Remember how Curt Clawson won the primary in Florida – by donating to Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul and the Kentucky Republican Party? He was the phony crony and conservative who bought the endorsement of the Tea Rino Express.
The following day several local tea party groups endorsed him. It was spread in the news and the meme was planted that Clawson was the candidate the “Tea Party” had endorsed and the “outsider” who would bring needed change to D.C. As huge as her status and influence are, by the time Sarah Palin endorsed Lizbeth Benacquisto, the media which had in part been bought by Clawson, too, had already done the damage by spreading the false impression of Clawson.
As you may recall, Mitch McConnell had openly targeted Sasse in November 2013, after the Senate Conservatives Fund endorsed him in the open primary. The SCF was started by current president of The Heritage Foundation, Jim DeMint. Its executive, Matt Hoskins, has been “working to elect McConnell’s challenger”. This fueled McConnell’s anger which he directed at Sasse who became “collateral damage” in the struggle between the NRSC, his PAC and SCF.
According to National Review, on November 12, “Sasse walked into Mitch McConnell’s office to clear the air” and let him know he never intended to oppose McConnell’s leadership, but McConnell was having none of it. The outlet notes that McConnell’s incident with Sasse in his war with SCF is “notable” because “it involves an attractive, promising candidate in an open primary as collateral damage in the intramural fight.” (the full article here)
The good news is RINOS are FEARING us. The bad news – they are desperate enough to resort to unimaginable tactics like getting a Democrat to run as a Republican against us in a primary we are earnestly winning.
Waiting in the wings, with Osborn fully understanding what is happening, is Sid Dinsdale. Dinsdale is extremely rich, has a lot of money to burn at the end of the race, has benefited from sitting on the sidelines above the fray, and is a Democrat. But Dinsdale joined the race as a Republican.
..His family has married into Warren Buffet’s family. After the Corn Husker Kickback and Ben Nelson’s vote for Obamacare, Sid Dinsdale gave him money through his bank’s PAC. Dinsdale is on record saying he would “always” vote to raise the debt limit.
Before the campaign began, Republicans in Washington were under the impression he would be the Democrat in the race. Rumor was that he was meeting with Democrat consultants. … now, at the end of a bitterly fought race in Nebraska, Dinsdale might win.
Erick Erickson says Osborn has destroyed his last bit of credibility and driven his own negatives so high that he can’t win. With Sasse in the lead, he says, and Osborn and McConnell’s PAC attacking him, Dinsdale is beginning to spend major money. He urges Conservatives to act fast and help Ben Sasse.
Whatever you think of Erickson (I have my reservations about him regarding Sarah Palin), all of this should tell you everything there is to know about how despicable the GOPe is. McConnell would first lose our party and even our country before relinquishing any of his power to us (the Tea Party).
McConnell has led every ill-conceived move to undermine our efforts in the Senate, including doing ZILCH to defund ObamaCare. If re-elected, this nemesis of ours would only be emboldened. (I think his time to fail will come soon as there are many cracks in his RINO ivory tower starting to show.. more to come.)
Jim DeMint addresses a capacity crowd at the Heritage Foundation’s Action for America, Defund ObamaCare Rally.
Take action, call your members of Congress and demand they vote to defund ObamaCare immediately. Remind them it’s easy to fully fund the government, while NOT spending a dime on this disastrous “heath care” bill.
Click here to learn more about what the Heritage Foundation is doing to stop ObamaCare.
Texas Attorney General [and gubernatorial candidate] Greg Abbott has called ObamaCare an “unconstitutional tax,” and “not right for Texas.”
Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi infamously said about ObamaCare that, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Congresswoman Pelosi was right, and now Texas and the rest of America are beginning to see the consequences – from rising healthcare costs to businesses being forced to lay off employees.
Greg Abbott knew this was a bad law from the beginning. So on the day ObamaCare was signed into law, he filed a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. The Supreme Court agreed with General Abbott that Congress illegally tried to seize the states’ Medicaid systems. Although, the Supreme Court upheld other onerous parts of ObamaCare, General Abbott has not given up the fight. He continues to challenge this unworkable law and the unprecedented tax it imposes on Americans.
We must stop this law that Sarah Palin has called “downright evil” and democrat Max Baucus, one of the law’s creators, has called “a train-wreck” from moving forward and further harming the American people.
Jim DeMint announced that he will be leaving the U.S. Senate to head the Heritage Foundation. A press release from the Senator states:
Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) announced that he will leave the Senate at the beginning of January to become the next president of The Heritage Foundation, the largest and most respected conservative think tank in America.
“It’s been an honor to serve the people of South Carolina in United States Senate for the past eight years, but now it’s time for me to pass the torch to someone else and take on a new role in the fight for America’s future.
“I’m leaving the Senate now, but I’m not leaving the fight. I’ve decided to join The Heritage Foundation at a time when the conservative movement needs strong leadership in the battle of ideas. No organization is better equipped to lead this fight and I believe my experience in public office as well as in the private sector as a business owner will help Heritage become even more effective in the years to come.
