Friday, August 28, 2009


In the last days of my debates with a blogger named Bill Minnich, we had intense discussions on the healthcare issue. Bill adamantly supports this plan, yet has complained in previous blogs about his veterans benefits and the care he has received. His claims of how this plan is what we need because of all the uninsured, how it will stop the money hungry pharmaceutical giants from raping our wallets and how it will drive down the cost of care were so farcical I had to leave him be. How can covering more people cut costs? Why will the democrats not put things like proof of citizenship or words like “voluntary” in the law? His claims as well as those of all liberals, is that this is the grand solution to a huge problem. Yet everywhere we look, countries with this type of plan are watching their healthcare become substandard, seeing life expectancies drop by years, not weeks or days, and horror stories of how women are forced to have babies in public restrooms and taxies because they are refused care or didn’t make an appointment. Canada’s physicians are saying their system is on the brink of collapse and are calling for privatization of the healthcare system, the very thing democrats are rallying against.

Being so involved in politics and an elected official myself, I understand the liberal mind. It’s quite easy really: You just stop thinking for yourself and let government do the work. Bill claims victory in the debate on the premise he has more links to more trash sites that mimic Minnich’s mindset. Polluted and misguided, he spends his days blogging imprudent ideas and outright lies to one man who has no mind of his own (aka Diogenes) and one or two others who drink the kool-aid he drinks as they eat rainbows and poop butterflies in their little green corner of the web.

I have gone over and over on his comment section how his “facts” are not supported by anything other than liberal think tanks, progressive professors and loony leaders of the left who know nothing and see scientific fact as obstacles to their agenda.

Here’s just one “fact” Bill foists of his followers. While Obama and his cronies claim there are 46 million Americans without health insurance, Bill says it’s even more than that.

It’s a lie. It’s pure myth. Cull Census Bureau and other government data and you get a breakdown of those numbers: 9 million of those 46 million are on Medicaid; 3.5 million are eligible for existing government coverage; 20 million can afford insurance (They have incomes at least double the poverty line) but CHOOSE not to buy it. That leaves us with 13.5 million uninsured – roughly accounted for by the illegal immigrant population of 7-20 million people who would ALL, by the way, be covered under Obamacare. In other words, the number of American “victims” of “where the free market fails” in healthcare is virtually nil. In addition, the “uninsured” is not a fixed number. People are constantly shifting out of employment and levels of income. The congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that about 45% of the uninsured are actually only uninsured for 4 months or less.

This is why I don’t post on his blog any longer. Fighting these liberal bloggers is like trying to win a race in which the finishing line is moving as fast as you are.

In the Republicans' weekly radio and Internet address on Saturday, Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyo. echoed that of many opponents of the Democratic plans under consideration in Congress. But Enzi's judgment was especially noteworthy because he is one of only three Republicans who have been willing to consider a bipartisan bill in the Senate. Enzi said any health care legislation must lower medical costs for Americans without increasing deficits and the national debt.

"The bills introduced by congressional Democrats fail to meet these standards," he said.

"The Democrats are trying to rush a bill through the process that will actually make our nation's finances sicker without saving you money," Enzi said.

Democrats are calling for cuts in Medicare spending, using some of the savings to help uninsured workers. A House bill would result in a net reduction in Medicare of about $200 billion, though Obama has insisted the reductions would not cut benefits in the Medicare health program for the elderly.

But Enzi said: "This will result in cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the elderly to create new government programs."

In otherwords, if Obama's lips are moving, he's lying.

Sen. Enzi repeated Republican accusations that the Democrats' plans would result in less access to certain medical treatments, citing a proposed government board that would research the most effective medical practices.

"We're a nation of people who want the ability to choose what will best fit our families' needs and it should be that way with health care, too," Enzi said.

The country is mad. The people are in full revolt mode. I have waited my whole life to be part of a revolution. Here I stand on a battlefield Obama and the far left have created. The far left have never won or fought a war. What pride and patriotism I feel right now. This is a fight we will win. When you have been hit in the wallet like this president has hit us over and over and over again, you run out of cheeks to turn.

One thing remains: Total annihilation of the enemy.

