit-making missions.

Today’s Featured Guest Blogger on The Foundry: Congressman Kevin Brady (R-TX) on how trade is critical to US economy.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

The Obama Exspress

The Islamonazi Yabadabadoo Speaking At The UN

Today we had the opportunity to see this waste of human flesh speak at the United Nations. I'm happy I had to work today. But the real reason for this post is that this whack job and his pals running Iran are really serious about what they plan on doing when they have nukes next year. They have been saying it for a number of years now and I as a private citizen have no reason not to take them at their word. By the way the Israelis are taking them serious also. As most of us know seventy years ago they didn't believe a person running a country who said he had their annihilation on his mind.
Barry O has really showed this week that he really is looking to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Unfortunately he seems to be doing it in a very dangerous way. Empowering Yabadabadoo and his ilk is not the way to do it. Who am I to be a judge of the ways and methods of the smartest administration in American history?  Well I have been around for awhile and have seen alot of stuff happen in my lifetime and I do enjoy reading history. When you put life experience and a knowledge of history together you really can see things clearly even if you didn't go to Harvard.
Who is to say that the Radical Islamists running Iran will not wipe Israel off the map with nukes?
What would the response of the smartest administration in American history be? Would Barry run off to the UN and ask for a condemnation for this act of mass murder? Would he ask the UN to levy sanctions on Iran? One thing is clear only after eight months of having Barry around. He can say he wants this and that from Americans he can bully corporations and I'm sure he was good at shaking down bank presidents when he worked for ACORN but I get the feeling that he is going to be a gutless wonder in dealing with the big boys on the world stage.

Cap And Trade Calamities

Cap and Trade Destroys Jobs and Destroys Wealth

Waxman-Markey proposes a new national tax of historic proportions

Related Links

POLITICO WebChat with Heritage's Ben Lieberman

Since Americans are Teenagers, They Won't Understand Greenhouse Gases

Heritage's Research on the Cap and Trade Global Warming Bill

When it comes to cap and trade, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu says it’s an economic stimulus. President Obama says it’s a jobs bill. Is it either?

Reporters asked Chu if he though the green movement would generate the townhall pushback the health care debate and he responded, “I don’t think so…maybe I’m optimistic, but there’s very little debate” that a new green energy economy will bring economic prosperity.

George Mason economist Russ Roberts offers his own facetious response to Chu:

“That’s right. It’s a free lunch! There’s no trade-off between cleaner air and economic growth.”

Unfortunately for Americans, as taxpayers and energy consumers, the trade-off is rather large:

• Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035;

• A typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs; and

• Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent by 2035.

• Net job losses approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses 1.4 million jobs in 2035;

But President Obama said the opposite was true in an endorsement of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill in June:

“The energy bill that passed the House will finally create a set of incentives that will spark a clean energy transformation in our economy. It will spur the development of low carbon sources of energy – everything from wind, solar, and geothermal power to safer nuclear energy and cleaner coal. It will spur new energy savings, like the efficient windows and other materials that reduce heating costs in the winter and cooling costs in the summer. And most importantly, it will make possible the creation of millions of new jobs. Make no mistake: this is a jobs bill.”

Those “incentives” are subsidies and tax credits complements of the taxpayer. And the jobs President Obama speaks of are in fact real. He gave a few examples in his speech: “In California, 3000 people will be employed to build a new solar plant that will create 1000 permanent jobs. In Michigan, investment in wind turbines and wind technology is expected to create over 2,600 jobs. In Florida, three new solar projects are expected to employ 1400 people.”

There’s that free lunch concept again. The subsidies and government handouts for renewable projects means diverts those workers away from more productive use. Moreover, a cap and trade policy will destroy more jobs than it creates. Because cap and trade is a tax on energy, the cost of producing goods for businesses increases, and consumer demand falls for two reasons; price hikes on goods reduce demand and people have less disposable income due to higher energy prices.

Higher energy prices force businesses to make production cuts and reduce labor. Furthermore, as we see in the current recession, reduced consumer spending only exacerbates this. The overall result is increased unemployment and slow economic growth.

And we’re not the only ones projecting such losses. In fact, at a recent Heritage event on the costs of cap and trade, not one of the 6 speakers representing groups who modeled the bill discussed economic benefits from cap and trade – it was all about the magnitude of the losses

The Morning Bell

The Morning Bell

THURSDAY, SEPT. 24, 2009

Hubris, Weakness, and Naivete at the U.N.

The United States elected 43 presidents before the current occupant graced the office with his presence. We fought, and won, two world wars, liberated millions of people worldwide from tyranny, and worked cooperatively with other sovereign nations to rebuild entire continents. Some might even say the character of our nation is well established considering we have been a democracy for just over 230 years now.

Recent Entries

CBO: Obamacare Cuts Your Medicare Benefits

The Math On Chinese Emissions

Charter Students Outperform Their Traditional Public School Peers

UN Loves Obama Because He Is Weak

Read the Bill! What Bill?

Not President Barack Obama, who told the United Nations General Assembly yesterday, “For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.” 230 years versus just nine months. No wonder, the New York Times reports, were UN delegates not only applauding Obama, but snapping photos of their hero like tourists.

But the audacity of self-promotion was not the most troubling part of Obama’s speech. No, what most threatens America’s security is what Obama didn’t say. On March 27th of this year, while announcing his “New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan”, President Barack Obama said:

Al Qaeda and its allies — the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks — are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban — or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged — that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

But yesterday at the United Nations, the Taliban magically disappeared from this formulation. Instead, all we got was this: “We will permit no safe haven for al Qaeda to launch attacks from Afghanistan or any other nation. We will stand by our friends on the front lines, as we and many nations will do in pledging support for the Pakistani people tomorrow.” This was no slip of the tongue. On the morning talk shows this past Sunday, Obama openly questioned whether fighting the Taliban insurgency is necessary to stopping al-Qaeda.

