Jim Webb’s Unbelievable Hypocrisy

Exactly how stupid does Jim Webb think we Virginians are? Does he actually believe that we have not followed his voting record and the fact that he has been nothing but a lap dog of the Obama Democrats? Check out the chutzpuh he sent with his latest re-election email. It is an exceept from the RealClearPolitics website on Monday, November 8, 2010:

Jim Webb went to the White House last September. The Virginia senator was meeting with the president to discuss Guantanamo detainees. The conversation soon shifted to healthcare. “I told him this was going to be a disaster,” Webb recalls. “The president believed it was all going to work out.”

And Jim Webb must have believed it too, otherwise he would not have cast a “Yea” vote for cloiture and for passage of the bill. And now, Webb is saying it was a bad thing? Six months too late, Jimmy boy!

And check this out:

“I’ve been warning them,” Webb says, sighing, resting his chin on his hand. “I’ve been having discussions with our leadership ever since I’ve been up here. I decided to run as a Democrat because I happen to strongly believe in Jacksonian democracy. There needs to be one party that very clearly represents the interests of working people … I’m very concerned about the transactional nature of the Democratic Party. Its evolved too strongly into interest groups rather than representing working people, including small business people.”

Uh-huh. This is why Jimmy voted for the bailouts and the failed stimulus package that served to do nothing except reward unions and government workers who voted Democrats into office.

Webb’s comments and his emails are nothing less than insulting. I know what he has been doing over the past four years and it does not at all reflect his comments of late.

I’ll say it point blank: Jim Webb is a liar. He is lying about his record because he knews that in two years, the Commonwealth of Virginia is going to work very hard to toss him back out and put in a new Senator who will actually respresent Virginia rather than be a rubber stamp for a political party. He was very happy to vote the way the Democrats told him to vote (even when it went against the wishes of Vorginia) and now he sees how wrong he was to do so. But instead of admitting his own culpability, he is making an early effort to distance himself from it by telling outright lies to people.

Supporters of Webb and his staff are especially welcome to respond to this post. I’ll be very happy to compare the liar Webb’s current statements with his voting record. He can lie all he wants, but his record will always tell the truth about what he really believes.

The White House War On Jobs

If Joeseph Goebbels were re-incarnated and alive today, he would be somewhere in the Obama administration writing press releases about how jobs were being created or had been thus far saved. Those proclamations from the Obama White House are certainly strange, especially when the concurrent news stories are about how jobless claims are increasing on a monthly basis.

I don’t think that Baghdad Bob would approve of such efforts at misleading propaganda.

But, Obama still has trouble accepting responsibility for the failed stimulus package and preferes to continue assigning blame to George W. Bush, who has been out of office for over a year-and-a-half now. Joe Biden is loathe to go back to the “good old days” when people had stable jobs and steady paychecks.

Michelle Malkin has a great article regarding the jobs being lost, even as Obama and family enjoy an upper-class vacation at Martha’s Vineyard when most Americans can barely afford to take any kind of vacation at all.

From her column:

These are not the wealthy fat cats and Big Business titans Democrats love to demonize.

They’re employees of companies like Assurant Health, which announced last week that it would slash 130 jobs at its offices in Milwaukee and Plymouth, Minn., to prepare for costly Obamacare mandates.

They’re employees of medical device firms in Massachusetts, where officials say they’ll be forced to cut back on operational costs and jobs thanks to a little-noticed Obamacare tax on their products that goes into effect in 2013.

They’re employees of restaurants like White Castle and International House of Pancakes, whose executives say they will be forced into layoffs and premium hikes to cope with the federal law’s $3,000-per-employee penalty on companies whose workers pay more than 9.5 percent of household income in premiums for company-provided insurance.

They’re mom-and-pop enterprises across the country that must now deal with Obamacare’s onerous Section 9006 tax-filing mandate. It requires them to file 1099 forms with the IRS for every vendor from whom they purchase $600 or more in goods. Nebraska GOP Sen. Mike Johanns calls it one of many “job-crushing provisions” that will bury small business in paperwork and legal costs.

They’re the estimated 23,000 workers in the deepwater drilling industry whom the White House deliberately wrote off in pursuit of its junk science-based drilling moratorium.