“I’m humbled to follow in the footsteps of Ed Feulner, who built the most important conservative institution in the nation. He has been a friend and mentor for years and I am honored to carry on his legacy of fighting for freedom.
“My constituents know that being a Senator was never going to be my career. I came to Congress as a citizen legislator and I’ve always been determined to leave it as citizen legislator. South Carolina has a deep bench of conservative leaders and I know Governor Haley will select a great replacement.
“One of the most rewarding things I’ve done in the Senate is work with the grassroots to help elect a new generation of leaders who have the courage to fight for the principles of freedom that make this country so great. I’m confident these senators will continue the legacy of conservative leaders before them.”
Above is an adaptation from an earlier post of Stacy’s from Conservatives4Palin You can click here for any updates.
It should be noted that Sarah endorsed Congressman Tim Scott in 2010. He would be an excellent choice to replace Senator DeMint.
I’m very proud to add my support to Tim Scott’s campaign to represent South Carolina’s 1st congressional district. Tim has a remarkable success story. He grew up in poverty and was raised by a single-mom who struggled to provide. With help from a mentor and his brave mom, Tim learned to appreciate the value of hard work and American opportunity. He went on to become a business owner and has served in public office with integrity on the county and state level.
Tim is a pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-development, Commonsense Conservative who’s been endorsed by the Club for Growth because of his solid commitment to the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility.
He will represent the Palmetto State with distinction in DC, so I encourage you to vote for Tim in his run-off election next Tuesday, June 22nd. Please visit Tim’s website at www.votetimscott.com and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
It was a resounding victory in Texas last night. Ted Cruz, who was polling around 3% early on in the primary, worked hard and earned the endorsements of top Conservative leaders like Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, and Mark Levin, who, as it turns out, knew and worked with him from years ago.
That hard work forced a run-off between he and Lt Governor David Dewhurst.
Though he spent a great deal of time answering false accusations, in what turned out to be one of the nastiest, most vulgar campaigns ever, Cruz ran a positive campaign, where he talked about solutions. Sounding like a young Ronald Reagan, Cruz was all bold colors, with no pale pastels. He laid out his vision of America that represents Liberty and Freedom, and hope.
Meanwhile David Dewhurst spent tens of millions of dollars, a great amount of it his own, running a despicable slime fest. Instead of offering vision and leadership, he spent most of his time trying to destroy Ted Cruz with lie after lie, and some of the most despicable advertisements in Texas history. It was a desperate attempt by a failed politician and Establishment hack. In the end Dewhurst turned off many Texans, even those that voted for him in the primary.
Cruz garnered 631,316 votes [56.79%] to 480,165 [43.20%] for Dewhurst.
We are extremely pleased to congratulate Ted Cruz and all of the hard working Texas patriots who worked tirelessly to make all of this happen. Cruz is already a star here in Texas, and will no doubt go to Washington and take on the entrenched Establishment in both parties.
In his victory speech Cruz talked of unity, thanked all of his many supporters, and talked of Liberty and Freedom, from the American Revolution, to the first battle of the Texas Revolution at Gonzales, to our Greatest Generation that fought the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
This was an inspiring speech in every single way. The Right Scoophas it all here.
In Texas, the winner of the Republican primary will be the next Senator, as Texans don’t vote for democrats in statewide races, haven’t for a couple of decades. So Ted Cruz has said that while he’ll work to ensure victory in Texas, he will also travel the country supporting other solid Conservatives in their races.
Texas made the right choice last night, for the state, for the nation, and for the future of Liberty and Freedom.
Jim DeMint talked to Greta last night about the role the Tea Party should play at the Republican convention. DeMint is being the team player when he says Mitt Romney is embracing the Tea Party, can’t blame him for that. Unprompted he says Sarah Palin should “have a big spot” at the convention. DeMint goes on to say no one motivates the crowds the way Sarah does, and he acknowledges that Sarah’s endorsement is still the most coveted for any candidate.
Greta and DeMint also talk about the foot dragging by the democrat run Senate, and how things have to change. Both note American business owners have no idea what is going on and can’t make decisions about things like hiring or making capital purchases. DeMint says Congress shouldn’t go on summer recess until things are sorted out:
On Thursday the Senate voted on an amendment to the STOCK Act, legislation concerning corrupt insider trading. [which passed] The amendment would have banned earmarks. It did not pass. The vote was 59-40 against with Senator Mark Kirk [R-IL] who is still recovering from a stroke, not voting.
To see how your Senator voted, click here. From there you can contact your Senator and either thank or chew a little, depending on how they voted.
More like Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil with this bunch!
At what should be the happiest, most wonderfully magical time of the year, a great evil has gripped the nation. The most corrupt Congress in our nation’s history in lockstep with the most corrupt and evil man to ever step foot in the Oval Office are committing acts that amount to no less than treason.
As we wrote earlier, in a piece entitled Death of the Republic, some serious maneuvering by Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid slipped some language into the already grossly unconstitutional Obamacare fiasco that would prohibit future Congresses from making changes or repealing key measures of this legislation.
As you can imagine, the outrage over this is through the roof nationwide.