We do not know what new intelligence the Obama administration has that leads it to believe that the Taliban is now irrelevant in the fight against al Qaeda. We do know this though: At a time when the President is desperate to keep his base unified for his domestic priorities, polls show that, for the first time since the war began, majorities of liberals and Democrats alike now solidly oppose the war and are calling for a reduction in troop levels. Council on Foreign Relations Fellow Stephen Biddle explains: “Surely a big piece of the declining poll numbers for support for Afghanistan is that the public does not yet see the connection between Afghanistan and al-Qaida today.”

But people in the region sure do. A recent public opinion poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that 69 percent of Pakistanis worry that extremists could take control of their country. The poll further indicated that 70 percent of Pakistanis now rate the Taliban unfavorably compared to only 33 percent a year ago. The Taliban/al-Qaeda threat spans the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan; thus, failure in one country will contribute to failure in the other—just as success in one country will breed success in the other.

According to media reports, President Obama is considering implementing a plan supported by Vice President Joe Biden to scale back the American military presence in Afghanistan and focus on targeting al-Qaeda cells primarily in western Pakistan. This strategy would be insufficient to curb the terrorist threat emanating from the region. Ceding territory to the Taliban in Afghanistan would embolden international terrorists in the region, including in nuclear-armed Pakistan.

In their combined 16 years as President, neither Ronald Reagan nor George Bush ever felt the need to say they were not naive. For that matter, neither did President Clinton. But for some reason, President Obama feels the need to reassure the world in every foreign policy speech that he is no naïve. He did it again yesterday (”Now, I am not naïve”). How might Shakespeare put it today? “The President doth protest too much, methinks.”

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Sing Songs Of Obamas Glory

I would be outraged if children had been indoctrinated by the Republicans. This is not the first time Socialists have been vidioed doing this crap.

Never Talk To The POPO

In the times we live in it may be a good idea to listen and remember this lecture from Professor James Duane.
This is from the NAGR Gun Rights Blog.

Obamas Internet Spy Program

A good article from the WesternFront America

Obamas new internet spy program

The UN Circus

Well this is one for the record books. The President of the World Barry O has made a real big splash with the other nutbags of the world today by describing what the world will look like if we don't all pitch in and stop global warming. I swear I read that same description in a bad sci-fi novel once. I wonder who he plagiarized. You know he was in his element today speaking to other people who hate the United States. I am a loyal and patriotic American who loves this nation and it sends me into a fit to hear this ACORN jackoff cut this nation and it's people down. This President of the world can't get me down though. I beleive in American Exceptionalism,The Constitution and The Bill Of Rights, every thing he hates by the way.

Then I hear the man that ordered the Pan Am downing speak....WHAT IS HE DOING IN MY COUNTRY!!! I didn't invite this phycotic fool. Tonight The Islamonazi from Iran is speaking. Barry O pretty much legitimized his government today even though it killed a large number of people protesting against fraudulent elections. The Party never stops at the UN.
This is the kind of thing that we have to expect when a person of Barry O's caliber is elected to the most powerful office in the world. I keep hearing people say elections have consequenses. Lets not make the same mistake a second time my fellow Americans. Vote this Marxist and the rest of his troup out of office.
I apologize to the two people that read this blog for my foul language. I really had to get that off my chest.




September 23, 2009 | House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) | Permalink

As the Senate Finance Committee gets set to begin its second day examining Senator Max Baucus’ (D-MT) costly government run-health care bill, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) released a list of 10 facts every American should know about what he calls “the wrong prescription during these tough economic times:”

“This partisan bill is the wrong prescription during these tough economic times. It increases health care costs, cuts Medicare for seniors, imposes new taxes on struggling middle-class families and small businesses, and has a trillion-dollar price tag. This issue is too important to get wrong. That’s why Democrats should scrap their expensive plans and work with Republicans on a fiscally-responsible proposal that lowers health care costs and expands access for the American people.”

Here are the top 10 facts every American should know about Senator Baucus’ proposed government takeover of health care:

1. Medicare Cuts Mean Reduced Benefits, Fewer Choices for Seniors. The Baucus plan cuts Medicare by nearly $500 billion, slashing coverage millions of seniors depend on. These benefit cuts will ultimately eliminate choices currently enjoyed by seniors today. Doug Elmendorf, the head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, told the Senate Finance Committee yesterday he “expected the Medicare Advantage plans to lose 2.7 million enrollees over the next decade” as a result of the Baucus plan.

2. Individual Mandate Results in Hefty Tax Increase for Millions of Americans. The Baucus plan mandates that every American buy health insurance or pay a hefty new tax to Washington of up to $1,900 per year. This new tax will take another $20 billion hard earned dollars from working families. Especially during a recession, this new tax will place another large burden on the family budget.

3. No Junk Lawsuit Reform to Reduce Health Care Costs. The Baucus plan includes only a “Sense of the Senate” with respect to the very pressing issue of junk lawsuit reform. Seriouschanges are needed to reduce costly,unnecessary defensive medicine practiced by doctorstrying to protect themselves from a feeding frenzy of trial lawyers. The Baucusplan misses an opportunity for real reform.

4. New Taxes Harm Small Businesses, Costs Jobs. The Baucus plan saddles small businesses that have more than 50 employees with a new tax of up to $199,600 per year if they do not provide health coverage to their employees. Census data compiled by the Small Business Administration, however, reveals that the Baucus “small business exemption” – for businesses with fewer than 50 employees – will still subject many small employers to new taxes and mandates. In fact, this so-called “exemption” could still subject 220,000 small businesses that employ 44% of all small business employees and 22% of the entire private sector workforce to the new taxes and mandates. The 220,000 small businesses targeted by the Baucus plan employ 26.4 million employees and provide those employees $982 billion in wages annually.