They’re the estimated tens of thousands of workers employed by car dealers that were shut down by Obama’s auto czars at a time, as the TARP inspector general pointed out last month, “when the country was experiencing the worst economic downturn in generations and the government was asking its taxpayers to support a $787 billion stimulus package designed primarily to preserve jobs… — all based on a theory and without sufficient consideration of the decisions’ broader economic impact.”

They’re employees of Utah oil and gas companies whose leases have been pulled without cause by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. The Interior Department’s own Inspector General rejected Salazar’s explanation that the Bush administration had rushed the leases through. The Deseret News reports that “rescinding these leases has likely cost the state millions already. Officials in Uintah county estimate the county lost 3,000 jobs in 2009, and Duchesne lost 1,000 jobs.”

They’re employees of commercial and recreational fishing businesses in New England, who have organized a flotilla on Martha’s Vineyard on Thursday to protest the Obama administration’s restrictive environmental policies and stealth regulatory ocean grab.

It’s no wonder that Democrats up for re-election this year are stampeding as fast as they can away from the White House and its current occupant.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The White House War on Jobs
Michelle Malkin
TownHall.com
August 25, 2010

Funny But Accurate Cartoon Today

Federal Judge Allows Virginia Lawsuit Against Obamacare To Move Forward

From the Wall Street Journal:

Virginia federal judge Henry Hudson on Monday ruled that he’ll let the state of Virginia’s challenge to the landmark health care law passed in March go forward, at least for the time being. Click here for the early Reuters story; here for the 32-page opinion.

The Department of Health and Human Services had moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed in March, shortly after the passage of the law. But Judge Hudson on Monday denied the motion.

The ruling represents a setback that will force the Obama administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the law. The suit, filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (pictured), alleges that the law’s requirement that its residents have health insurance violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Virginia’s lawsuit is one of several trying to undo the health-care law. Another large one was filed in a Florida federal court by a handful of state attorneys general.

In his opinion, Judge Hudson ruled:

  • The guiding precedent [on the Commerce Clause] is informative but inconclusive. Never before has the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far. At this juncture, the court is not persuaded that the Secretary has demonstrated a failure to state a cause of action with respect to the Commerce Clause element.

In other words, off to discovery we head.

And a whole lot of stuff is going to come out that the Obama administration and its supporters would rather not have a public debate about. Things like how the Republicans were locked out of meetings where the bill was written, the benefits offered to certain states so that their Senators would vote the right way, etc. This is going to be a very fun case to watch.

Thank God there is some sanity left in the Judiciary somewhere.

You can access the original article on-line here:

Virginia Judge: The Suit Against The Health Care Law Goes Forward
Ashby Jones
Wall Street Journal
August 2, 2010

Dr. Suess Comments On Hope And Change

I do not like this Uncle Sam,
I do not like his health care scam.
I do not like these dirty crooks,
or how they lie and cook the books.
I do not like when Congress steals,
I do not like their secret deals.
I do not like this speaker, Nan,
I do not like this ‘YES WE CAN.’
I do not like this spending spree,
I’m smart, I know that nothing’s free.
I do not like your smug replies,
when I complain about your lies.
I do not like this kind of hope.
I do not like it, nope, nope, nope!

Planned Parenthood Unable To Account For Over $1 Billion In Taxpayer Funding

Planned Parenthood does not have a good track record at all and it just got worse. $1.3 billion worse. The organization that deliberately covers up cases of statutory rape is now under scrutiny for losing $1.3 billion in taxpayer dollars.

Planned Parenthood had been the recipient of over $2 billion from the Federal Government, but an audit by the General Accounting Office can only account for a little over $6 million of that. Where did the rest of the money go?

From the Washington Times:

A new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) on federal tax money funneled into Planned Parenthood and similar organizations raises more questions than it answers about the nation’s largest abortion chain.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s (PPFA) audits show the organization spent just $657.1 million between 2002 and 2008 from federal government grants and programs, but the abortion behemoth’s own annual reports show that it took in $2.3 billion from government grants and programs during the same time period.

That’s not pocket change. Why the discrepancy?

Yes. That is a good question, one that the CEO of PP should be made to answer, preferably in front of a Congressional panel with the C-SPAN cameras running.

More:

Someone, then, needs to explain to all those people why $2.3 billion in tax dollars have been doled out to an organization that admits to systematically having killed more than 1.8 million pre-born babies between 2002 and 2008 and then reports it only spent $657.1 million in federal dollars.