Sunday, August 23, 2009


Today's Wall Street Journal contains some puzzling news for all Americans who are impacted by high energy prices and who share the goal of moving us toward energy independence.

For years, states rich with an abundance of oil and natural gas have been begging Washington, DC politicians for the right to develop their own natural resources on federal lands and off shore. Such development would mean good paying jobs here in the United States (with health benefits) and the resulting royalties and taxes would provide money for federal coffers that would potentially off-set the need for higher income taxes, reduce the federal debt and deficits, or even help fund a trillion dollar health care plan if one were so inclined to support such a plan.

So why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than two billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil so that the nation's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, can drill off shore and create jobs developing its own resources? That's all Americans want; but such rational energy development has been continually thwarted by rabid environmentalists, faceless bureaucrats and a seemingly endless parade of lawsuits aimed at shutting down new energy projects.

I'll speak for the talent I have personally witnessed on the oil fields in Alaska when I say no other country in the world has a stronger workforce than America, no other country in the world has better safety standards than America, and no other country in the world has stricter environmental standards than America. Come to Alaska to witness how oil and gas can be developed simultaneously with the preservation of our eco-system. America has the resources. We deserve the opportunity to develop our resources no less than the Brazilians. Millions of Americans know it is true: "Drill, baby, drill." Alaska is proof you can drill and develop, and preserve nature, with its magnificent caribou herds passing by the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), completely unaffected. One has to wonder if Obama is playing politics and perhaps refusing a "win" for some states just to play to the left with our money.

The new Gulf of Mexico lease sales tomorrow sound promising and perhaps will move some states in the right direction, but we all know that the extreme environmentalists who serve to block progress elsewhere, including in Alaska, continue to block opportunities. These environmentalists are putting our nation in peril and forcing us to rely on unstable and hostile foreign countries. Mr. Obama can stop the extreme tactics and exert proper government authority to encourage resource development and create jobs and health benefits in the U.S.; instead, he chooses to use American dollars in Brazil that will help to pay the salaries and benefits for Brazilians to drill for resources when the need and desire is great in America.

Buy American is a wonderful slogan, but you can't say in one breath that you want to strengthen our economy and stimulate it, and then in another ship our much-needed dollars to a nation desperate to drill while depriving us of the same opportunity.

- Sarah Palin

Friday, August 14, 2009


"I have not said that I was a 'single-payer' supporter." --President Barack Obama at a town hall meeting this week
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program." --Obama in 2003
"We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors. ... AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?" --Barack Obama
Scratch that. AARP Chief Operating Officer Tom Nelson issued a statement saying, "AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits. Indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award
"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." --Barack Obama, in a rare moment of truth-telling, arguing that a public option won't force private insurance out of business
So let's see: Government-run health care = the Post Office. And this is supposed to make us feel good about the idea?

It's a bird, it's a plane ... it's SuperBama! At least that's the White House version of the job numbers script, as read last week by President Obama, the economic commandeer, er, commander in chief. Obama's self-directed laudation announced, "Today, we're pointed in the right direction. We've rescued our economy from catastrophe." As proof, Obama pointed to the latest Labor Department numbers, which showed unemployment declined by one tenth of one percentage point and only 247,000 jobs lost in July. Naturally, a cause for celebration, right?
Not so fast. Despite the administration's assertion that the $787 billion stimulus package helped catalyze the drop in unemployment, when measured against reality, this fantasy falls flat. According to economist and New York Times blogger Casey Mulligan, second-quarter federal and state stimulus spending amounted to only $12 per person. And the AP reports that while the employment rate "dropped marginally from 9.5 percent to 9.4 percent ... one of the reasons for that change is that hundreds of thousands of people left the labor force." How convenient for the White House.
No doubt Obama will continue to don his cape and pose for pictures, but when it comes to the bottom line, the facts are kryptonite to his hero image.