5. Higher Health Care Costs for Working Families. The Baucus plan would actually raise insurance premiums for working families, not lower them. In a letter to Chairman Baucus, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stated, “premiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current-law individual market…” Meanwhile, a recent study published in Health Affairs found that a government-run plan similar to the one being proposed in House Democrats’ bill could cause annual insurance premiums for a family of four to increase by more than $4,500.

6. $420 Billion in New Tax Increases on Families & Small Businesses. The Baucus plan includes a host of new taxes on American families and job creators. Taxes on individuals who are uninsured, taxes on employers that do not offer health insurance coverage, and taxes on health care products like wheelchairs and other medical devices and insurance are just some of the more than $420 billion in new tax increases included in the bill. At a time when families and small businesses are already struggling to make ends meet, new taxes of this magnitude would only further slow the economy and raise the cost of care for those patients who need it most.

7. Lower Wages and More Unemployment. The Baucus plan would impose a new $27 billion tax on employers, including small businesses, that cannot afford to provide health coverage or that don’t offer coverage. The effect of this type of tax, similar to a payroll tax increase, would ultimately fall squarely on workers in the form of lower wages or reduced employment. In fact, the Tax Policy Center concluded that “economists generally believe that the burden of payroll taxes is borne by workers in the form of lower wages, regardless of whether the tax is levied on the employer or the employee.” The tax proposed in the Baucus plan will likely have the same effect.

8. Higher Taxes on American Manufacturers. In order to find revenue to “pay for” his plan, Senator Baucus included massive new taxes on various industry segments in the health care sector. These new taxes include $17.2 billion tax on pharmaceutical manufacturers, a $30 billion tax on medical device manufacturers, and a $45 billion tax on health insurers. These massive tax increases on American manufacturers will be passed on to American families, and they will make the cost of health care more expensive. These tax increases will also serve as a major disincentive for innovation, capital investment and job creation. With some Senate Democrats clamoring for additional – and costly – subsidies, how many more tax increases will be added before it goes for a vote in the Senate? When will Democrats reveal what other tax increases they have in store for American working families and employers?

9. A Lack of Support From Senate Democrats. Key Senate Democrats have voiced concern about the Baucus plan, including Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV,) who said “there is no way” he would support it “unless it changes in the amendment process by vast amounts.” What’s more, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) described the Medicare cuts in the Baucus plan as “intolerable” in remarks on the Senate floor last week, while Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) “complained the legislation would ask working Americans to commit as much as 13% of their income to buy basic insurance,” calling it a “real hit on middle-class families.”

10. Is the Baucus Plan Written in Invisible Ink? While House Democrats have marked up legislation in three different committees, the Senate Finance Committee is taking a different approach. The Committee is working off of a framework document that summarizes what they would like to do, but doesn’t offer specifics on how it would be done. That leaves big questions about just how this plan will work and doesn’t allow for a full and transparent debate on the plan. At a time when the American people are asking their legislators, “Have you read the bill?” the clear answer among Senate Finance Committee members will be “no.”

BONUS: House Republicans have offered fiscally responsible solutions to make health care more affordable and accessible for every American. Our proposals recognize the need to implement reforms that build on what works in health care, rather than replacing it with a one-size-fits-all government-run system.


Fact-Checking President Obama’s Health Care Talking Points

By John Boehner

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

“If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out,” President Obama warned in his health care address to Congress earlier this month.

Fair enough. But the President himself has made numerous claims during this debate that don’t meet the straight-face test.

When the President says that health care reform will not require anyone to drop their current coverage, he fails to account for an independent analysis by the Lewin Group showing that as many as 114 million Americans could lose their current coverage and instead end up on a government-run plan under House Democrats’ proposal (H.R. 3200.) Even the most conservative estimates say millions could be shifted to a government-run plan.

When the President pledges that reform will not add to the deficit, not even a little, he neglects to mention that House Democrats’ plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

What’s worse, when the President insists that middle-class families won’t see a tax increase – as he did repeatedly during his recent appearance on ABC’s This Week – it’s as if he failed to read the health care bills altogether. On page 167 of H.R. 3200, the title of section 401 reads: “TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.” The Associated Press didn’t mince words when it began a fact check piece, “Memo to President Obama: it’s a tax.”

If the President read these bills, he’d also find that his pledge to protect seniors’ Medicare benefits rings hollow. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, House Democrats’ plan cuts Medicare Advantage programs by more than $172 billion.

As a result, six million seniors will be denied access to an affordable Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, including three million who will lose the plan they currently have, according to an analysis completed by Republicans on the House Ways & Means Committee. And that’s just the beginning. The House Democrats’ bill includes a total of more than $500 billion in Medicare cuts, meaning reduced benefits and fewer choices for seniors.

To be fair, there are areas in which the President has sought to make up for the shortcomings of Democrats’ costly government takeover of health care. It was encouraging when the President’s pledge to Congress that “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” was followed by a meeting at the White House with pro-life activists. It turns out, however, that the Administration would not commit to inserting a provision that explicitly excludes abortion from health care reform.

Thus, the status quo remains: House Democrats’ health care legislation would allow the U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services to include abortion as a benefit in the government-run health care option.

It was also encouraging when the President assured law-abiding taxpayers that illegal immigrants should not and will not be covered under the Democrats’ health care plan. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has confirmed, however, that there is no mechanism included in the House bill to verify that individuals are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before they receive government benefits.

House Republicans offered two amendments in the committee process to correct this: the first would have prevented illegal immigrants from being automatically enrolled into Medicaid and the second would have required better screening for applicants for federally-subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or legal immigrants. Both were rejected by Democrats.

These are just a couple of the many ideas House Republicans have offered to improve Americans’ health care. For instance, why not allow small employers to group together through national associations so they can buy health insurance for their employees like big companies and unions can today? Why not allow the American people to buy health care plans across state lines? Why not get serious about ending junk lawsuits and more importantly the costly defensive medicine that doctors are forced to practice?