Has Planned Parenthood managed to tuck away megamillions of our tax dollars, seemingly unnoticed? Or is that much of its government funding coming from sources other than the federal government? Or is there a problem with the way Planned Parenthood is reporting its expenditure of our federal monies?

In just two weeks, Planned Parenthood will complete its 2009-10 fiscal year. Yet it still has not released its annual report for its 2008-09 fiscal year. In light of the discrepancy revealed in this GAO report, we must ask: What is Planned Parenthood trying to keep secret?

And as a futher question, we must ask why the leftists and other pro-abortion people are so silent on this issue. After all, if a pro-life group suddenly couldn’t account for $1.3 billion in taxpayer funds, the pro-abortion lobby would be demanding someone’s head on a platter.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Planned Parenthood’s Missing Millions
Rita Diller
Washington Times
June 18, 2010

Obama Appoints Health Care Rationing Czar

Wait a minute! What did that title read? “Rationing Czar?” But Obama and the Democrats promised us that there wouldn’t be any rationing and that anyone who made such a claim was guilty of “fear-mongering.”

Well, let’s meet Obama’s new Rationing Czar, Donald Berwick, and see whether we were “fear-mongering” or we simply called out the Democrats’ lie earlier than they expected:

From an article by Terry Jeffrey at TownHall:

“The decision is not whether or not we will ration care,” Berwick told Biotechnology Healthcare, “the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

President Obama has nominated Berwick to be administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, the federal agency that runs these two massive proto-socialist health care programs. If confirmed, he will oversee the massive cuts that Obamacare mandated in Medicare.

“Fear-mongering?” That is the term the Dems use when they want to silence critics who have correctly identified a Democrat lie.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Names Rationing Czar To Run Medicare
Terry Jeffrey
TownHall.com
May 25, 2010

Democrats Admit Companies Were Right To Claim Obamacare Would Make Costs Higher Rather Than Lower

Now, before you start thinking this is some sort of right-wing Tea Party claim, look at the source:

Inquiry Says Health Care Charges Were Proper
Robert Pear
New York Times
April 26, 2010

Yes, you read that right. The New York Times. Hardly a bastion of right-wing thought.

Here is what Mr. Pear wrote:

When major companies declared that a provision of the new health care law would hurt earnings, Democrats were skeptical. But after investigating, House Democrats have concluded that the companies were right to tell investors and the government about the expected adverse effects of the law on their financial results.

Within days after President Obama signed the law on March 23, companies filed reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission, saying the tax change would have a material adverse effect on their earnings.

The White House suggested that companies were exaggerating the effects of the tax change. The commerce secretary, Gary F. Locke, said the companies were being “premature and irresponsible” in taking such write-downs.

“Irresonsible?” This from a hard-core leftist administration that is squandering our grandchildren’s and great-grandchildren’s futures as we speak?

Well, it turns out that the companies were right and the Dems were wrong:

In a memorandum summarizing its investigation, the Democratic staff of the committee said, “The companies acted properly and in accordance with accounting standards in submitting filings to the S.E.C. in March and April.”

Moreover, it said, “these one-time charges were required by applicable accounting rules.” The committee staff said this view was confirmed by independent experts at the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the American Academy of Actuaries.

Didn’t the Dems promise that Obamacare would make health care less expensive? This law is only going to make it more expensive and less accessible. Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak (both Democrats) were going to hold hearing on the claims these companies made until the two learned that the claims were well-founded. Those hearings have now been cancelled.

20 Ways Obamacare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

So, Obama, Pelosi and Reid said that Congress needs to pass the Health Care Bill so that America can see what’s really in it? Well, let’s get started! Below are 20 items in HR3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee. You will also read how it affects us Americans.

From Investor’s Business Daily:

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

Now, who are those idiots claiming that this isn’t socialized medicine?

There’s more in this bill that gives the government more power to regulate your lives and spending. But items #2 and #6 are particularly galling since they essentially amount to a welfare system for people who live unhealthy lifestyles. Items #12 and #13 will eventually lead to the same shortage of services that are being experienced in Canada and Great Britain.

And here’s a real kicker: Item 14# is designed only to put insurance companies out of business thereby giving the Socialists in the Democrat Party an excuse to go to the disastrous “single payer system.”

