Ironically just after I wrote the article for Historic News entitled "The History of Complacency" I got this in my e-mail , and I figured it dovetailed pretty nicely with the Glenn Beck video that on "Change Blindness".
"C'mon, that will never happen in America."
“What would you say if I gave you 11 reasons why the elections in 2010 will be the most important in the history of the United States?
1. What if I had told you in October 2008, before the last presidential election, that before Barack Obama's first 100 days in office, the federal government would be in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries? That 19 of America's largest banks would be forced to undergo stress tests by the federal government which would determine if they were insufficiently capitalized, so they must be supervised by the government?
Would you have said, "C’mon that will never happen in America."
2. What if I had told you that within Barack Obama's first 100 days in office the federal government would be the largest shareholder in the US Big-Three automakers: Ford, GM, and Chrysler? That the government would kick out the CEO's of these companies and appoint hand-picked executives with zero experience in the auto industry and that executive compensation would be determined, not by a Board of Directors, but by the government?
Would you have said, "C’mon that will never happen in America."
3. What if I had told you that Barack Obama would appoint 21 Czars, without congressional approval, accountable only to him, not to the voters, who would have control over a wide range of US policy decisions. That there would be a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and more than a dozen other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over US domestic and foreign policy.
Would you have said, "C’mon that will never happen in America."
4. What if I had told you that the federal deficit would be $915 billion in the first six months of the Obama presidency - with a projected annual deficit of $1.75 trillion - triple the $454.8 billion in 2008, for which the previous administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats. That congress would pass Obama's $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010. That the projected deficit over the next ten years would be greater than $10 trillion.
Would you have said, "C’mon that will never happen in America."
5. What if I had told you that the Obama Justice Department would order FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held at US military detention facilities in Afghanistan. That Obama would order the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility with no plan for the disposition of the 200-plus individuals held there. That several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo would be sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government. That our returning US veterans would be labeled terrorists and put on a watch list.
Would you have said, "C’mon that will never happen in America."
6. What if I had told you that the federal government would seek powers to seize key companies whose failures could jeopardize the financial system. That a new regulatory agency would be proposed by Obama to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public.
Would you have said, "C’mon that will never happen in America."
7. What if I had told you that Obama would travel to the Middle East, bow before the Saudi king, and repeatedly apologize for America's past actions. That he would travel to Latin America where he would warmly greet Venezuela's strongman Hugo Chavez and sit passively in the audience while Nicaraguan Marxist thug Daniel Ortega charged America with terrorist aggression in Central America.
Would you have said, "C’mon that will never happen in America."
8. Okay, now what if I were to tell you that Obama wants to dismantle conservative talk radio through the imposition of a new "Fairness Doctrine." That he wants to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via internet blogs, cable news networks, or advocacy ads. That most major network television and most newspapers will only sing his phrases like state-run media in communist countries?
Would you say, "C’mon that will never happen in America."
9. What if I were to tell you that the Obama Justice Department is doing everything it can to limit your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. That the federal government wants to reinstate the so-called assault weapons ban which would prohibit the sale of any type of firearm that requires the shooter to pull the trigger every time a round is fired. That Obama's Attorney General wants to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns and ammunition, which most citizens choose for self-defense.
Would you say, "C’mon that will never happen in America."
10. What if I were to tell you that the Obama plan is to eliminate states rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by the people. That Obama plans to control the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every US citizen.
Would you say, "C'mon, that will never happen in America."
11. What if I were to tell you that the president, the courts, and the federal government have ignored the US Constitution and have seized powers which=2 0the founders of our country fought to restrict. That our last presidential election may have been our last truly free election for some time to come. That our next presidential election may look similar to the one recently held in Iran. (And maybe under review by ACORN.)
I know - I know what you will say. That will never happen in America.
Yeah, that's pretty much what we've been warning people about since Barack emerged as a candidate, but people called us crazy right wing nutjobs. I wish it was just my imagination, but sadly it's all too real.
And now for the icing on the cake.....
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Five Simple Arguments Against Government Healthcare
by Hunter Baker @ RedState
The argument from federalism: One of the great benefits of federalism is that the states can act as the laboratories of democracy. If a new public policy is tried in the states and works (as happened with welfare reform in Michigan and Wisconsin), then a similar program has a good chance of succeeding at the national level. The welfare reform went national and proved to be one of the most successful public policy initiatives of the last half century. On the other hand, major governmental healthcare initiatives have been tried in Tennessee and Massachusetts. Neither of those have panned out. That should be a cautionary sign to avoid rushing ahead to just get a bill done!