We outlined these proposals in a letter to the President back in May and asked to sit down with him and discuss them. The response we received essentially said ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’

For his part, the President has talked about a “whole series of Republican ideas” being included in health care reform. This is just another myth perpetuated by the President, whose rhetoric simply doesn’t match the reality of congressional Democrats’ government-run health care proposals.

This isn’t about calling out President Obama for the sake of doing so. The American people deserve to know the unvarnished truth about the potential consequences of this costly government takeover of their health care. The President’s failure to meet this common-sense standard is yet another indication it’s time to hit the reset button and start over in a bipartisan way to achieve health care reforms hard-working Americans can support and afford.

John Boehner is the Republican Minority Leader for the House of Representatives.

The Morning Bell

The Morning Bell


The Futility of Cap and Trade

Yesterday, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon hosted a climate summit in New York designed to improve the chances that the December U.N. Copenhagen Climate Conference would produce a substantive treaty that would cap and cut carbon emissions. The Copenhagen agreement would replace the Kyoto Protocol that was rejected by the United States Senate 95 - 0. But as the Washington Post reports, even President Barack Obama’s star power failed to move nations towards meaningful carbon reductions:
Recent Entries

Passing a Shell of A Bill: Congress’ Secret Plan to Ram Through Health Care Reform

Five Things About Homeland Security That Nobody Is Discussing: #4

Zelaya Rewards U.S. Support with Betrayal

NEA Tells Artists: Serve the State

Beijing’s Capabilities are the Concern

Initially, many climate activists had hoped this year would yield a pact in which nations would agree to cut their greenhouse gas emissions under the auspices of a legal international treaty. But recent announcements by China, Japan and other nations point to a different outcome of U.N. climate talks that will be held in December in Copenhagen: a political deal that would establish global federalism on climate policy, with each nation pledging to take steps domestically.

But climate “federalism” would be pointless. It is called ”global” warming for a reason. Just ask Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson who admitted to the Senate this July that “U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels.” This is 100% consistent with all the best science which shows that the carbon reductions under the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill will not affect global temperatures in any material way. For example a recent study of cap-and-trade by MIT concluded:

The different U.S. policies have relatively small effects on the CO2 concentration if other regions do not follow the U.S. lead…The Developed Only scenario cuts only about 0.5 °C of the warming from the reference, again illustrating the importance of developing country participation.

Yesterday China tried to upstage Obama by selling their plan to “tackle this challenge” including promises improve the energy intensity and … plant more trees. But as University of Colorado professor of environmental studies Roger Pielke points out, China’s energy intensity claims simply defy reason:

China’s energy intensity in 2008 is about the same as it was in 2001. Any claim that China’s energy intensity has improved by 20% over the past five years is incorrect. … energy intensity has improved by only about 7.4% since 2005, meaning that it has a long way to go to reach a 20% target by 2010. Can it happen? Sure. But to say that China is “well on its way” does not square with the data. It would be “ironic” indeed if China has figured out how to grow its economy at 9% per year while increasing energy use by only 3% and decarbonizing its economy at an even lower amount. If this were true, then China would have discovered the holy grail of emissions reductions and we can all forget about the challenges of climate policy.

Economic growth is China’s number one priority, not global temperatures, which as the New York Times points out “have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.” China isn’t the only one focused on providing jobs instead of appealing to the sensibilities of the enviro-left. The World Bank is spending billions to help poor countries build coal power plants. Marianne Fay, the bank’s chief economist for sustainable development, told The Times: “There are a lot of poor countries which have coal reserves and for them it’s the only option. The [bank’s] policy is to continue funding coal to the extent that there is no alternative and to push for the most efficient coal plants possible. Frankly, it would be immoral at this stage to say, ‘We want to have clean hands, therefore we are not going to touch coal’.”

Forcing people to sacrifice their jobs and economic opportunity to lower temperatures that are not rising is immoral. But that is exactly what the cap and trade legislation in Congress would do.


Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf directly contradicted President Barack Obama yesterday, telling senators that Obama’s planned Medicare Advantage cuts would cause reduced benefits for seniors.

According to a new NBC News poll, more Americans think “Barack Obama’s health care plan” is a “bad idea” (41%) than think it’s a “good idea” (39%), and only 20% believe it will improve the quality of their care while 36% believe Obamacare will make their health care worse.

The fast-rising cost of drugs and medical care is raising questions on how long France can afford their health care system.

Following revelations that Obama administration officials used the National Endowment of the Arts to promote his policy agenda, Senate Republicans on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee are beginning an investigation.

Federal investigators are probing whether a local union president at a Pennsylvania U.S. Energy Department laboratory improperly helped President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign on government time by using government facilities.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Mitch McConnell 9-22 09 Free Speach

From ARRA News

Tuesday, September 22, 2009
McConnell Defends Free Speech: Demands End of Federal Gag Order on Medicare Cuts
Below are the remarks that Sen. McConnell delivered on the Senate floor a few minutes ago addressing the controversy over a Democrat senator requesting the Dept. of Health and Human Services investigate health insurers for alerting their customers about cuts in Medicare Advantage under Democrats’ health care reform proposals. In effect, limiting free speech! See prior post and today’s Wall Street Journal editorial for the background.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Tuesday regarding free speech in the health care debate:

“I rise to call my colleagues’ attention to a disturbing development in the health care debate.

“A colleague of ours has called for an investigation into a major health care company because this company informed its customers of its concerns about health care legislation that this colleague of ours introduced.

“As a result, the federal government has now told all companies that provide Medicare Advantage to seniors to stop communicating with their clients about the effects of that legislation — even telling them what they can and cannot post on their websites. This gag order, enforced through an agency of the federal government at the request of a Senator, is wrong.

“It started when a company based in my hometown of Louisville — Humana — had the temerity, in the eyes of some of our colleagues, to explain to its customers that if Medicare Advantage is cut, as the chairman’s mark requires, it may have to reduce benefits, which, of course, is a common sense conclusion.