This bill needs to get tossed out by the courts or repealed by Congress after we toss the Socialist bums out in 2010 and elect a Constitutional Conservative in 2012.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

20 Ways Obamacare Will Take Away Our Freedoms
David Hogberg
Investor’s Business Daily
March 21, 2010

What Democrats Think Of The American People

Bill Kristol sums it up in two words: “Not much.”

Writing for the Weekly Standard and referencing an article from the Politico, Bill notes the following:

A memo from a top aide to Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen late last week counseled other Democratic staffers to tell their bosses not to worry, that “things like reconciliation and what the rules committee does is INSIDE BASEBALL.” Yesterday House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters, “I don’t think any American … is going to make the distinction” between the Slaughter procedure and a straightforward vote on the legislation. “Process is interesting, particularly to all of us around this room. But in the final analysis, what is interesting to the American public is what does this bill do for them and their families.”

Actually, what is interesting to us is what this bill will do to us and our families. We already know thanks to examples like Canada and Great Britain. That is why the majority of us are against socializing our health care. But the Dems seem to be completely oblivious to our position.

More:

Here the Democrats betray their contempt for the supposed simple-mindedness and short-sightedness of the American public. They also convey their vision of the American people living under the big government liberalism: We are to be passive consumers of government action, who accept what is done for us and to us in light of our perceived narrow short-term self-interest. We are not to think of ourselves as self-governing citizens with a stake in the process of constitutional self-government and a concern for the good of the whole.

Yep. That is exactly how the Democrats think. They think they know more about our needs from sitting in their taxpayer-financed luxury offices in Washington D.C. than we know about our needs from living out here in the real world.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

What Democrats Think Of The American People
William Kristol
The Weekly Standard
March 16, 2010

And the Politico article on-line here:

Dems: Time To ‘Rip The Band Aid Off’
Patrick O’Connor
Politico
March 12, 2010

Pelosi, Slaughter Went To Court Against Self-Executing Rule In 2005

This is basically an extension of my post from yesterday:

Democrats Change The Rules, Set To Trash The Constitution
84rules
March 15, 2010

Not only is Pelosi & Company set to usurp the Constitution in order to ram a Socialized Health Care bill that a majority of Americans do not want down our collective throats, but they were also “friends of the court” in a case back in 2005 when they challenged a piece of GOP legislation that focused on raising the debt limit.

From Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner:

Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase using a self-executing rule similar to the Slaughter Solution.

Guess who went to Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the move? The Ralph Nader-backed Public Citizen legal activists.

And their argument went thus:

“Article I of the United States Constitution requires that before proposed legislation may “become[] a Law,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 2, “(1) a bill containing its exact text [must be] approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate [must] approve[] precisely the same text; and (3) that text [must be] signed into law by the President,” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998).

“Public Citizen, a not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization, filed suit in District Court claiming that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) (“DRA” or “Act”), is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute’s enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk’s error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate.

“Public Citizen asserts that it is irrelevant that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate both signed a version of the proposed legislation identical to the version signed by the President. Nor does it matter, Public Citizen argues, that the congressional leaders’ signatures attest that indistinguishable legislative text passed both houses.”

Note the words in italics. That is the issue here. According to the above argument, it is not constitutional for the House and Senate to pass two different versions of the same legislation and then just arbitrarily choose which version shall become law.

Oh, and who also filed amicus briefs on this case? Read on:

  • Nancy Pelosi
  • Henry Waxman
  • Louise Slaughter

Also note that the Dems were against raising the debt limit 5 years ago while today they are spending our great-grand-children’s future.

Democrat, thy name is Chutzpuh!

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Pelosi, Slaughter Went To Court Against GOP’s Self-Executing Rule In 2005
Mark Tapscott
Washington Examiner
March 16, 2010

Democrats Change The Rules, Preparing To Trash The Constitution (Slaughter Solution)

How many times did we Conservatives warn about this during the 2008 election cycle and how many times were we ignored? The Democrats are radicals who want to force the failure of European-style socialism on the United States.

The Dems are now going to try forcing Obamacare through the legislative process using a trick known as the Slaughter Solution that is clearly unconstitutional, but they don’t seem to care.

From U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader John Boehner’s Blog:

The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter’s scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply “deeming” the Senate bill passed in the House – without an actual vote by members of the House.

This is referencing a Congress Daily story that states:

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Essentially, The Dems want to “bundle” the Senate bill in with the corrections bill. No debate on the Senate bill will take place in the House at all.