This Week's 'Alpha Jackass' Award
"The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for 'death panels' that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we've decided that we don't -- it's too expensive to let her live anymore. (Laughter.)" --New York Times transcript, including the crowd's reaction, of Barack Obama yukking it up about the "death panels"

On Cross-Examination
"President Obama is attempting to transmogrify America's entire medical system. It is literally a matter of life and death. If Obama and his supporters find mirth in the thought of 'pulling the plug on grandma,' do you trust them anywhere near your health care?" --Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto

Thursday, August 13, 2009


"Democrats, bloodied over their attempt to force health care 'reform' on Americans, are looking more unreasonable and hysterical by the day. This isn't healthy for the republic. Their increasing anxiety and fear of failure are typified in the words of the leader of their party, who wants Republicans to keep their mouths shut while he 'fixes' health care. 'I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking,' the president said Thursday at a political rally in Virginia. 'I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.' So much for the promises of bipartisan lawmaking. So much for open discussion. So much for understanding who really caused the 'mess' in the first place. Like Al Gore claiming the debate about global warming is over, the White House simply wants to shut down dialogue over who controls more than one-seventh of the economy. ... Truth is, there's nothing more American than revolting against heavy-handed authority, be it a long train of abuses from a king or the lawmaking of elected officials with strong authoritarian urges. This is a nation founded on independence, and there is a large portion of it that wants to retain that priceless heritage. This seems to confuse some lawmakers. ... Voters' deep anger is justifiable. They have every right to disrupt and shout down public figures who, as the protesters can be heard chanting, work for them. At dispute is not a mere difference of opinion that can and should be discussed in a civil manner, but a fundamental question of who is in charge of peoples' lives. We are not advocating violence, though coercive government is at its core violent as the state is required to resort to force to ensure that its directives aren't violated. But we do support our fellow citizens' right to express their rage at an injustice, particularly if it makes lawmakers uncomfortable. Shouldn't Americans bristle when their independence is threatened, when a federal official, in this case White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, says party leaders 'will punch back twice as hard' when voters merely show their displeasure? The freedom the protesters are defending can sometimes be messy and imperfect. A lack of freedom, however, is eternally oppressive. It is an unrelenting prison that poisons the human spirit, even when cloaked in allegedly humane programs such as government-run health care." --Investors' Business Daily

"The health debate, which now has moved beyond the Beltway and into raucous town halls across the land, is so intense in part because it's not really about health care at all. On a deeper level, it's about the role of government in America's economy. And that is a raw and unresolved topic, only made more so by months of exceptional government intervention amid a deep recession." --columnist Gerald Seib

"Today's ruling Democrats propose to fix our extremely high quality (but inefficient and therefore expensive) health care system with 1,000 pages of additional curlicued complexity -- employer mandates, individual mandates, insurance company mandates, allocation formulas, political payoffs and myriad other conjured regulations and interventions -- with the promise that this massive concoction will lower costs. This is all quite mad. It creates a Rube Goldberg system that simply multiplies the current inefficiencies and arbitrariness, thus producing staggering deficits with less choice and lower-quality care. That's why the administration can't sell Obamacare." --columnist Charles Krauthammer

"Ever since Congress created Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, health politics has followed a simple logic: Expand benefits and talk about controlling costs. That's the status quo, and Obama faithfully adheres to it. While denouncing skyrocketing health spending, he would increase it by extending government health insurance to millions more Americans." --columnist Robert Samuelson
"[Barack] Obama seems to think the country owes it to him to accept ObamaCare because he was kind enough to agree to be our president."
--Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto

"Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them." --Thomas Jefferson

"In any event, it's true that people who believe in health care choices and free markets are zombies. For one thing, they are entirely too well-dressed to contemplate serious issues independently -- and thank you, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, for pointing that out. A man without Birkenstocks, after all, is a man without a soul. Organizing and protesting, as any sensible and compassionate citizen already understands, is exclusively the bailiwick of ideologically diverse and freethinking groups, such as unions. And really, the most galling aspect of this entire spurious uprising is the rumor that protestors are actually organized. Can you imagine?" – Some guy with a blog called “Pathetically Incorrect” in Elkhorn, Wisconsin

Monday, August 10, 2009


The harder the White House and Democrats push this idea, the worse it could get for them. Americans may have arrived at the limit of how much government they want or will pay for. If Barack Obama can't sell more of it, no one can.

So what has the White House told supporters to do when you run across those who spread “disinformation” about the new attempt by the Obama administration to install the anti-competitive practices of a “public option” into a federalized universal health care initiative? Report them!!