“Mr. President, this is America: Citizens, either as individuals or grouped together in companies, have a fundamental right to talk about legislation they favor or oppose. That is the core of the First Amendment’s protections on speech. Unfortunately, this is part of a troubling trend of efforts to dismiss the concerns raised by the American people over the past few months.

“Over the summer, we saw American citizens who raised concerns about the health care proposals before Congress dismissed as ‘un-American’ by leaders in Congress. That’s bad enough, but using the full weight of the federal government’s enforcement powers to stifle free speech should trouble all Americans — and all of us — even more.

“We cannot allow government officials to target individuals or companies because they do not like what they have to say.

“This latest effort to squelch free speech raises several serious questions:

“Is this what we have come to as a country — that an individual or company can no longer factually advocate their position on an incredibly important public policy issue?

“Shouldn’t customers have a right to know the potential impact of a Congressional action?

“Is this what we believe as a Senate — that this body should debate a trillion-dollar health care bill that affects every American while using the powerful arm of government to shut down speech?

“Is this how citizens and companies can expect to be treated if health reform passes? That any health provider that disagrees with a powerful Senator will be subject to an investigation and a gag order?

“How is this any different than what the Washington Post and New York Times have done in lobbying for a reporter shield law? Would we stand by if the Judiciary Committee asked the FBI to investigate the media for taking positions on pending legislation we don’t agree with? Of course not.

“Humana is headquartered in my hometown of Louisville, and yes, I care deeply about its 8,000 employees in Kentucky. But this gag order now applies to all Medicare Advantage providers.

“I would remind my colleagues that I have spent my career defending the First Amendment rights of people to criticize their elected officials, including me. I would make the same argument if this were a company based in San Francisco or Helena or Chicago.

“The right to free speech is at the core of our democracy. Free citizens have a First Amendment right to petition their government for a redress of grievances. This gag order on companies like Humana and those in all our states, in my view, is a clear violation of that right. It’s wrong.

“Employers that warn their customers about the effects of legislation aren’t the ones who should be getting warnings here. Senators who threaten Americans’ First Amendment rights are.”

Mitch McConnell 9-22-09

What the Finance Bill Means for Americans
from the Office of Senator Mitch McConnell

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

‘In short, if you have health insurance or you don’t, you’re taxed. If you seek preventive care, you’re taxed. If you need a medical device, well that’s taxed too. At a time when Americans are demanding lower health care costs, this plan would drive them higher’

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Tuesday regarding the importance of getting it right on health care reform:

“Today, the Senate Finance Committee will start to amend the health care proposal that its Chairman, Senator Baucus, released last week. Before that work begins, I think it’s important to remind Americans what this plan would mean for them.

“Put simply, this plan calls for more and more government intrusion into health care and pays for it with $350 billion in new taxes and hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts. So, in the name of cutting costs, this plan raises taxes on virtually every American who uses our health care system.

“Here are some of the tax increases in this plan:

• If you have insurance, this plan taxes you in the form of a new tax on insurance companies, which will then be passed on to consumers.

• If you don’t have insurance, this plan taxes you too by saying that the consequence of not maintaining insurance is an excise tax that could run as high as $3,800.

• If you use a medical device like a hearing aid or an artificial heart, this plan taxes you, and it also includes new taxes on everything from MRIs to contact lenses.

• If you need laboratory tests for prevention, screening, or diagnosis, this plan taxes those too.

• If you’re an employer who can’t afford to provide health insurance to your employees, this plan taxes you — a tax that businesses across the country have warned could kill more jobs in the middle of a recession.

• And, if you, like tens of millions of other Americans, take prescription drugs, this plan taxes you too.

• This plan also increases taxes on about one in ten family insurance policies according to one policy group, and this tax will extend to more and more plans over time.

“In short, if you have health insurance or you don’t, you’re taxed. If you seek preventive care, you’re taxed. If you need a medical device, well that’s taxed too. At a time when Americans are demanding lower health care costs, this plan would drive them higher.

“As I said earlier, this plan also contains hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts, which will hurt America’s seniors.

“It contains nearly $130 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, a program that gives 11 million seniors more choices and options when it comes to their health care. One Democrat senator described these cuts as ‘intolerable.’

The President recently said that seniors currently on Medicare Advantage would be able to get coverage that’s, quote, ‘just as good.’ Seniors want to keep the insurance they have.

“This plan contains nearly $120 billion in Medicare cuts for hospitals that care for seniors — cuts that organizations like the Kentucky Hospital Association have warned against because of the negative affect they would have on services to seniors in Kentucky and other states.

“This plan includes more than $40 billion in cuts to home health agencies that let seniors receive care in their homes, rather than having to go into a nursing home.

“And this plan contains nearly $8 billion in cuts to Hospice care, a service that provides dignity and comfort to seniors at the end of life.

“Everyone agrees that Medicare needs reform. But instead of trying to address the problems at hand, this plan uses Medicare as a piggy bank to pay for new government programs that could very well have the same fiscal problems that Medicare does.

“Americans want reforms that make care more affordable and that keep government out of health care decisions. They don’t want a so-called reform that would actually make care more expensive and would put government bureaucrats in charge of health care decisions.

“Americans have sent a clear message to lawmakers in Washington over the past months: no more trillion-dollar programs and no more taxes. This plan for health care fails these tests. That’s why it’s so important for the Finance Committee to give this proposal serious and careful consideration. I’ve listed just a few of the things that concern people about this plan. With 564 amendments filed from both Democrats and Republicans, it’s clear that we need to slow down and take the time necessary to address the serious, bipartisan concerns about this plan.”


CONTACT: Michael Steel, Antonia Ferrier, Kevin Smith - (202) 225-4000
Boehner Responds to the President’s Remarks on Climate Change

GOP Leader: “Middle-class families and small businesses are struggling, and they shouldn’t be punished with costly legislation that will increase electricity bills, raise gasoline prices, and ship more American jobs overseas to places like China and India.”