Ironically, and well…even laughably, this provision that Reid and the other communists want to make sure is never, ever modified, or repealed, is the very death panel that the communists and their lap dogs in the corrupt, Obamacentric media have been working night and day, with almost superhuman effort, to convince the public that it never existed!!
It was even deemed “lie of the year” by the radical left wing media!
Sarah has now weighed in on the subject:
Midnight Votes, Backroom Deals, and a Death Panel
Last weekend while you were preparing for the holidays with your family, Harry Reid’s Senate was making shady backroom deals to ram through the Democrat health care take-over. The Senate ended debate on this bill without even reading it. That and midnight weekend votes seem to be standard operating procedures in D.C. No one is certain of what’s in the bill, but Senator Jim DeMint spotted one shocking revelation regarding the section in the bill describing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients – also known as rationing. Apparently Reid and friends have changed the rules of the Senate so that the section of the bill dealing with this board can’t be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote. Senator DeMint said:
“This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.”
In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing “death panel” from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they’re so concerned about protecting this particular provision. Could it be because bureaucratic rationing is one important way Democrats want to “bend the cost curve” and keep health care spending down?
The Congressional Budget Office seems to think that such rationing has something to do with cost. In a letter to Harry Reid last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted (with a number of caveats) that the bill’s calculations call for a reduction in Medicare’s spending rate by about 2 percent in the next two decades, but then he writes the kicker:
“It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.”
Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of rationing – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.
This health care bill is one of the most far-reaching and expensive expansions of the role of government into our lives. We’re talking about putting one-seventh of our economy under the government’s thumb. We’re also talking about something as intimate to our personal well-being as medical care.
This bill is so unpopular that people on the right and the left hate it. So why go through with it? The Senate is planning to vote on this on Christmas Eve. Why the rush? Though we will begin paying for this bill immediately, we will see no benefits for years. (That’s the trick that allowed the CBO to state that the bill won’t grow the deficit for the next ten years.)
The administration’s promises of transparency and bipartisanship have been broken one by one. This entire process has been defined by midnight votes on weekends, closed-door meetings with industry lobbyists, and payoffs to politicians willing to sell their principles for sweetheart deals. Is it any wonder that Americans are so disillusioned with their leaders in Washington?
This is about politics, not health care. Americans don’t want this bill. Americans don’t like this bill. Washington has stopped listening to us. But we’re paying attention, and 2010 is coming.
I love this woman! The radical communist scumbags in the media, Congress, and the White House keep saying she’s crazy with the death panel talk, trying to intimidate her, and she comes right back and shoves it up their asses!
BOOM, taste my nightstick!
Sarah, of course, is correct here. This is all about politics and nothing about health care. This is an evil, wicked thing that is being visited on the American people as we get ready to celebrate the birth of Christ, our Lord and Savior.
At the end of her note, Sarah references an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal that must be read:
Change Nobody Believes In
A bill so reckless that it has to be rammed through on a partisan vote on Christmas eve.
And tidings of comfort and joy from Harry Reid too. The Senate Majority Leader has decided that the last few days before Christmas are the opportune moment for a narrow majority of Democrats to stuff ObamaCare through the Senate to meet an arbitrary White House deadline. Barring some extraordinary reversal, it now seems as if they have the 60 votes they need to jump off this cliff, with one-seventh of the economy in tow.
Mr. Obama promised a new era of transparent good government, yet on Saturday morning Mr. Reid threw out the 2,100-page bill that the world’s greatest deliberative body spent just 17 days debating and replaced it with a new “manager’s amendment” that was stapled together in covert partisan negotiations. Democrats are barely even bothering to pretend to care what’s in it, not that any Senator had the chance to digest it in the 38 hours before the first cloture vote at 1 a.m. this morning. After procedural motions that allow for no amendments, the final vote could come at 9 p.m. on December 24.
Even in World War I there was a Christmas truce.
The rushed, secretive way that a bill this destructive and unpopular is being forced on the country shows that “reform” has devolved into the raw exercise of political power for the single purpose of permanently expanding the American entitlement state. An increasing roll of leaders in health care and business are looking on aghast at a bill that is so large and convoluted that no one can truly understand it, as Finance Chairman Max Baucus admitted on the floor last week. The only goal is to ram it into law while the political window is still open, and clean up the mess later.
• Health costs. From the outset, the White House’s core claim was that reform would reduce health costs for individuals and businesses, and they’re sticking to that story. “Anyone who says otherwise simply hasn’t read the bills,” Mr. Obama said over the weekend. This is so utterly disingenuous that we doubt the President really believes it.
The best and most rigorous cost analysis was recently released by the insurer WellPoint, which mined its actuarial data in various regional markets to model the Senate bill. WellPoint found that a healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee buying coverage on the individual market will see his costs rise by 178%. A small business based in Richmond with eight employees in average health will see a 23% increase. Insurance costs for a 40-year-old family with two kids living in Indianapolis will pay 106% more. And on and on.