Pardon me for asking such an obvious question, but what concern is it to the President or his administration if private citizens have disagreements, discussions, and dissections of his proposed take over of the health care industry? Last I checked I had the constitutional right to do so. But now he wishes to turn one citizen against another? ... The mistake this White House continues to make, seemingly on a daily basis, is that they reveal very much what they truly think of freedoms of the American political process. That being “Shut up and let us do it or else”.

The New York Times had an amazing front page story on Thursday which I would have thought would have jumped to the top of every cable news cycle. The headline of the story was: “White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost” by David Kirkpatrick.

I want you to read the lead paragraph very slowly: >>“Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.”
Whoa! Check Please! How can the words 'industry lobbyists' and 'White House' be in the same sentence? We have been told -- to the point of overdosing on Compazine (an anti-nausea drug) -- that this administration was, is, and will always be a lobbyist-free zone. Yet, here it is; in the newspaper of record. The White House had reached a secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry to put a ceiling on the amount of money the government could save by negotiating for lower drug prices. In the words of the NY Times, the White House “had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the health care overhaul' but 'had never spelled out the details of the agreement.”

Oh, here we are, in paragraph seven: “The new attention to the agreement could prove embarrassing to the White House, which has sought to keep lobbyists at a distance, including by refusing to hire them to work in the administration.”

Embarrassing? Ya think...? It turns out that there is a quid pro quo for keeping the drug companies out of the rough and tumble world of free markets. Again, from Mr. Kirkpatrick's piece: 'Failing to publicly confirm the drug lobby's descriptions of the deal risked alienating a powerful industry ally currently helping to bankroll millions in television commercials in favor of Mr. Obama's reforms.

So let me walk through this. In strange world in which Obamaville is located, lobbyists are bad only if and until the White House needs them to do things like run ads in favor of nationalized health care and then lobbyists are good.

So, what if the previously dreadful, greedy, self-serving oil companies sent their lobbyists in to cut a deal with Obama to support a cap-and-trade bill though heavy advertising? Might they trade for removing any caps on their profits?

I think I'm beginning to get how this works. It works like, it smells like, it’s just like... Chicago!"

Thursday, August 6, 2009


America is beginning to revolt with the passion not seen in my lifetime. The levels of anger are at the highest I’ve seen in years and American patience is all but gone. Those supporting this Obamacare boondoggle are now headed for foxholes to hunker down. Those who still have their necks out look as silly as 911 conspirators with foil hats.

If you want to know if you’re right, just look at what your opponents say about you. The more personal the attacks get, the closer you are to the bull’s eye.

This is an ever growing list of great articles on ObamaCare:
Utopia Versus Freedom by Thomas Sowell
Impossible Promises by John Stossel
Health Politics Quagmire by Tony Blankley
Sebelius: Don't Sweat the Details by Cal Thomas
Hazardous to America's Health by Debra Saunders
Fat Load by Jacob Sullum
Tea Party-Bashers Gone Wild by Michelle Malkin
The Villains of Health Care by Paul Greenberg

If this bill fails, Obama fails.
If Obama fails, America wins.
Freedom wins.
Liberty wins.
Babies win.
Seniors win.
Handicapped people win.

As for violence, the fact is these town hall meetings did not become violent until Obama sent in Union thugs to try and make these Americans who have something to say shut up. There was not a single act of violence until these thugs moved in to a town hall meeting in Missouri. On orders to "punch back twice as hard" these bullies moved in and put choke holds on the elderly and took many of them from the place they were gathered. Swastikas were not spoken of or seen until Nancy Pelosi said they were there.

This thing is a steaming pile of poop very few Americans want. It's also a bill very few Representatives have read or understand the details of.

The fact is many conservative Americans (and that would be about 2/3's of us)don't want to pay for teenagers to get abortions. They don't want to pay for fat people getting surgery so they can be thin, or face lifts for Hollywood's geriatric generation when they should pay for these things themselves. We want to be responsible for our own health and our own costs and our own care. We don't want bureaucrats making our privet personal health care choices. And we don't want our employers forced, coerced or otherwise made to buy into this crap-cake.