WASHINGTON, DC – Earlier today, President Obama spoke to a United Nations “Climate Change Summit.” House Republican Leader John Boehner made the following comment in response:

“Yesterday, President Obama’s Energy Secretary compared the American people to ‘teenage kids’ when it comes to energy policy. Earlier today, the President addressed a United Nations ‘Climate Change Summit’ in New York and touted a variation on the Democrats’ national energy tax – legislation that, according to the Administration’s own estimates, will cost families an average of $1,700 a year in higher costs. Out-of-touch Washington Democrats don’t seem to get it. Middle-class families and small businesses are struggling, and they shouldn’t be punished with costly legislation that will increase electricity bills, raise gasoline prices, and ship more American jobs overseas to places like China and India.

“There is a better solution. Republicans’ ‘all of the above’ strategy is the fastest route to a cleaner, more reliable energy future. Our legislation – the American Energy Act – will clean up the environment, lower energy costs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and create a millions of good-paying, new American jobs. That’s change we can truly believe in.”

NOTE: Last week, CBS News and other media outlets reported that a private analysis prepared by the Obama Administration’s Treasury Department estimates that the cap-and-trade national energy tax will result in an average $1,761 in increased costs for American families.


CONTACT: Michael Steel, Antonia Ferrier, Kevin Smith - (202) 225-4000
Boehner: Stop the Obama Administration’s “Gag Order;” Seniors Deserve Truth About the Democrats’ Medicare Cuts

GOP Leader: “It is outrageous that the Obama Administration is trying to keep seniors in the dark about the consequences of congressional Democrats’ costly government-run health care bills”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement today criticizing actions by the Obama Administration to impose a gag order on critics of the $500 billion in Medicare cuts proposed by the congressional Democrats:

“It is outrageous that the Obama Administration is trying to keep seniors in the dark about the consequences of congressional Democrats’ costly government-run health care bills. Would the Administration impose this sort of gag order if seniors were being given information promoting the Obama health care plan? I don’t think so. Seniors have a right to know about the cost and consequences of the Democrats’ health care bills, and Republicans will continue to tell the American people the facts about the nearly $500 billion in Medicare cuts that Democrats are proposing.”

Cap And Trade Calamities

Carbon Offsets Do Not Offset the Economic Pain of Cap and Trade
Waxman-Markey proposes a new national tax of historic proportions
Related Links
Farmers' Lost Income from Cap and Trade
USDA's Cost Estimates to Farmers Mostly Fertilizer
Heritage's Research on the Cap and Trade Global Warming Bill

“There’s a point at which you’ve got to ask yourself, what are we doing here? What’s the point?”

That’s Elaine Kamarck, a former Clinton administration official and advisor to then-Vice President Gore, and she’s talking about the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill. In order to garner enough votes to pass the House of Representatives, policymakers made promises that have groups like Greenpeace questioning the environmental effectiveness of the bill.

One of the most contentious provisions in the bill is the use of carbon offsets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Offsets allow carbon-emitting businesses to pay others to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Bob Barr, a columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, explains: “A manufacturing plant in, say, Gary, Ind., that is exceeding its ‘permitted’ expulsion of CO2, could continue to commit this sin against humanity by paying for a Brazilian farmer to plant some trees in the rain forest. A more patriotic company might achieve the same result by paying an Iowa farmer to implement more ‘Earth-friendly’ farming practices. Of course, to guard against some nefarious polluter trying to cheat Uncle Sam and the world by claiming bogus ‘offsets,’ here must be a monitoring mechanism. Enter the ‘Offsets Integrity Advisory Board’—yet another group of scientific ‘experts’ that would be tasked with compiling a list of qualifying offsets around the globe.”

Section 731a of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill creates this independent “Offsets Integrity Advisory Board” to help the administrator make decisions about the appropriate regulations. The board authorizes sector-specific allocations of international offset credits—which are highly vulnerable to politicization.

Proponents of cap and trade are trying to convince farmers that they will be the big beneficiaries of a carbon offset program because farmers can use cleaner technology, reduce nitrous oxide emissions, or simply not grow crops. But because so many sectors can take advantage of the carbon offset program, there will be little left for farmers. Page 60 of the Environmental Protection Agency’s analysis of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill is projecting that most of the domestic offsets will come from forestry and growing trees. The reality is farmers use a lot of electricity, a lot of diesel fuel, and a lot of natural gas-derived chemicals and fertilizers to grow crops and maintain their farms. So it shouldn’t be surprising that a cap and trade program that artificially drives up the cost of energy will unfavorably affect farmers.

If it sounds silly and fraught with fraud, it is. Even with an “Offsets Integrity Advisory Board,” offsets are difficult to monitor and regulate. They are also very easy to manipulate. For example, a country could build a coal plant and say they’ve created offsets because they were going to build a dirtier one.

Bryan Leyland, chairman of the economic panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, said, “I first heard about carbon trading at a conference more than 10 years ago. I got up and said ‘If I was the financial adviser to the Mafia, I would advise them to get into carbon trading.’ Nothing that has happened since then changes my opinion - rather the reverse.”

In fact, the Italian mafia is getting involved in green energy.

And let’s not forget Enron’s Ken Lay was a strong supporter of carbon cap and trade. He believed a cap and trade program would “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative.” These carbon allowances that will be bought and sold have a value estimated at $50 billion to $300 billion annually, and the trade in them would be a huge new business. Enron may be gone, but others ready to take advantage of cap and trade—at the public’s expense—are not.

>> Visit Heritage's Rapid Response page for a collection of the latest research and policy resources on cap and trade.