The argument from misery: I cannot think of any encounter with my government that I willingly seek out. I hate going to the DMV. I hate going to the post office. I hate getting my car inspected. I hate getting a passport renewed. All of these things eat up productive time in my day and are filled with useless, inefficient waiting. This basic situation also applies to people who rely on the government for their healthcare. When my wife did indigent care in Houston, her clients did not pay for her services. They paid with their time. LOTS OF WAITING. I don’t need more waiting in my life. And because government employees are typically unionized, I don’t need to be at the mercy of a bunch of unionized employees any more than I already am.
The argument from incentivization: If the government provides the care too cheaply, then there will be a glut of clients who overwhelm the system and create the nightmare of waiting as the price to pay. If the government offers the care too expensively, people will opt out which is exactly what they wanted to avoid. If the government tries to control utilization by deciding what services you can and can’t have, then you are up against a far worse foe than the worst HMO you ever faced. And the government will go where the insurance companies fear to tread. They will decide who should live or die.
The argument from missing the verdammten point: It is exceedingly clear that a huge reason for the skyrocketing costs of medicine is the problem of predatory litigation driven by lawyers looking for 30-40% of a bloody fortune from an industry thought to be able to afford it. Between the cost of malpractice insurance, the payouts, and the defensive medicine that must be practiced to ward off lawsuits, it is easy to see why healthcare is outrageously expensive. Yet, the president very clearly said he would not seek to deal with that problem in the legislation. WHAT? WHY? Because the trial lawyers are very good political donors? Not a compelling reason for the formation of a particular public policy.
The argument from economic theory: Look at two sectors of the healthcare market that are typically paid out of pocket without the influence of insurance providers or the government. I am thinking of plastic surgery and lasik procedures for improving eyesight. Both of those services are becoming less expensive in real dollars rather than skyrocketing out of control. This happens to be the portion of the healthcare industry where actual market conditions apply. Customers pay for and receive value at a price that is becoming more reasonable all the time.
The argument from federalism: One of the great benefits of federalism is that the states can act as the laboratories of democracy. If a new public policy is tried in the states and works (as happened with welfare reform in Michigan and Wisconsin), then a similar program has a good chance of succeeding at the national level. The welfare reform went national and proved to be one of the most successful public policy initiatives of the last half century. On the other hand, major governmental healthcare initiatives have been tried in Tennessee and Massachusetts. Neither of those have panned out. That should be a cautionary sign to avoid rushing ahead to just get a bill done!
The argument from misery: I cannot think of any encounter with my government that I willingly seek out. I hate going to the DMV. I hate going to the post office. I hate getting my car inspected. I hate getting a passport renewed. All of these things eat up productive time in my day and are filled with useless, inefficient waiting. This basic situation also applies to people who rely on the government for their healthcare. When my wife did indigent care in Houston, her clients did not pay for her services. They paid with their time. LOTS OF WAITING. I don’t need more waiting in my life. And because government employees are typically unionized, I don’t need to be at the mercy of a bunch of unionized employees any more than I already am.
The argument from incentivization: If the government provides the care too cheaply, then there will be a glut of clients who overwhelm the system and create the nightmare of waiting as the price to pay. If the government offers the care too expensively, people will opt out which is exactly what they wanted to avoid. If the government tries to control utilization by deciding what services you can and can’t have, then you are up against a far worse foe than the worst HMO you ever faced. And the government will go where the insurance companies fear to tread. They will decide who should live or die.
The argument from missing the verdammten point: It is exceedingly clear that a huge reason for the skyrocketing costs of medicine is the problem of predatory litigation driven by lawyers looking for 30-40% of a bloody fortune from an industry thought to be able to afford it. Between the cost of malpractice insurance, the payouts, and the defensive medicine that must be practiced to ward off lawsuits, it is easy to see why healthcare is outrageously expensive. Yet, the president very clearly said he would not seek to deal with that problem in the legislation. WHAT? WHY? Because the trial lawyers are very good political donors? Not a compelling reason for the formation of a particular public policy.
The argument from economic theory: Look at two sectors of the healthcare market that are typically paid out of pocket without the influence of insurance providers or the government. I am thinking of plastic surgery and lasik procedures for improving eyesight. Both of those services are becoming less expensive in real dollars rather than skyrocketing out of control. This happens to be the portion of the healthcare industry where actual market conditions apply. Customers pay for and receive value at a price that is becoming more reasonable all the time.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
The Federal Reserve Threatens Congress To Raise Interest Rates if Audited (Video)
The Federal Reserve Threatens Congress To Raise Interest Rates if Audited (Video)
Fox News Channel
Judge Napolitano talks about how the Federal Reserve is threatening congress with higher interest rates if they should pass a bill requiring them to be audited.
This is out and out extortion.
Guests include Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, etc.