These increases are solely the result of ObamaCare—above and far beyond the status quo—because its strict restrictions on underwriting and risk-pooling would distort insurance markets. All but a handful of states have rejected regulations like “community rating” because they encourage younger and healthier buyers to wait until they need expensive care, increasing costs for everyone. Benefits and pricing will now be determined by politics.
As for the White House’s line about cutting costs by eliminating supposed “waste,” even Victor Fuchs, an eminent economist generally supportive of ObamaCare, warned last week that these political theories are overly simplistic. “The oft-heard promise ‘we will find out what works and what does not’ scarcely does justice to the complexity of medical practice,” the Stanford professor wrote.
• Steep declines in choice and quality. This is all of a piece with the hubris of an Administration that thinks it can substitute government planning for market forces in determining where the $33 trillion the U.S. will spend on medicine over the next decade should go.
This centralized system means above all fewer choices; what works for the political class must work for everyone. With formerly private insurers converted into public utilities, for instance, they’ll inevitably be banned from selling products like health savings accounts that encourage more cost-conscious decisions.
Unnoticed by the press corps, the Congressional Budget Office argued recently that the Senate bill would so “substantially reduce flexibility in terms of the types, prices, and number of private sellers of health insurance” that companies like WellPoint might need to “be considered part of the federal budget.”
With so large a chunk of the economy and medical practice itself in Washington’s hands, quality will decline. Ultimately, “our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all,” as Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey Flier recently wrote in our pages. Take the $2 billion annual tax—rising to $3 billion in 2018—that will be leveled against medical device makers, among the most innovative U.S. industries. Democrats believe that more advanced health technologies like MRI machines and drug-coated stents are driving costs too high, though patients and their physicians might disagree.
“The Senate isn’t hearing those of us who are closest to the patient and work in the system every day,” Brent Eastman, the chairman of the American College of Surgeons, said in a statement for his organization and 18 other speciality societies opposing ObamaCare. For no other reason than ideological animus, doctor-owned hospitals will face harsh new limits on their growth and who they’re allowed to treat. Physician Hospitals of America says that ObamaCare will “destroy over 200 of America’s best and safest hospitals.”
• Blowing up the federal fisc. Even though Medicare’s unfunded liabilities are already about 2.6 times larger than the entire U.S. economy in 2008, Democrats are crowing that ObamaCare will cost “only” $871 billion over the next decade while fantastically reducing the deficit by $132 billion, according to CBO.
Yet some 98% of the total cost comes after 2014—remind us why there must absolutely be a vote this week—and most of the taxes start in 2010. That includes the payroll tax increase for individuals earning more than $200,000 that rose to 0.9 from 0.5 percentage points in Mr. Reid’s final machinations. Job creation, here we come.
Other deceptions include a new entitlement for long-term care that starts collecting premiums tomorrow but doesn’t start paying benefits until late in the decade. But the worst is not accounting for a formula that automatically slashes Medicare payments to doctors by 21.5% next year and deeper after that. Everyone knows the payment cuts won’t happen but they remain in the bill to make the cost look lower. The American Medical Association’s priority was eliminating this “sustainable growth rate” but all they got in return for their year of ObamaCare cheerleading was a two-month patch snuck into the defense bill that passed over the weekend.
The truth is that no one really knows how much ObamaCare will cost because its assumptions on paper are so unrealistic. To hide the cost increases created by other parts of the bill and transfer them onto the federal balance sheet, the Senate sets up government-run “exchanges” that will subsidize insurance for those earning up to 400% of the poverty level, or $96,000 for a family of four in 2016. Supposedly they would only be offered to those whose employers don’t provide insurance or work for small businesses.
As Eugene Steuerle of the left-leaning Urban Institute points out, this system would treat two workers with the same total compensation—whatever the mix of cash wages and benefits—very differently. Under the Senate bill, someone who earned $42,000 would get $5,749 from the current tax exclusion for employer-sponsored coverage but $12,750 in the exchange. A worker making $60,000 would get $8,310 in the exchanges but only $3,758 in the current system.
For this reason Mr. Steuerle concludes that the Senate bill is not just a new health system but also “a new welfare and tax system” that will warp the labor market. Given the incentives of these two-tier subsidies, employers with large numbers of lower-wage workers like Wal-Mart may well convert them into “contractors” or do more outsourcing. As more and more people flood into “free” health care, taxpayer costs will explode.
• Political intimidation. The experts who have pointed out such complications have been ignored or dismissed as “ideologues” by the White House. Those parts of the health-care industry that couldn’t be bribed outright, like Big Pharma, were coerced into acceding to this agenda. The White House was able to, er, persuade the likes of the AMA and the hospital lobbies because the federal government will control 55% of total U.S. health spending under ObamaCare, according to the Administration’s own Medicare actuaries.
Others got hush money, namely Nebraska’s Ben Nelson. Even liberal Governors have been howling for months about ObamaCare’s unfunded spending mandates: Other budget priorities like education will be crowded out when about 21% of the U.S. population is on Medicaid, the joint state-federal program intended for the poor. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman calculates that ObamaCare will result in $2.5 billion in new costs for his state that “will be passed on to citizens through direct or indirect taxes and fees,” as he put it in a letter to his state’s junior Senator.