This is the most brazen usurpation of our Constitution in the history of the United States. We Conservatives knew the Democrats were more than capable of pulling tricks like this, but few, if any, seemed to listen to us.

Is anyone listening now?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Prepare “Slaughter Solution” To Ram Unpopular Health Care Takeover Through Congress Without A Vote
Dave Schnittger
Rep. John Boehner’s Blog
March 10, 2010’s

Do You Agree With Barack Obama’s Statement Of December 20, 2005?

I agree with this:

“The TANF program affects millions of American children and families and deserves a full and fair debate. Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes and the wrong place for the proposed changes to the TANF program. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt.”

The problem is that Obama and other Democrats have flip-flopped and don’t agree with their own statements anymore. I guess being a hypocrite is easier than maintaining consistent standards for everyone.

Obama’s Chicago Politics: Selling Judgeships To Buy Health Care Votes?

You would think that with all that has gone wrong for Obama over the past year and after all the revelations of corruption in his cabinet and “czar” appointments that Obama would be more careful about things like appointing the brother of an undecided House Dem to the bench on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

From John McCormack of the Weekly Standard:

Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he’s obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson’s brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

You can find out who the ten Dems are here:

Chuck Todd Twitter

Now, Scott Matheson may be very qualified to be a judge, but the timing of this appointment couldn’t have been any worse, even if Obama had tried to make it worse.

More:

Consider Congressman Matheson’s record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he’s “undecided” on ramming the bill through Congress.

Very suspicious looking. I guess you can take the boy out of Chicago, but you can’t take the gangster-style Chicago politics out of the Community Organizer.

Given all that has happened with appointees like Bill Richardson, Tim Geithner and other corruption tainted players, this looks (on the surface) like another “pay to play” scheme.

You can access the complete news story on-line here:

Obama Now Selling Judgeships For Health Care Votes?
John McCormack
The Weekly Standard
March 4, 2010

Obama To Break Pledge Of Not Increasing Taxes On Incomes Of Less Than $250,000/yr

Well, it’s good to be back among the ranks of the employed. Now that I have an income again, I can devote just a little more time to helping the world stay informed about key issues we are facing.

Many of us knew that Barack Obama had absolutely no intention of keeping many of his campaign promises. Instead of allowing the health care debate to be made public over C-SPAN, he and his Democrat followers instead chose to hold their own meetings behind closed doors and completely shut out the Republicans. He promised that he would veto any bill that contained earmarks but instead has signed legislation that overall contains over 9,000 earmarks.

So, it should come as no surprise whatsoever that Obama is now poised to break a campaign promise he made on September 8, 2008:

“And I can make a firm pledge: Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase—not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

It is becoming clear that Obama made this grandiose claim in an effort to get votes by painting himself as some sort of anti-tax candidate. Well, now that he got the votes, he’s singing a completely different tune:

According to Terrence Jeffrey at Cybercast News Service:

[T]he new health care plan released in summary form yesterday by the White House specifically calls for increasing the Medicare payroll tax on “households with incomes exceeding $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly.”

Unless President Obama is prepared to say that the only type of “family” that qualifies as a “family” under his tax pledge is one that is formed around a “married couple filing jointly” than his new health care proposal violates his 2008 tax pledge on its face. The Internal Revenue Service, for example, makes clear that the “head of household” tax filing status is for “unmarried” taxpayers. A definition of the term “head of household” on the IRS Web site says: “Generally, you may claim head of household filing status on your tax return only if you are unmarried and pay more than 50% of the costs of keeping up a home for yourself and your dependent(s) or other qualifying individuals.”

That seems to be the mantra of the Democrats: Tax anything that can be taxed in order to pay for the irresponsible spending the Democrats have engaged in over the past year.

It’s true that Republicans went on a spending binge when they were in power, but the Democrats have far outstripped anything that Republicans have done since 1994. The republicans were bad, but the Democrats are infinitely worse.

More:

The White House posted the president’s tax increase proposal as part of the summary of the new health-care reform bill he is proposing.

“Under current law, workers who earn a salary pay a flat tax of 1.45 percent of their wages to support the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund, but those who have substantial unearned income do not, raising issues of fairness,” says the summary of Title IX of the president’s proposal. “The Act will include an additional 0.9 percentage point Hospital Insurance tax for households with incomes exceeding $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly. In addition, it would add a 2.9 percent tax for such high-income households to unearned income including interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents (excluding income from active participation in S corporations).”