It's a 6 part video series which are each 10 minutes in length.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Fox News Channel
Judge Napolitano talks about how the Federal Reserve is threatening congress with higher interest rates if they should pass a bill requiring them to be audited.
This is out and out extortion.
Guests include Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, etc.
It's a 6 part video series which are each 10 minutes in length.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Obama Signs Executive Order Barring Release Of His Birth Certificate
From Freedom Medium
First, we did a story about an Army Major who filed suit regarding his deployment to Afghanistan on the grounds that Obama was not America’s legitimate Commander-In Chief.
World Net Daily thought highly enough of this article to link to it on their front page.
Then we did an article pointing out the differences between a Birth Cerificate and a Certification Of Live Birth.
Some of the biggest names in conservative news have weighed in on this topic, such as Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and numerous others have offered their opinions.
One of the people at the forefront of this issue is Joseph Farah and his staff over at World Net Daily.
They are even running an online petition demanding Obama produce a long-form birth certificate.
Thanks to the alertness of our great friend and loyal supporter Erica, who gave us the heads-up on this. it appears that the issue of Obama being forced to produce a copy of his birth certificate may prove to be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
On January 21st, 2009, his very first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489.
That the first order of business Obama took care of on day one of his Presidency was to sign off on an Executive Order that states that only the records he chooses to be made public will be released?
This is the subject that was at the absolute top of his agenda?
If this isn’t proof that Obama is hiding something, I don’t know what is.
First, we did a story about an Army Major who filed suit regarding his deployment to Afghanistan on the grounds that Obama was not America’s legitimate Commander-In Chief.
World Net Daily thought highly enough of this article to link to it on their front page.
Then we did an article pointing out the differences between a Birth Cerificate and a Certification Of Live Birth.
Some of the biggest names in conservative news have weighed in on this topic, such as Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and numerous others have offered their opinions.
One of the people at the forefront of this issue is Joseph Farah and his staff over at World Net Daily.
They are even running an online petition demanding Obama produce a long-form birth certificate.
Thanks to the alertness of our great friend and loyal supporter Erica, who gave us the heads-up on this. it appears that the issue of Obama being forced to produce a copy of his birth certificate may prove to be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
On January 21st, 2009, his very first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489.
For those of you who can’t take the time to read it. here is the section that applies:Now for all of you who commented on our previous articles that we were no more that right-wing nut jobs, that this thing about Obama’s birth certificate was a non-issue, and those of you who tried to shift the focus of the stories, doesn’t this strike you as just a little odd?
"Sec.2
Notice Of Intent To Disclose Presidential Records
When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines providied by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege.”
That the first order of business Obama took care of on day one of his Presidency was to sign off on an Executive Order that states that only the records he chooses to be made public will be released?
This is the subject that was at the absolute top of his agenda?
If this isn’t proof that Obama is hiding something, I don’t know what is.
Obama Plan 58% Tax Increase
From Townhall.com
I was asked this past Thursday morning on Fox News about the impact of President Obama spending the day in New Jersey campaigning for the immensely unpopular sitting governor Jon Corzine. I was asked if it was a good use of the President's time. I was asked if there were bigger things he should be focused on. I was asked if it might not even backfire against Corzine or other candidates in the immediate electoral future. Obama dedicated not just a speech, but the entire day to the Corzine cause.
My response is simple, "It's what he has to do."
President Obama now finds himself facing a political divorce on his policies while most Americans still find him a likable guy.
"But job performance counts, words mean things, and elections have consequences," I proffered.
And when the most read New York daily newspaper plasters its front page with the new startling fact that the marginal tax rates for small businesses will be jumping from 35% to 58%, we can understand one other important truth. President Obama is hurting working class people.
Let me break it down for you with some common sense. If a small business owner has revenue of $250,000 for a year of business and is forced to cough up the current top tax rate of 35%, said business owner is left with $162,000. Doing nothing but letting the Bush tax relief for small businesses expire, the business owner will have only $155,000 left. But bumping the rate to the suggested 58% (according to the Tax Foundation) the small business man is left with only $105,000 of the original $250,000 of revenue. And what did the Obama administration do to help that business owner earn the $250,000 in revenue?
Nada...
So why are they entitled to nearly six dollars out of every ten that a small business owner earns?
A top margin tax rate of 6 cents out of every 10 cents earned sort of ceases to be taxation and begins to look like outright theft. This stunts growth, slows production, eliminates jobs, and brings markets to abrupt halts.
If the administration also does as it has implied, that business owner might also then be forced to offer expensive health insurance programs to workers who may or may not wish to be covered by the company's plan. Of course the employees would also then be taxed for those benefits.