So in addition to abortion restrictions, Mr. Nelson won the concession that Congress will pay for 100% of Nebraska Medicaid expansions into perpetuity. His capitulation ought to cost him his political career, but more to the point, what about the other states that don’t have a Senator who’s the 60th vote for ObamaCare?
“After a nearly century-long struggle we are on the cusp of making health-care reform a reality in the United States of America,” Mr. Obama said on Saturday. He’s forced to claim the mandate of “history” because he can’t claim the mandate of voters. Some 51% of the public is now opposed, according to National Journal’s composite of all health polling. The more people know about ObamaCare, the more unpopular it becomes.
The tragedy is that Mr. Obama inherited a consensus that the health-care status quo needs serious reform, and a popular President might have crafted a durable compromise that blended the best ideas from both parties. A more honest and more thoughtful approach might have even done some good. But as Mr. Obama suggested, the Democratic old guard sees this plan as the culmination of 20th-century liberalism.
So instead we have this vast expansion of federal control. Never in our memory has so unpopular a bill been on the verge of passing Congress, never has social and economic legislation of this magnitude been forced through on a purely partisan vote, and never has a party exhibited more sheer political willfulness that is reckless even for Washington or had more warning about the consequences of its actions.
These 60 Democrats are creating a future of epic increases in spending, taxes and command-and-control regulation, in which bureaucracy trumps innovation and transfer payments are more important than private investment and individual decisions. In short, the Obama Democrats have chosen change nobody believes in—outside of themselves—and when it passes America will be paying for it for decades to come.
This health care bill is a complete and total disaster for the nation. It destroys the Republic forever. In this writer’s opinion, anyone who puts their name to this legislation is guilty of treason and deserves the harshest penalties allowed by law.
One last thing, as both Sarah and myself mentioned death panels here, I just got an e-mail linking to a nice piece from the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank, that backs up what we’ve been writing about here, and Sarah has been saying from the start:
Death Panels? Sarah Palin Was Right
Posted by Alan Reynolds
PolitiFact.com gave Sarah Palin their “Lie of the Year” award for warning on August 7 that the Democrat’s idea of “cost containment” implied rationing by “death panels.”
The self-described fact-checking web site of the St. Petersburg Times claimed Palin was criticizing a provision in the House bill under which “Medicare would pay for doctors’ appointments for patients to discuss living wills, health care directives and other end-of-life issues.”
The claim that Governor Palin confused one-on-one counseling between doctors and patients with any sort of “panel” was always ridiculous on its face. Indeed, that claim should itself have been a leading candidate for “Lie of the Year.” Yet Palin’s critics kept on equating death panels with counseling throughout the year, as though they could not even begin to understand plain English.
In a column called “Reporting the Lies,” Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein wrote, “Before Sarah Palin talked about death panels, no one knew about Sen. Johnny Isakson’s quiet crusade to persuade Medicare beneficiaries to adopt living wills.”
Adopting a living will requires a lawyer, not a doctor, so there must have been more to the crusade than just that. There is some reason to wonder if the crusaders intended to promote penny-pinching advice like President Obama’s famous suggestion that perhaps grandma should skip the expensive operation and take a cheap pain pill instead (generic, of course).
In any case, no single physician’s advice involves any panel, deathly or otherwise. Palin was clearly worried about rationing by some government-appointed group, panel or board of experts — such the (currently) powerless panel that recently suggested fewer and later breast exams, or the Senate bill’s potentially more lethal Independent Payment Advisory Board
The shameless hoax that Palin had confused individual consulting with rationing by a panel was repeated endlessly. By November, the Washington Post was treating this obvious canard as an established fact: “Proposed health-care reform legislation includes a provision that allows Medicare to pay for “end-of-life” counseling for seniors and their families who request it. The provision — which Sarah Palin erroneously described as “death panels” for seniors — nearly derailed President Obama’s health-care initiative.”
How could anyone believe Palin’s sensible comment about rationing was, in reality, a senseless fear of counseling? To say so was no mistake; it was an oft-repeated big lie.
Rather than even mentioning the House bill, Palin linked to an interesting speech by “Rep. Michele Bachmann [which] highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff.”
Dr. Emmanuel’s varied and murky remarks about using panels of experts (like himself) to ration health care are less clear or less candid than those of another bioethicist, Peter Singer of Princeton. Singer’s article, “Why We Must Ration Health Care,” was a cover feature in The New York Times Magazine on July 15 — shortly before Palin took the opposing side of this issue.
Singer’s argument (about an expensive anti-cancer drug) is that, “If there is any point at which you say, ‘No, an extra six months [of life] isn’t worth that much,’ then you think that health care should be rationed.” But the question itself is rhetorical trickery, sophistry. Even if there was certain knowledge about life expectancy with or without some treatment (which is never true), Singer has no right to any opinion about how much an extra six months of my life is worth (and vice-versa) unless he’s paying the bills.