There it is. Clear and concise. Obama had no intention of keeping his “no tax increases” on anyone under $250,000/yr pledge.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Breaking His Pledge? Obama Calls For Increasing Payroll Taxes On ‘Households’ Earning Less Than $250,000 Per Year
Terrence Jeffrey
Cybercast News Service
February 23, 2010

Messages To Senators Webb And Warner Regarding The Socialized Health Care Bill Vote Today

Here is the text I sent to them:

I am writing to ask you to please vote “Nay” on the upcoming cloiture vote regarding the socialized Health Care package that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are trying to push through Congress. This bill is a disaster waiting to happen, just as similar measures became disasters in countries like Great Britain and Canada whose Health Care systems have suffered immeasuraby under similar legislation.

Further, this bill will only serve to undermine the freedom of choice that we Americans enjoy in our current Health Care system and it may very well be a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Under the 4th Amendment, Americans are guaranteed freedom from unwarranted searches and siezures, yet this bill authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to arbitrarily look into the private bank accounts of American citizens and even to take money out of those accounts without the accounts holder’s knowledge or permission, all without warrant or probable cause. That alone is reason enough to vote “Nay.”

America does want reform for Health care, but not the currently proposed bill which will ultimately result in a government take-over.

We want tort reform that will prevent ambulance chasing lawyers like John Edwards (D-NC) from becoming millionaires overnight from junk-science lawsuits which end up forcing people to pay higher incurance premiums to cover the losses. We want greater choice in health insurance by lifting the ban on inter-state insurance plans. None of this is addressed in the Reid-Pelosi versions of these bills.

Further, we want to choice to “opt-out” of the government run “public option” that has been such a dismal failure in Canada and Great Britain. The current “opt-out” language is a joke as no governor of any state will ever deny benefits to his/her citizens if they still have to pay the taxes for it. The current “opt-out” language is an insult to our intelligence and again, is more than sufficient reason to vote “Nay.”

Other options for Health Care reform are on the table if the Democrats would simply stop negotiating in secret behind closed doors and would instead start to allow opposing views to be brought out, considered and discussed.

Remember that Harry Reid crafted this bill in secret and completely broke the 2006 Democrat promise of the “most open and transparent Congress in history.”

Please follow the will of the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia and vote “Nay.” The election results of Novemeber 3, 2009 showed clearly where we stand on the issue of more government intervention in our lives. We do not want it and you should not be promoting it in any way, shape or form.

Thank you.

I’ll let you know if they even respond and whether or not they address the issues of tort reform, inter-state insurance choice and transparency. My guess is they will ignore those issues and go off on some socialist tangent.

Obama Administration Tramples On First Amendment: Issues Gag Order To Insurance Companies

I got laid off from my job last Wednesday and have been busy doing things like getting doctor appointments for my family before my medical benefits run out at the end of the month as well as trying to find a new job with benefits so that I don’t have to come up with a way of paying off a $1200/month COBRA payment on limited income.

Anyway, I know I’ve missed a few pretty big news stories since then, but I will try to get them in here as soon as possible.

Right now, I’d like to look at the latest action by the Obama administration. As I recall, Obama said he wanted a good debate about health care reform. If so, then why is he trying to silence those who want to get good infomation out to the people that will be most affected by it?

From the Washington Post:

The federal government has ordered health insurers to stop telling Medicare beneficiaries that proposed health reform legislation could hurt seniors and jeopardize their benefits.

The government might take enforcement action against insurers that have tried to mobilize opposition to the legislation by sending their enrollees “misleading and confusing” messages, a senior official of the Department of Health and Human Services said in a memo Monday.

The “messages” in question very correctly note that under HR3200, Medicare benefits to seniors will be reduced. Obama and the Democrats have already publically admitted this in their attempt to show that socialized medicine will not add to the defecit.

So, why the gag order? Why worry about the insuarance companies repeating exactly what Obama and the Democrats have already said?

Proposed health reform legislation would sharply reduce funding for Medicare Advantage plans, and the insurance industry has been battling to prevent that from happening. The bill unveiled last week by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, would directly cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans by an estimated $123 billion over 10 years, and it would indirectly reduce funding for those plans by another $15.6 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

And Obama does not want people to know about this? This leads to an even bigger question. Why stifle the debate? Why suppress the very same information that Obama and the Dems have publically acknowledged?