Let's also be clear: this is not a debate between the left and right. Democrats spoke at both of the recent Tea Parties I keynoted. And little hole-in-the-wall eateries in the meatpacking district of Manhattan have to make a payroll just as the Christian book shop owner in Texas does.
Continued...
I was asked this past Thursday morning on Fox News about the impact of President Obama spending the day in New Jersey campaigning for the immensely unpopular sitting governor Jon Corzine. I was asked if it was a good use of the President's time. I was asked if there were bigger things he should be focused on. I was asked if it might not even backfire against Corzine or other candidates in the immediate electoral future. Obama dedicated not just a speech, but the entire day to the Corzine cause.
My response is simple, "It's what he has to do."
President Obama now finds himself facing a political divorce on his policies while most Americans still find him a likable guy.
"But job performance counts, words mean things, and elections have consequences," I proffered.
And when the most read New York daily newspaper plasters its front page with the new startling fact that the marginal tax rates for small businesses will be jumping from 35% to 58%, we can understand one other important truth. President Obama is hurting working class people.
Let me break it down for you with some common sense. If a small business owner has revenue of $250,000 for a year of business and is forced to cough up the current top tax rate of 35%, said business owner is left with $162,000. Doing nothing but letting the Bush tax relief for small businesses expire, the business owner will have only $155,000 left. But bumping the rate to the suggested 58% (according to the Tax Foundation) the small business man is left with only $105,000 of the original $250,000 of revenue. And what did the Obama administration do to help that business owner earn the $250,000 in revenue?
Nada...
So why are they entitled to nearly six dollars out of every ten that a small business owner earns?
A top margin tax rate of 6 cents out of every 10 cents earned sort of ceases to be taxation and begins to look like outright theft. This stunts growth, slows production, eliminates jobs, and brings markets to abrupt halts.
If the administration also does as it has implied, that business owner might also then be forced to offer expensive health insurance programs to workers who may or may not wish to be covered by the company's plan. Of course the employees would also then be taxed for those benefits.
Let's also be clear: this is not a debate between the left and right. Democrats spoke at both of the recent Tea Parties I keynoted. And little hole-in-the-wall eateries in the meatpacking district of Manhattan have to make a payroll just as the Christian book shop owner in Texas does.
Continued...
40 Yrs ago today --
Dem Leader Ted Kennedy Kills Mary Jo Kopechne
Please say a Prayer for Mary Jo's Family today. Everytime they see Ted Kennedy's name or see him on T.V. they have to live this all over again. This is the second-biggest proof (hmmmm. guess what the first is), that money buys power, not just here, but anywhere. Ironically Ted Kennedy is taking part in planning the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans with his Health care Bill.
As the media marks the tenth anniversary of the death of John F. Kennedy Jr., it's worth recalling the overwrought coverage of ten years ago. Here is an op-ed by MRC's Brent Baker, originally published in Human Events on August 6, 1999 detailing the media elite's reaction to Kennedy's demise.
Recently "Hardball"Promoted Ted Kennedy's HBO History, But Completely Left Out Death at Chappaquiddick, (I'm schocked, NOT),
Yes, 40 Years Ago Today (Gateway pundit)....... Teddy Kennedy killed Mary Jo Kepechne after a party on July 18, 1969.
Her body was found early in the morning on July 19, 1969.
Senator Kennedy's car is dragged by a wrecker out of Poucha Pond. (Ytedk)
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA)killed girl . He left her in pond to drown. Today
he is second longest serving member (next to the former kleagle) in the Senate.
Rest in Peace Mary Jo.
More here.
Crossposted at United American Tea Party and Your Rights Your Freedoms
As the media marks the tenth anniversary of the death of John F. Kennedy Jr., it's worth recalling the overwrought coverage of ten years ago. Here is an op-ed by MRC's Brent Baker, originally published in Human Events on August 6, 1999 detailing the media elite's reaction to Kennedy's demise.
Recently "Hardball"Promoted Ted Kennedy's HBO History, But Completely Left Out Death at Chappaquiddick, (I'm schocked, NOT),
Yes, 40 Years Ago Today (Gateway pundit)....... Teddy Kennedy killed Mary Jo Kepechne after a party on July 18, 1969.
Her body was found early in the morning on July 19, 1969.
Senator Kennedy's car is dragged by a wrecker out of Poucha Pond. (Ytedk)
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA)killed girl . He left her in pond to drown. Today
he is second longest serving member (next to the former kleagle) in the Senate.
Rest in Peace Mary Jo.
More here.
Crossposted at United American Tea Party and Your Rights Your Freedoms
Friday, July 17, 2009
Let's Put Some Real Faces on the Casualties of Obamacare
On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the President and his Democratic allies in Congress intend to force small business with payrolls more than $250,000 per year to provide health insurance to their employees. Failure to do so would be punishable by a fine up to 8 percent of payroll. The article also noted that there are approximately one million businesses with between five and nine employees and average payrolls comfortably in the Democrats' target range and that only about half of those provide health insurance.