It's pretty plain and simple.

The great community organizer is seeing what real communities do when they’re fed up and won’t take it anymore. Elections have consequences, and Obama is seeing them, right out his front window. These are people unwilling to give up what Obama wants to take from them.

Come on up for The Risen.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009


OBAMA…Caught with his mouth open. There is no trickery, no cut and paste, these are his words on The Drudge Report.

“There is no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody…Everybody in, nobody out.”

So why, prey tell, is the White House so upset with Drudge for putting this speech up on its website? Obama said it. It was a speech to the AFL-CIO in 2003. What’s the big deal?

The big deal is, in this bloggers opinion, he’s a liar. He’s telling the American people 3 big lies to get this thing passed.

“Let me repeat - if you like your health care, the only thing reform will mean is your health care will cost less. If anyone says otherwise, they are either trying to mislead you or don't have their facts straight.” (President Obama, “Remarks at the Annual Conference of the American Medical Association,” 6/15/09)

“Here’s a blow to President Obama and Democrats pressing health care reform. One of the main arguments made by the President and others for investing in health reform now is that it will save the federal government money in the long run by containing costs. Turns out that may not be the case, according to Doug Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office… Elmendorf said CBO does not see health care cost savings in either of the partisan Democratic bills currently in Congress.” (ABC News, “CBO Sees No Federal Cost Savings in Dem Health Plans,” 7/16/09)
“Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf warned lawmakers the legislation that he has seen so far would raise costs, not lower them. Elmendorf was asked by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.S., if the bills Congress is considering would ‘bend the cost curve.’ The budget director responded: ‘The curve is being raised.’” (Associated Press, “House Democrats Set to Vote on Health Care Bill,” 7/16/09)

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep that too.” (President Obama, Remarks in the Rose Garden, July 15, 2009)
“I say all the time, with respect to their health insurance program that they now have: if you've got it, you like it, you keep it.” (House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Press Conference, 7/13/09)

"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that 23 million Americans would lose their current plans if a Senate Democratic health care 'reform' bill was enacted." (Congressional Budget Office, Letter to Sen. Kennedy, 6/15/09)
"When I say if you have your plan and you like it,…or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don't have to change plans, what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform,’ the President said.” (ABC News, “What Does the President’s Promise , ‘You'll Be Able to Keep Your Health Care Plan, Period,’ Really Mean?,” 6/23/09)
“White House officials suggest the president's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn't about to barge in and force people to change insurance.” (Associated Press, “Promises, Promises: Obama's health plan guarantee,” 6/19/09)

“The pledge, as listed on Obama's campaign Web site, was: ‘No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s.’” (Associated Press, “House plan boosts taxes on rich to 20-year high,” 7/15/09)


“The bill unveiled by House Democratic leaders Tuesday would create three new tax brackets for high earners, with a top rate of 45 percent for families making more than $1 million. That would be the highest income tax rate since 1986, when the top rate was 50 percent.” (Associated Press, “House plan boosts taxes on rich to 20-year high,” 7/15/09)

“For New York state taxpayers, the top [tax] rate would hit 56.92 percent, third-highest in the nation. And in the five boroughs, the top rate would be 58.68 per cent -- highest in the nation. Having abandoned any notion of lightening the load with spending cuts, House Democrats have put forward a 1,000-plus-page proposal dripping with new taxes, surcharges and fees. The biggest losers? Small businesses -- companies with as few as five employees, who'll have to pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of income unless they provide their workers with health insurance.” (New York Post, “Here Comes ObamaCare,” 7/16/09)

“Another implication of the Rangel plan is that America's successful small businesses would pay higher tax rates than the Fortune 500, and for that matter than most companies around the world. The corporate federal-state tax rate applied to General Electric and Google is about 39% in the U.S., and the business tax rate is about 25% in the OECD countries. So the U.S. would have close to the most punitive taxes on small business income anywhere on the globe.” (Wall Street Journal, “The Small Business Surtax,” 7/15/09)

No wonder his poll numbers are falling faster than production jobs in Michigan.