But that, of course, is what makes the proposed expansion of insurance subsidies and Medicaid so ominous. Just as federal politicians imagine that a small minority stake in some bank entitles them to override all other stockholders when it comes to executive pay, federal politicians would surely claim that even small subsidies for anyone’s health insurance entitle them to, as Singer put it, set “limits on which treatments should be paid for.” And those politicians would surely appoint panels of experts as cover when some life-saving procedure, device or drug was ruled-out for those with insufficient quality-adjusted years left to live.
Singer wrote, quite correctly, that in “Medicare, Medicaid and hospital emergency rooms, health care is rationed by long waits. . . [and] low payments to doctors that discourage some from serving public patients.” [emphasis added]
Pending health care bills would make such government-mandated scarcity of health care much worse. There would be massive shifting of money away from Medicare toward Medicaid. But the extra Medicaid money would be spread around more thinly. States would cut benefits to the poor in order to accommodate millions of new, less-poor people lured into Medicaid, at least half of whom (7 or 8 million by my estimate) currently have employer-provided health insurance.
The Senate health bill supposedly intends to slash Medicare payment rates for physicians by 21% next year and more in future years, with permanent reductions in payments to other medical services too. It would also establish an Independent Payment Advisory Board which would be empowered to make deeper cuts which Congress could reject only with considerable difficulty. If that’s not quite a “death panel” it would surely not be pro-life in its impact.
Actually, it’s clear enough that the proposed Medicare cuts won’t be achieved, but that efforts in that direction will nonetheless reduce access to care and diminish its quality. The government can’t boost demand and cut prices without creating excess demand. And that, in turn, means rationing by longer waiting lines and by panels (rationing boards) making life-or death decisions for other people.
As Sarah Palin predicted, “Government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course.“
As the CATO Institute points out so well, Sarah is right, as usual. The chronically ill, old folks, and, of course, the disabled are royally screwed here. Evil men like Dr Ezekiel Emanuel have already written the book on these death panels, and it’s all based on who is deemed “productive to society.” This is as evil as it gets. This is a few psychopaths playing God with Americans’ lives.
Below is the original poster the modified one above came from. In Nazi Germany, the government worked overtime to convince it’s people that some lives just weren’t worth living and should be extinguished. They even went so far as to point out how much keeping what they termed “useless eaters” alive cost each and every German. They got this thinking from the American “progressive” movement, by the way.
Sarah Palin brings this home to me, through her beautiful son Trig. Thanks to the American “progressive” (liberal) movement and immoral groups like Planned Parenthood, a group started by Klu Klux Klanner Margaret Sanger, as a way of Negro population control…she called blacks “human weeds“…,we now abort fully 90 percent of all Downs Syndrome babies.
It breaks one’s heart that so many children like Trig never are allowed to experience life because the “progressives” are carrying out a jihad against all children with disabilities. They are attempting to desensitize and dehumanize all of mankind.
Sorry to be so long winded here, but lets face it, this is the most sweeping, and the most dangerous legislation ever proposed by Congress and a President. This is pure and absolute evil. Nothing less. The men and women who have signed on to this destruction of America, and her peoples need to be dealt with in the harshest manner humanly possible. They are all traitors.
There was one bit of sanity in Congress though as freshman Alabama Congressman Parker Griffith did something very rare, he switched parties. From Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air:
Usually one does not see Congressmen or Senators flipping parties to join the minority. However, Politico’s Josh Kraushaar has a scoop that Blue Dog Democrat Parker Griffith of Alabama, a freshman in Congress, has seen enough of Nancy Pelosi’s leadership. He will join Republicans in a move that has far more symbolic than substantive impact — for now.
This is a fascinating story. It is rare to see folks switch parties, and switching to the minority party is virtually unheard of. This is a very strong statement about the state of the democrat/communist party.
Congressman Griffith is a doctor BTW. I imagine that had a lot to do with his switching parties and fighting so hard against all of this. I know from speaking with my doctors and their staff, that this pending evil is not wanted in any way, shape, or form.
Sarah was quick to welcome Congressman Griffith aboard via Twitter:
Congratulations Alabama!And all Americans concerned about Capitol Hill’s current agenda;Rep Parker Griffith just did the right thing.Welcome
We are proud to welcome him to the fight as well.
I want to leave everyone with this reminder from the Great Ronald Reagan on the dangers of allowing government to take over health care and what their real end game is:
Our nation is no longer a Representative Republic, it has officially become a communist dictatorship. Our United States Constitution has been rendered null and void. After 233 years of being the shining city on a hill, the bright beacon of liberty and freedom to all of the world, the lights have been extinguished.
Great evil has gripped our nation in the form of the most corrupt President and the most corrupt Congress in our nation’s history. The democrat/communist party has succeeded where the British (twice) The French, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union failed. They have destroyed the United States.
This didn’t happen overnight. This has been over 100 years in the making. With the advent of the progressive movement, what many label as liberalism, there has been an incredible effort to fundamentally change our nation from a Representative Republic, a Constitutional form of government, to a centrally planned, command and control type of communist dictatorship.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did more to destroy the fabric of this society than any other President in history, that is until Barack Obama came along. Roosevelt, like Obama today, took office during an economic recession. And like Obama, Roosevelt used this opportunity as an excuse to greatly remake government.