Those are the raw numbers and they are bad enough. However, to drive home the real cost to real people, I decided to do some quick "back of the envelope" calculations to see just what kinds of businesses might have to start firing people if the President's health care scheme becomes law.
Consider Company A, which employs seven people: a manager, an assistant manager, and five workers. The owner pays himself a salary of $70,000 per year (about $35/hour), the manager $52,000 ($25/hour), the assistant manager $35,000 ($20/hour), and the five employees $21,000 (about $10/hour). That makes a payroll of $262,000. Now, the article doesn't say how much the fine for a payroll that size would be, so I'll assume either 6 percent ($15,720) or 4 percent ($10,480). The lowest total, as you can see, is more than half the salary of one of the worker bees and the higher figure is even worse. If I were running that business, I'd say the easiest way to solve my problem would be to fire one of the worker bees. That would reduce my payroll to escape the fine and it would leave me with more money as well. Sure, my business would be less productive, but it's not terribly difficult to get make up for that one lost employee by having my other six work a little bit harder.
So what kind of businesses might fit Company A's profile? How about a small restaurant or a neighborhood grocery store? Many franchised convenience stores could meet that description, as could any number of local insurance companies, construction companies, and contractors.
Let's up the ante a little bit. Company B consists of an owner, who also doubles as general manager (and pays herself a rather modest $80,000 per year), and ten part-time employees who each make $35,000, for a payroll of $430,000. That's large enough to trigger the full 8 percent penalty, which comes to $34,400. Well, that's just about one employee's salary, so out he goes, which not only covers the fine but also brings Company B under the $400,000 threshold, which means a potential smaller fine next year. Bonus!
Company B could easily be a car dealership, a local insurance office, a mid-sized construction company or contractor, or a retail store where the salespeople work at least partly on commission. This could be the final straw that convinces the owner to say "To hell with it."
This isn't just a thought exercise, though. There's an action component as well. Look at the businesses you patronize regularly or even just the ones you drive past on the way to work. Look at your own employer, or the businesses where your friends and family work. How many of them will face the choice of firing someone to pay for the Obamacare fine or to limbo their payroll under the Democrats' bar? Will that perpetually-cheerful cashier at the local convenience sore still be there this time next year if Obamacare passes? How about that electrician with the young wife and baby who always does great work and let you slide on a service call that one time? Shouldn't they know what could be coming their way?
Now that you have this information, you can help educate them. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper (and toss in the possibility that the newly-fired will have to find insurance somewhere or face a fine themselves). Strike up a conversation while the plumber replaces that leaky pipe. Bring up the matter the next time your local Chamber of Commerce or Optimist Club has a meeting. Tell your friends and family and invite them to come right here and read for themselves.
The President's health care plan is expensive and it's going to cost us more than mere money. It's time we said "no more". Putting a real face on the casualties Obamacare will cause could go a long way toward stopping it before it happens.
(WSJ link via memeorandum)
Those are the raw numbers and they are bad enough. However, to drive home the real cost to real people, I decided to do some quick "back of the envelope" calculations to see just what kinds of businesses might have to start firing people if the President's health care scheme becomes law.
Consider Company A, which employs seven people: a manager, an assistant manager, and five workers. The owner pays himself a salary of $70,000 per year (about $35/hour), the manager $52,000 ($25/hour), the assistant manager $35,000 ($20/hour), and the five employees $21,000 (about $10/hour). That makes a payroll of $262,000. Now, the article doesn't say how much the fine for a payroll that size would be, so I'll assume either 6 percent ($15,720) or 4 percent ($10,480). The lowest total, as you can see, is more than half the salary of one of the worker bees and the higher figure is even worse. If I were running that business, I'd say the easiest way to solve my problem would be to fire one of the worker bees. That would reduce my payroll to escape the fine and it would leave me with more money as well. Sure, my business would be less productive, but it's not terribly difficult to get make up for that one lost employee by having my other six work a little bit harder.
So what kind of businesses might fit Company A's profile? How about a small restaurant or a neighborhood grocery store? Many franchised convenience stores could meet that description, as could any number of local insurance companies, construction companies, and contractors.
Let's up the ante a little bit. Company B consists of an owner, who also doubles as general manager (and pays herself a rather modest $80,000 per year), and ten part-time employees who each make $35,000, for a payroll of $430,000. That's large enough to trigger the full 8 percent penalty, which comes to $34,400. Well, that's just about one employee's salary, so out he goes, which not only covers the fine but also brings Company B under the $400,000 threshold, which means a potential smaller fine next year. Bonus!