Unless the ultimate goal is to control the debate by controlling the information, nothing else makes sense.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Insurers Criticize Administration ‘Gag Order’
David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post
September 22, 2009

CNN Poll After Obama Socialized Health Care Speech: Sample Heavily Weighted Towards Democrats

I’ll bet there are many libs out there, mostly newsreaders from NBC, ABC, CBS, Washington Post and New York Times, who are going to be touting this CNN poll that says Obama’s Health Care Reform popularity gained 14 points after last night’s speech.

But at least CNN has the integrity to admit that it was weighted heavily towards Democrats:

The sample of speech-watchers in this poll was 45 percent Democratic and 18 percent Republican. Our best estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates that the sample is about 8-10 points more Democratic than the population as a whole.

Clearly, this poll does not reflect America as a whole.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

CNN Poll: Double-Digit Post-Speech Jump For Obama Plan
CNN
September 10, 2009

Hypocrisy From The Dems Over Presidential Heckler. Surprised?

I recall during the 2005 State of the Union Address, President Bush was booed by the Democrats. I also recall during the Presidential Inauguration this past January how Democrats in the audience were chanting “Na-na-na-na. Na-na-na-na. Hey! Hey! Goodbye!” in a very derisive manner towards President Bush.

Flashback: Democrats Boo Bush At 2005 State Of The Union
Real Clear Politics
Spetember 10, 2009

So, why are these same people so indignant about what Rep. Joe Wilson said last night during Obama’s pitch for socialized medicine?

President Barack Obama’s address to Congress this evening was moving along fairly smoothly until he pledged that there was nothing in the legislation that would provide health care to the millions of illegal immigrants residing in the nation.

A cry of “You lie!” was audible from the Republican side of the aisle. That heckler was South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson. (Watch the video HERE.)

“It’s not true,” the president responded to the outburst, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, seated behind the president, offered her mother-of-five glare towards the Republican side of the chamber. First Lady Michelle Obama was seen shaking her head from side to side.

Then truth is that if you walk into any hospital emergency room here in the U.S. there is a big sign that says you cannot be turned away for any reason. Most illegal immigrants here in the U.S. are using our emergency rooms as their family doctors’ offices. There is nothing in any of the socialized medicine bills floating around Congress that changes this.

I don’t think Rep. Wilson should have made any kind of apology until the Democrats clean their own house and offer apologies for all the insults they have been sending towards President Bush and towards Americans in general (i.e. calling us “Nazis,” “un-American,” etc.).

You can access the complete article on-line here:

GOP Rep. Joe Wilson: Presidential Heckler
Wall Street Journal
September 9, 2009

Socialized Medicine: Handing Out Premature Death Sentences

No, this is not a scare-tactic. It is a bonafide news item from the Daily Telegraph over in the United Kingdom.

From Kate Devlin:

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

I’ve actually seen this done in the United States. My family requested that my father be kept sedated until he passed. But we already knew that there was no hope for his recovery and we wanted to make sure that he did not become conscious or feel any pain.

That isn’t always the case over in Britain.

Read on:

But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.

There is a major difference in a family making a decision and a doctor following a government guideline that was hammered out by bureaucrats who had never been to medical school or even knew the first thing about any particular patient.

Here is the real kicker:

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients.”

When the government pays the bills, the government makes the decisions. That is what makes socialized medicine so unpalatable to Americans. We want as little government as possible in our lives. Dems and libs seem to have a great deal of difficulty understanding that.

But, even more importantly, it highlights the “end-of-life” concerns that people like Sarah Palin and others have expressed over the past few months:

The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.

Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other life threatening conditions.

It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.

It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.

But there are major pitfalls in determining whether a patient is actually entering their final hours. Medications can cause unresponsiveness or unconsciousness. Dehydration can lead to symptoms completely unrelated to the patient’s primary ailment.

Further, poor care can lead to other conditions that can be mistaken for signs of impending death.

As a result, many people are put on the Pathway prematurely.

Just another wonderful contribution to medical care from the practitioners of socialized medicine.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Sentenced To Death On The NHS
Kate Devlin
Daily Telegraph
September 2, 2009

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.