The Heritage Foundation

The Morning Bell

TUESDAY, SEPT 22, 2009

It Depends On What Your Definition Of "Tax" Is

Throughout his presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama promised the American people: “If you’re a family that’s making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes.” As President, Barack Obama reiterated that pledge, promising the American people in his September 9th health care press conference: “The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” But as ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos pointed out to the President this weekend, Obama will break his promise to the American people if he signs a health care bill that includes an individual or employer mandate.
Recent Entries

Full CBO Scoring Crucial in Health Care Reform

In the Green Room: Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS)

Americans Believe Government Does Too Much Already

Trouble Ahead in Afghanistan

Five Things About Homeland Security That Nobody Is Discussing

In an exchange that can only be described as “Clintonesque” Stephanopoulos was forced to read the definition of “tax” straight from Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, but even then Obama refused to acknowledge reality: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. … Nobody considers that a tax increase.” Really? Nobody?

Has President Barack Obama met his White House’s National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers who wrote in 1989:

Essentially, mandated benefits are like public programs financed by benefit taxes… [If] the mandated benefit is worthless to employees, it is just like a tax from the point of view of both employers and employees

Or what about President Obama HHS nominee Dr. Sherry Glied who wrote in 2008:

The mandate is in many respects analogous to a tax. It requires people to make payments for something whether they want it or not. One important concern is that the government will provide insufficient funds for the subsidies intended to accompany the mandate. In that case, the mandate will act as a very regressive tax, penalizing uninsured people who genuinely cannot afford to buy coverage.

Or what about the Congressional Budget Office who wrote this year:

Under some proposals, firms would be required to make payments to the federal government if they chose not to offer health insurance to their employees, and individuals who did not comply with the requirement to obtain insurance would have to pay a penalty. Such payments would be equivalent to a tax or a fine, and the government’s receipts should be recorded in the budget as federal revenues.

But one need not consult dictionaries, the CBO, or health care experts to find people that call individual and employer mandates taxes. The very legislation Obama is trying to say is not a tax, calls itself a tax! Sen. Max Baucus’ (D-MT) health care bill calls the proposed fines an “excise tax”. The House bill calls the same penalties a “tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.” And the Associate Press reports: “If you put something in the Internal Revenue Code, and you tell the IRS to collect it, I think that’s a tax,” said Clint Stretch, head of the tax policy group for Deloitte, a major accounting firm. “If you don’t pay, the person who’s going to come and get it is going to be from the IRS.”

Obama’s allies are already retreating. The Washington Post reports: “Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus began reworking his health-care overhaul to ease the financial burden on middle-class Americans who would be required for the first time to have health insurance.” The Post continues: “All of his changes, though, would add billions to the cost of a bill whose chief accomplishment was its relative austerity.” Thus all of Baucus’ changes will only help break another Obama promise: “Here’s what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.” But don’t worry; Obama may come up with a new definition of “deficits” too.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Obama Cedes Eastern Europe To Russia

Here's a great article by James Lewis posted over at The American Thinker.

The Morning Bell

The Morning Bell

MONDAY, SEPT. 21, 2009

The Policy Is The Problem

Prior to his September 9th, health care “make or break” press conference, the Wall Street Journal estimated that President Barack Obama had by that time already given 27 speeches entirely devoted to health care and he had mentioned the issue prominently in another 92. While the September 9th presser bumped approval of Obamacare all the way up to 51% in Rasmussen’s tracking poll by September 13th, today that number is down to 43% with a record high of 56% disapproving.
Recent Entries

Video: Fiscal Wake Up Tour

Dear Obama: Rein In Holder

Video: The Empirical Evidence Against Big Government

Reconciliation 101: A “Nuclear” Abuse of Power

Obama’s Weekend Media Adventure

Undaunted the White House again plastered President Obama on as many friendly media outlets as possible this weekend. Yesterday he appeared on five Sunday news shows (every major network excluding FOX News, but including Univision), and tonight Obama will appear on David Letterman. The result of this latest media blitz? Nothing.

Politico reports: “In the interviews taped Friday – the first time a sitting president has done five Sunday shows back-to-back – Obama broke little new ground in how he tried to sell his own program, which has sharply divided his own party and left many in the public confused and deeply skeptical.” Asked by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos if he “lost control” of the health care debate, President Obama replied: “Well, not so much lost control, but where I’ve said to myself, somehow I’m not breaking through.”

Mr. President, if you didn’t break through the first 32 times, maybe it is not the message that is the problem. Maybe the problem is that the American people do not understand what your health care plan will mean for them, and they just don’t like it.

While President Obama has been careful not to formally endorse any of the health care bills in Congress, he not only specified a final price tag, $900 billion, that is closest to Sen. Max Baucus’ (D-MT) health plan, but he went on to defend the individual mandate and excise taxes in the Baucus bill on two of the Sunday shows. While the Baucus bill is not nearly as bad as parts of the Kennedy-Dodd bill or the House bills, it still constitutes an unprecedented expansion in the size and role of government, raises taxes, and bankrupts states:

Individual Mandates: Starting in 2013, almost everyone who does not have coverage would be required to purchase health insurance at a minimum level to be specified in the bill. Any individual who fails to buy health insurance will be forced to pay a tax by the Internal Revenue Service. Depending on your income and family status the new tax would be as low as $750 per person and as high as $3,800 per family. Worse, in order to enforce these provisions, the Baucus bill would require individuals, health insurers, employers, and government health agencies to report detailed health insurance information on all Americans to the IRS, adding significant administrative costs and reducing privacy protections.

Employer Mandates: Employers with more than 50 employees that do not offer health coverage would have to pay a tax for each employee whose family income is low enough to qualify for a premium credit. By requiring employers to pay taxes based on employees’ family income, not just their pay, companies would have to be informed of their employees’ family income from other sources. Worse, since the credits are based on family income rather than individual income, employers would be discouraged from hiring sole family income earners. This is a job killing employment tax plain and simple.

Unfunded Mandates: All adults with incomes at 133 percent of poverty ($14,440 for single person) would be eligible for Medicaid under the bill. The current and very broken Medicaid program is unsustainable for states and poorly serves the needy and the indigent who depend upon it. Under the Baucus bill, there is no real relief for states in the cost of the current program. States will still face a steep budget cliff in December 2010 when the federal matching formula for Medicaid payment expires. Adding additional costs through expansion of eligibility and benefits is adding people to a sinking boat.