Company B could easily be a car dealership, a local insurance office, a mid-sized construction company or contractor, or a retail store where the salespeople work at least partly on commission. This could be the final straw that convinces the owner to say "To hell with it."
This isn't just a thought exercise, though. There's an action component as well. Look at the businesses you patronize regularly or even just the ones you drive past on the way to work. Look at your own employer, or the businesses where your friends and family work. How many of them will face the choice of firing someone to pay for the Obamacare fine or to limbo their payroll under the Democrats' bar? Will that perpetually-cheerful cashier at the local convenience sore still be there this time next year if Obamacare passes? How about that electrician with the young wife and baby who always does great work and let you slide on a service call that one time? Shouldn't they know what could be coming their way?
Now that you have this information, you can help educate them. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper (and toss in the possibility that the newly-fired will have to find insurance somewhere or face a fine themselves). Strike up a conversation while the plumber replaces that leaky pipe. Bring up the matter the next time your local Chamber of Commerce or Optimist Club has a meeting. Tell your friends and family and invite them to come right here and read for themselves.
The President's health care plan is expensive and it's going to cost us more than mere money. It's time we said "no more". Putting a real face on the casualties Obamacare will cause could go a long way toward stopping it before it happens.
(WSJ link via memeorandum)
Americans Ask "Where are the Jobs?" As Dems Push $700 Million Welfare Program for Horses
Americans Ask "Where are the Jobs?" As Dems Push $700 Million Welfare Program for Horses GOP Rep. Hastings: "Instead of Restoring American Mustangs, Let's Restore American Jobs & Put the Horsepower Back Into Our Economy"
Washington, Jul 17 - With unemployment at 9.5 percent, more than two million Americans out of work since the trillion-dollar “stimulus” spending bill became law, and a federal budget deficit topping $1 trillion, House Democratic leaders today plan to bring to the House floor a $700 million welfare program for … wild horses and burros.
Yes, you read that correctly. As middle-class families and small businesses across the country continue to ask, “Where are the Jobs?” House Democrats are proving just how out of touch Washington has become. House committees continue work on a massive government takeover of health care that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says drive taxpayers into deeper debt and increase Americans’ health care costs, while the Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisor’s own methodology predicts the plan will destroy 4.7 million jobs. And yes, the business of the day in the ‘People’s House” is of a decidedly equine persuasion. Environment and Energy Daily reports: Read the Rest at Boehners Website
Washington, Jul 17 - With unemployment at 9.5 percent, more than two million Americans out of work since the trillion-dollar “stimulus” spending bill became law, and a federal budget deficit topping $1 trillion, House Democratic leaders today plan to bring to the House floor a $700 million welfare program for … wild horses and burros.
Yes, you read that correctly. As middle-class families and small businesses across the country continue to ask, “Where are the Jobs?” House Democrats are proving just how out of touch Washington has become. House committees continue work on a massive government takeover of health care that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says drive taxpayers into deeper debt and increase Americans’ health care costs, while the Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisor’s own methodology predicts the plan will destroy 4.7 million jobs. And yes, the business of the day in the ‘People’s House” is of a decidedly equine persuasion. Environment and Energy Daily reports: Read the Rest at Boehners Website
The Rules For Revolution
"The Communist/Socialist Rules for Revolution"
The following piece has been discredited by some, but one thing for sure is that no matter what you have to take into account how truly "Scary" it is that we are headed down this road.
HISTORICAL NOTE: It is our understanding that an earlier version of this frightening document was first unearthed in Dusseldorf, Germany in the early part of the year of 1919. It was exposed, later in that year, in the "Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise" in the state of Oklahoma (USA).
It is also our understanding that in 1946, the attorney general of Florida obtained a copy of a later version of the document from a member of the American Communist Party. We have also been informed that a more current version appeared in "The Los Angeles Times" on Nov. 9, 1998. It has since been brought to light by other concerned citizens across America. It also now periodically makes the rounds on the Internet.
If you are not aware of this disturbing set of rules of engagement and conquest, or even if you have heard of it and might wish to be reminded of it once again — here is the basic essence of what it is and what it strives to accomplish.
The Rules for Revolution
CORRUPT THE YOUNG. Intensify their exposure to violence, sex and drugs. Draw them away from religion. Support a greater development of all of their superficialities.
INFILTRATE THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM. Become deeply involved with the educational system of the nation. It must always be remembered that one of the first things that must be done in order to take and retain control, is to subvert and dominate the minds of the youth of the nation.
GET CONTROL OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. Infiltrate the schools of journalism. Move into the areas of management of the metropolitan newspapers and the broadcast networks. Infiltrate the motion picture industry.