Roosevelt, like Obama, bullied corporations, took over banks, business concerns, tried to dictate salaries, replace CEOs and many other unconstitutional activities. So rabid was the lust to change America from a free nation to his vison of a command and control form of government, that FDR even threatened the Supreme Court with the notion of adding to it’s size a number of justices so as to delude any attempt to overrule his authority. Something a President is allowed to do, with the advice and consent of Congress.
The major concern of the day, as it is now, was joblessness. We were in a deep recession, much worse than now. Roosevelt’s solution, predictably, was all sorts of government control, regulation, and over all heavy handed meddling. In other words, the free market system was all but abandoned. The result? A serious recession, one that could have been turned around, became what is now known as The Great Depression.
How do I know that recession could have been turned around? Well, it was no worse than the recession America faced in the 1970’s under both Ford and Carter. Ronald Reagan was able to come in and through common sense, and Conservative principles, turn it all around. It took some time, and most of Reagan’s first term still saw rough economic waters, but he ended up creating the greatest peace time economic growth in our nation’s history.
Now this not to say that all of Roosevelt’s programs were bad. We got things like government backing for our banking system: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, was born as a result of the economic collapse, for example. However, most of Roosevelt’s plans were rooted in the ideology of socialism and communism. (Basically the same thing)
Roosevelt instituted massive federal work programs, CCC camps for youth, and so on. Yes, it got people back to work, and many landmark buildings, bridges, dams, and other outstanding projects came about, but in the process, the free market system was all but abandoned. This ended up delaying economic recovery for a decade.
Economists will argue about this until the end of time, but many feel that it was only because of World War II that the American economy eventually recovered. It was most certainly afterward when things got back to where they should be.
One of the other things to come out of the Imperial Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt is the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. Before Roosevelt, Presidents lived by the example set by our first President George Washington.
As you may, or may not know, after the Revolution, Congress, and the people, were quite ready to make Washington king. He refused. In fact, it is said that King George III, ruler of England asked American artist Benjamin West what would Washington do after Great Britain acknowledged the nation’s independence. Would he take his Army and create a government? West reportedly told King George no, that Washington would probably go back to his farm. The king scoffed, then went on to say that if he did that, he would be the greatest man alive.
Presidents ever since had respected that tradition, until Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt, who like Obama, controlled the media, the information, was elected to two terms, then an unprecedented third term, and an alarming fourth term. Only death ended what had become a defacto dictatorship.
Even though Roosevelt’s policies were dangerous to the Republic and many did far more harm than good, through manipulation of the media, and strong propaganda campaigns, voters willingly kept voting for him.
Ever since the ratification of the 22nd Amendment, democrat/communists have been scheming for ways to take control through other means. Since they can’t just install a dictator for life in the oval office, they have sought to make Americans so dependent on government, rather than themselves, that the would always vote for those who would pledge to create and maintain this type of arrangement.
One of the most horrific notions created by Roosevelt is something straight out of Karl Marx’s play book of communist ideology. Roosevelt proposed a “Second Bill Of Rights.” While I admit many of these things seem to be quite OK, on the surface, each and everyone requires you to totally and completely give away every single right and freedom that God gave you, and the Constitution guarantees you. They require you to submit every facet of your life to the command and control of the dictator.
Let’s take a listen to FDR’s propostion:
Now let’s take a look at some of these:
* The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
OK, so the government is going to guarantee you a job. What if you want to work in one sort of field, but the government has a different idea for you? By the way, France “guarantees” jobs through legislation that makes it almost impossible to fire someone once you hire them. The results?
For one thing, unemployment is permanently in the double digits. It is incredibly high among the youth of the nation. Employers are incredibly reluctant to hire them. What if they turn out to be worthless? They’re stuck. Currently, President Sarkozy is struggling with new laws that allow for a probation period where younger workers can be hired, then fired, if things don’t work out. As expected, this is unpopular, and riots have been common.
Another issue is the fact that if you can’t fire someone, in keeping with human nature, those employees will tend to be less productive, less competent, because no matter what, they have a job for life. We see that in this country in union shops, and most especially in education, where teachers unions constructed a scheme where it is almost impossible to fire a lousy teacher.
The entire nation suffers under these type of systems.
Roosevelt mentions adequate food, clothes, and recreation. Who decides this? Who controls the “adequate” supply of food, clothes, and recreation?
I’m a bit of a gourmand eater. I like fine foods, right along side with my cheeseburgers, pizza, and burritos. There are many, especially in government, that bombard me, and 100’s of millions of other Americans, daily, with propaganda that tells me all of this is bad. Will I be forced to exist on a diet of tofu and sprouts? Or just watery soup and day old bread, when they have it?
Every communist nation that guarantees food, has massive shortages, and starving citizens.
And what about clothes? Americans are rather fashion conscious. We like our blue jeans as well as our Armani suits. For me, a pair of shorts and a comfortable tee shirt is the uniform of the day, 365 days a year, unless there is an occasion. For others, they simply “must” be dressed in the finest bespoke attire, as nothing else would be “adequate” to their needs, wants, and desires. How do you think that would work out?