Kill the bill. Stop the lies. Grab the Lipton and take back your country.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009


White House spokesman Robert Gibbs is sounding more and more like a guy we all laughed at back in 2002 and 2003. You remember good ol' Baghdad Bob?

Nothing to see here....Move along.... Stop throwing the tea bags and talking birth certificates. Nothing to see here...Move along now...Next question please...


After many a disappointment with someone, and especially after a disaster, we may be able to look back at numerous clues that should have warned us that the person we trusted did not deserve our trust. When that person is the President of the United States, the potential for disaster is virtually unlimited. Many people are rightly worried about what this administration's reckless spending will do to the economy in our time and to our children and grandchildren, to whom a staggering national debt will be passed on. But if the worst that Barack Obama does is ruin the economy, then I will breathe a sigh of relief. But the fact is he is heading this country toward disaster on many fronts. This is a president on a mission to remake American society in every aspect, by whatever means are necessary and available. That requires taking all kinds of decisions out of the hands of ordinary Americans and transferring them to Washington elites -- and ultimately the number one elite, Barack Obama himself. Like so many before him who have ruined countries around the world, Obama has a greatly inflated idea of his own capabilities and the capabilities of what can be accomplished by rhetoric or even by political power.

Economist Lawrence Kudlow said this today: "Respected economists like Donald Marron, Keith Hennessey, Bruce Bartlett and Kevin Hassett have all carefully chronicled the fact that the Obama stimulus package does not feature any real fiscal multipliers. They say the bulk of the package consists of transfer payments to individuals and states, along with tax credits that will produce no real incentive effects to spur economic growth. But the fact remains that numerous signs are now pointing to economic recovery. And the GOP needs to craft a smart political response to this. Obama and Biden will surely take credit for the better economic news, just as any White House would. It's the way the political game is played. But Republicans have to play the game, too. A tremendous summer rally is going on in stocks, and it's being driven by better corporate profits and improved leading indicators -- including a possible upturn in housing starts and sales, and a major downward spike in weekly initial jobless claims. So you have to believe the stock market is calling the tune for recovery. And while politics is not everything, I do believe that the shrinking prospects for Obamacare have been a big contributor to the stock market's recent surge. This sweeping new government insurance plan would lead to high-tax-and-spend-and-borrow-and-regulate nationalized health care, a big economic negative. Ditto for nationalizing energy through cap-and-trade-and-tax. If these initiatives fail, it is very bullish for stocks and the economy. ... But the White House is going to take credit for economic recovery anyway, and that's the newest political challenge for the GOP."

"The administration has fulfilled a promise to cut spending by trimming $100 million from the 2009 budget. That's right -- $100 million with an 'm,' an imponderably small slice of this year's expenditures. Back in April, the White House stressed that President Obama, during his first Cabinet meeting, 'made clear that relentlessly cutting out waste was part and parcel of their mission to make the investments necessary for recovery and long-term stability.' Department heads were 'to identify at least $100 million in additional cuts to their administrative budgets.' Three months later, he has gotten his wish: The White House announced on Monday that the goal has been reached. To say such a cut is negligible is an exaggeration in the extreme. To fit that description, a cut first has to be visible. Though it was initially promoted as a seminal moment, this cut doesn't come close to meeting even the most reachable of benchmarks. In fiscal 2009, our federal government will spend nearly $4 trillion, according to the Office of Management and Budget's historical tables. The $100 million cut represents 0.0025% -- less than one one-hundredth of 1% -- of those outlays. ... Now, thanks to the administration's 'relentless' belt-tightening, the deficit will be $1.79999 trillion rather than $1.8 trillion."

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

"Our struggle for nationhood, our unrelenting fight for freedom, our very existence -- these have all rested on the assurance that you must be free to shape your life as you are best able to, that no one can stop you from reaching higher or take from you the creativity that has made America the envy of mankind." - Ronald Reagan

Vote Democrat, it’s easier than thinking.

Sunday, August 2, 2009


Who is showing compassion?

Who is caring?

Who is called to serve?

Who is arrogant?

Who is Showing you exactly what government will do when it takes over Health Care?

Who is oblivious to the needs of those he serves.

Who is more concerned about how he looks then his guests?

These pictures are worth a Trillion words.