DIVIDE AND CONQUER. Press for even greater divisions of the people into hostile groups. Divide them by race, nationality, sex religion, age, financial position, culture or anything else that can be used to create serious fractures within the social order.
DESTROY RELIGION. Do all that can be done to remove religion from all public areas. Isolate all that remains and promote any competing alternates that can be used to eliminate whatever is left.
USE LANGUAGE AS A WEAPON. Speak of supporting democracy (in the name of liberalism) and stand up for what you claim as good values, but use every method possible to pervert, destroy or take them over. Create the new order in their names, since Communism and Socialism are not always labels that are appreciated as are other terms.
USE THE GULLIBLE AND IDEALISTIC. They are practically begging to be exploited in the name of whatever they feel emotionally attached to. Use what they think they believe, to better use them for your purposes.
INCITE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. Create labor unrest and strikes whenever possible. Promote mob demonstrations and demands for everything that will undermine the national stability.
DESTROY HUMAN VALUES. Do all that you can to undermine the old moral values. Recognize personal discipline and integrity as conditions that must be eradicated. Do not forget that chaos is the goal. To reach this goal, it will be necessary to strip away all inhibitions.
COMMAND THE POLITICAL ARENA. Get into American politics and identify those who can be used and those who must be eliminated. Stop those who fight against the Communist and Socialist agenda with everything from character assassination, to any other creative fictions that can be deployed to put doubt in the minds of the voters.
APPLY THE ART OF GRADUAL REDUCTION. Institute all the changes necessary to reduce the freedoms and rights of the people. Sudden removal is almost never possible. Gradual removal over extended periods of time can almost always be counted on to be successful.
AFTERTHOUGHT: It is not difficult to recognize a considerable number of these "rules" as they are being applied throughout our nation and in so many areas of our public and our private lives.
It is also disturbingly easy to see the debilitating effects that are thus caused by such actions. But it is most disturbing of all to realize that the vast majority of the population does not wish to be concerned, even as our social and political structure begins to collapse all around us — even as we move so clearly into our decline.
Something to think about. Hat Tip Johnathon West - GettingAmericaBack.org
It is also disturbingly easy to see the debilitating effects that are thus caused by such actions. But it is most disturbing of all to realize that the vast majority of the population does not wish to be concerned, even as our social and political structure begins to collapse all around us — even as we move so clearly into our decline.
Something to think about. Hat Tip Johnathon West - GettingAmericaBack.org
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Looking down on Palin
Beltway elites can't figure out why the hoi polloi like her
By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
What do Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius and Jon Huntsman have in common? All were governors who resigned this year to pursue other opportunities, and did so without a peep of criticism from journalists or their fellow pols for "quitting" on the peoples of Arizona, Kansas and Utah, respectively.
I write not to belabor the news media's double standards with regard to Democrats and Republicans, or between other politicians and Sarah Palin. I want to highlight an observation made by Princeton Professor Angelo Codevilla:
"The distinctions between Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, are being overshadowed by that between what we might call the 'Court Party' -- made up of the well-connected ... who see themselves as potters of the great American clay -- and the 'Country Party' -- the many more who are tired of being treated as clay," Mr. Codevilla wrote in National Review Online.
Ms. Napolitano, Ms. Sebelius and Mr. Huntsman weren't criticized for resigning to pursue other opportunities because the other opportunities they're pursuing are in government -- as secretary of homeland security, secretary of health and human services, and ambassador to China, respectively.
In the Court Party, the only thing more important than holding public office is seeking a higher one. Barack Obama in effect quit his day job as a U.S. senator (while still drawing his paycheck) for two years in order to seek the presidency. Mr. Obama drew little criticism for this, mostly because what he did was so commonplace. Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain did much the same thing.
And in the Court Party, the only place to be is at Court. This is why -- until a scandal derailed him -- Bill Richardson was planning to resign as New Mexico's governor to accept a relatively minor Cabinet post (secretary of commerce).
People in the Court Party think it proper they should decide what kind of cars the hoi polloi in flyover country should drive and how much medical care they may have. Theirs is an aristocracy not of birth but of connections, connections forged mostly by where they went to school. Every president since Ronald Reagan (Eureka College, 1932) went to Harvard or Yale.
For members of the Court Party, where you went to school is more important than what you learned there. Mr. Obama is said to be brilliant because he went to Columbia and to Harvard Law School. Someone who went to, say, the University of Idaho would be mocked mercilessly for thinking "Austrian" is a foreign language, that the United States is one of the largest Muslim countries or that Canada has a president.
Most in the Court Party are Democrats, but there are plenty of Republicans, too, chiefly those who have been in Washington for a long time. The divide between the Court Party and the Country Party is illustrated by the political Rorschach test Sarah Palin has become.