Middle Class Tax Hike: During the 2008 presidential campaign and at the inception of the current national health care reform debate, the President promised that with the enactment of his agenda, the typical American family would see an annual $2,500 reduction in health care premium costs. But, beginning in 2013, the Baucus bill would impose a new federal excise tax on high cost health insurance plans. The tax would be applied to health plans valued at $8,000 for single policies and $21,000 for family policies. Because not all workers in such plans are high income, many will likely be on the receiving end of a middle class income tax increase, which contradicts President Obama’s promise that “if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.”

A new Gallup poll shows that 57% of Americans say the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to businesses and individuals. Another 51% say the federal government today has too much power. The American people are clearly signaling that they want less, not more, government influence in the health care system. The White House should stop talking to the American people and start listening.

The Heritage Foundation

Energy & Environment Update
Advancing freedom and prosperity by unleashing free enterprise, protecting America's energy interests, and advancing free global energy markets.
Recent Updates
You Can Help Free Our Energy
EPA to Impose Global Warming Regulations: Will Congress Intervene?
Treasury Admits Cap and Trade is a Massive Energy Tax

Do We Want a Carbon Footprint Label on Everything We Buy?
The Cloakroom: Sept 21-25th

New Vehicle Standards Mean High Priced and Unsafe Cars Americans Don’t Want

Featured Research
On the Border: Degraded Environmental Quality, Security and Transparency

By Robert Gordon

Representative Rob Bishop’s (R-UT) is concerned about how the Department of the Interior is – or perhaps more appropriately isn’t - working with the Department of Homeland Security to secure our borders, and he let Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar know it at a hearing of the Committee on Natural Resources. As evidence of the issue’s gravity, Bishop points to a 2004 Interior Department report that had never been released to the public.

According to the report the vast majority of the Organ National Pipe Monument in Arizona has been so degraded that it has lost its ‘wilderness’ character. Trash, vehicle tracks, foot trails and fire scars from illegal immigration and drug trafficking have severely degraded the Monument. Maps and images in the report (see photo) make a compelling case. The National Park Service’s website for the Monument, although cryptic, is consistent with the report indicating a list of roads and back-country areas simply closed off until further notice - your park lands ceded to coyotes and their human cargo and drug smugglers.

>> Click here to read Rob Gordon's full report



September 20, 2009 | House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) | Permalink

Once again, President Obama’s health care rhetoric doesn’t match the reality of congressional Democrats’ costly government takeover of health care. On ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos yesterday the President repeatedly insisted that requiring Americans to buy government-approved health care does not constitute a tax increase, yet that is exactly what it says in the 1,018-page House bill. What’s more, the idea that an individual mandate is a tax on working families has been confirmed in earlier writings by senior Obama Administration officials. All told, H.R. 3200 contains roughly $820 billion in tax increases, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) called on President Obama to “be straight with the American people” and admit that his health care plan requires significant tax increases:

“Once again, the President’s health care rhetoric doesn’t match reality. The massive tax increases working families will see under the Democrats’ costly government takeover of health care aren’t hidden in the fine print. The President should be straight with the American people and admit that his health care plan requires significant tax hikes in the middle of a deep recession. The President’s inability to meet his own standard of not repeating ‘bogus claims’ about health care reform is yet another indication it’s time to hit the reset button and start working together on a bipartisan plan the American people can support and afford.”

As the following shows, both the text of the House Democrats’ health care bill and President Obama’s own advisors have refuted his “no tax increase” claim:

Drink The Kool Aid ( Parody Song )

Thanks to Bungalow Bill I stole this from his site

Sunday, September 20, 2009

The Liberal Race Card

Having grown up in the State of Massachusetts I never really got to see alot of racism. Some desegregation riots in Southie on television was the extent. My parents didn't dwell on such things at least not in front of the children and never encouraged us to think in that manner.
My first experiances with it was when I entered into Military Service. Most people I met in the military where average people doing their service for whatever reason that drove them. Being a soldier at the tender age of seventeen I was amazed that the military drew people with prejudice beliefs.I found out in short order that there were White Racists,Black Racists,Hispanic Racists and Asian Racists. When I left The Service I went about life like most other people,working,paying taxs,raising a family that kind of thing. My wife and I never tought our children to hate other races as a matter of fact as the children got older my house became something of a small United Nations stop over. I have to admit I did get a chuckle out of B. Clinton claiming to be the first Black President.
But the point I'm getting at is I think that racism is either ingrained in people at a young age by older racists or it might be some deep seated ignorance.Either way it does not affect the majority of the people on this planet.
When I hear or read about some sexually frustrated middle aged white elitist spouting off that all white non-elitists are racist or when the morons at MSNBC work themselves into a frenzy over racism,even Newsweek Magazine publishing an article that babies are born racist and then you have the Marxists in the government doing the same thing the only thing they are doing is empowrering people like members of the KKK, Rev. Wright,Van Jones to name a few examples to act out on their ignorant beleifs.
So in conclusion. The people and organizations I mentioned above are the ones responsable for any kind of backlash their race-baiting garners.
But then again this is my opinion I might be wrong.

Steele Giving It Back To The Libs

Somtimes the Republicans can give slap the Libs up side the head also. Unfortunately not often enough.

My Heritage

The Heritage Foundation is pleased to present the following webcast this week for our members and supporters. You can watch the webcast live on

Thursday: Karl Rove on restoring conservative principles
Thursday, September 24 at 11:15 p.m. Eastern — Karl Rove, a former adviser to President George W. Bush and now a political commentator, will explain how conservatives can recover from political setbacks and advance their ideas. Rove's remarks are part of the inaugural event sponsored by the San Francisco Bay Committee for Heritage.

Watch the event live online on

Media Matters ?

This crap site is worse then the state run media.
The way they handle news Media Matters very little.