"If you want to run for president ... the forum of a governorship would be a better forum than just being a private citizen," said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who's been in Washington for 28 years, when asked about Sarah Palin's resignation.
"In that phrase, 'just being a private citizen,' Sen. Grassley encapsulates both why Sarah Palin is so phenomenally appealing to the Republican base and how divorced the national Republican apparatus is from the core values of party members," wrote Jim Prevor in the Weekly Standard. "This massive base thinks that by paying the taxes and doing the work, starting the businesses and rearing the children, caring for the parents and fighting the wars, they are doing the crucial stuff that sustains our country."
Prof. Codevilla put it this way: "The upscale folks who look down on the rest of us and upon themselves as saviors of the planet -- these are the people who made Palin into a political force by making her a symbol of everything they are not."
The hoi polloi in flyover country are watching the self-styled best and brightest ruin the economy while feathering their own nests. If this leads to a revolt at the polls in 2010 and 2012, the hoi polloi are more likely to look for leadership from the person who best exemplifies their values and expresses their anger than to persons who, by the Court Party's definition, are more qualified.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09193/983092-373.stm?cmpid=bcpanel3#ixzz0L3K9u4Kg&C
By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
What do Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius and Jon Huntsman have in common? All were governors who resigned this year to pursue other opportunities, and did so without a peep of criticism from journalists or their fellow pols for "quitting" on the peoples of Arizona, Kansas and Utah, respectively.
I write not to belabor the news media's double standards with regard to Democrats and Republicans, or between other politicians and Sarah Palin. I want to highlight an observation made by Princeton Professor Angelo Codevilla:
"The distinctions between Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, are being overshadowed by that between what we might call the 'Court Party' -- made up of the well-connected ... who see themselves as potters of the great American clay -- and the 'Country Party' -- the many more who are tired of being treated as clay," Mr. Codevilla wrote in National Review Online.
Ms. Napolitano, Ms. Sebelius and Mr. Huntsman weren't criticized for resigning to pursue other opportunities because the other opportunities they're pursuing are in government -- as secretary of homeland security, secretary of health and human services, and ambassador to China, respectively.
In the Court Party, the only thing more important than holding public office is seeking a higher one. Barack Obama in effect quit his day job as a U.S. senator (while still drawing his paycheck) for two years in order to seek the presidency. Mr. Obama drew little criticism for this, mostly because what he did was so commonplace. Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain did much the same thing.
And in the Court Party, the only place to be is at Court. This is why -- until a scandal derailed him -- Bill Richardson was planning to resign as New Mexico's governor to accept a relatively minor Cabinet post (secretary of commerce).
People in the Court Party think it proper they should decide what kind of cars the hoi polloi in flyover country should drive and how much medical care they may have. Theirs is an aristocracy not of birth but of connections, connections forged mostly by where they went to school. Every president since Ronald Reagan (Eureka College, 1932) went to Harvard or Yale.
For members of the Court Party, where you went to school is more important than what you learned there. Mr. Obama is said to be brilliant because he went to Columbia and to Harvard Law School. Someone who went to, say, the University of Idaho would be mocked mercilessly for thinking "Austrian" is a foreign language, that the United States is one of the largest Muslim countries or that Canada has a president.
Most in the Court Party are Democrats, but there are plenty of Republicans, too, chiefly those who have been in Washington for a long time. The divide between the Court Party and the Country Party is illustrated by the political Rorschach test Sarah Palin has become.
"If you want to run for president ... the forum of a governorship would be a better forum than just being a private citizen," said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who's been in Washington for 28 years, when asked about Sarah Palin's resignation.
"In that phrase, 'just being a private citizen,' Sen. Grassley encapsulates both why Sarah Palin is so phenomenally appealing to the Republican base and how divorced the national Republican apparatus is from the core values of party members," wrote Jim Prevor in the Weekly Standard. "This massive base thinks that by paying the taxes and doing the work, starting the businesses and rearing the children, caring for the parents and fighting the wars, they are doing the crucial stuff that sustains our country."
Prof. Codevilla put it this way: "The upscale folks who look down on the rest of us and upon themselves as saviors of the planet -- these are the people who made Palin into a political force by making her a symbol of everything they are not."
The hoi polloi in flyover country are watching the self-styled best and brightest ruin the economy while feathering their own nests. If this leads to a revolt at the polls in 2010 and 2012, the hoi polloi are more likely to look for leadership from the person who best exemplifies their values and expresses their anger than to persons who, by the Court Party's definition, are more qualified.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09193/983092-373.stm?cmpid=bcpanel3#ixzz0L3K9u4Kg&C
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