And what about recreation? Is that a day off? Is it free ticket to the movies? The baseball game? Or is it a certain amount of allotted TV or computer time? All of these can be considered recreation. Who decides?
I grew up at the drag strip. Drag raced motorcycles, and was blessed to be able to race nationwide because of the fruits of my labor, and a bit of help from sponsors. This has been and always will be my favorite form of recreation. I would love nothing more than to own a professional drag racing team, but alas, the yearly budget for a top NHRA team is north of $3 million. To me, “adequate” recreation would be owning one of these teams. For the millions who participate in drag racing, from the sportsman level to professional ranks, to the fans, this is their “adequate” recreation. Will Uncle Sugar by me a Top Fuel dragster? And if not, why not?
One of the things that makes the United States of America the greatest nation the world has ever known is freedom. In this country anyone can be anything they wish to be. Our history is filled with stories of men and women who have beat all the odds against them, poor education, physical and mental handicaps, poverty, even horrible prejudices, to became successful beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. This is because of freedom and liberty, a concept that was only a dream, and virtually unknown to mankind before America was founded. It was certainly something no government had ever embraced.
Of course, along with the freedom to succeed beyond all dreams, comes the possibility to fail spectacularly, and that’s as it should be. In fact, it’s necessary. It’s obvious that we learn from failure, it’s the necessary process mankind has used to develop since the beginning of time.
Since the beginning, man has sought to improve his life. He has invented all sorts of gadgets, schemes, tools, and so forth. Some have been lucky and just had their ideas work the first time. But generally all great inventions are birthed through a painful process of failure, before the success. More profound is the fact that often, through the process of learning what doesn’t work, completely new things are discovered, and new inventions come into being.
This is the same in business. Some businesses fail, some succeed. Our history is filled with great businessmen, captains of industry, who failed spectacularly, many times on multiple occasions, before becoming household names and fabulously successful. This didn’t happen because they somehow blindly stumbled into success. No, this happened because through failure, for any number of reasons, these great men, and women, learned what worked, and most importantly, what didn’t work. This is vital.
Now under the communist system, and the current thinking of the democrat/communist party, certain businesses are deemed “too big to fail.” This sets our entire system on it’s ear. It causes failures to be put on life support, sometimes indefinitely.
Several things happen when something becomes “too big to fail.” The biggest change, when government comes along, is control. These once independent businesses now become micro-managed by government, usually by people who know absolutely nothing about business. These businesses are subject to the every whim of politicians. Sound and proven business practices go out the window.
With failure no longer an option, productivity, creativity, and profitability suffer, and ofttimes disappear. Worse, competitors who didn’t make the mistakes that caused the business to fail, are now at a disadvantage, because those propped up by government have the advantage.
As government has deemed something “too big to fail“, all sound business practices disappear.
Government will operate at incredible loses, into infinity, to keep their pet industry on life support. Look at AMTRAK or pretty much any other mass transit system. They are incredible money losers. But politicians have deemed them “too big to fail“. So billions annually are poured down that bottomless pit.
So what does this have to do with you? Well….under communism, government deems you “too big to fail.” That of course is quite alluring and comforting to many who don’t understand the ramifications of this. I mean gee, no matter what happens, Uncle Sugar is going to take care of you:
Of course, for Uncle Sugar to be able to take care of your every need, he must take from those that produce, and give to those that don’t. One could think of Uncle Sugar as “Robin Hood” or a thief in the night.
The end result though is a poorer quality of life for everyone. You hear the communists talk constantly about “economic justice.” It’s the same tired old class warfare the democrat/communist party has waged on success for a century. Their entire existence is based on making you hate people with money and success, rather than celebrate them. Their entire spiel is that somehow, by simply being successful, those “evil rich” have stolen YOUR future!
Of course, it doesn’t work that way, it’s not a zero-sum gain. There is no limit to economic growth. In other words, if I make a dollar, it doesn’t prevent someone else from also making a dollar. In fact, under capitalism, I must make a dollar, so I can spend it, for others to gain a dollar.
The communists infiltrated our schools decades ago, so the concept of all of this has been lost over time, only to be replaced with an inherent hatred for those more successful than others. We see it at every level.
We’ve seen a disturbing trend where games are played but no one keeps an official score, where there are no winners or losers, and everyone gets a trophy, just for showing up. This is counterintuitive to human nature, as man is instinctively competitive. But for the communist system to work, that must be dampened. It must be stifled.
Common sense tells us that competition is good. It breeds higher quality. Not only in business, with superior goods and services, but in life. It is that competitive spirit that founded this nation. It’s that competitive spirit that made man get off the couch and exercise so he could meet hot chicks!
Unfortunately, for the communist, the competitive spirit also thwarts their plans of domination over mankind. It’s that competitive spirit that will not allow man to have his freedom and liberty, once gained, to be stolen from him, without a fight.
This is why the communists seek to condition children to be less competitive. It just more of the charming evils they bring to the table with them.
Here are some more “rights” FDR proposed:
* The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
Who determines what a “decent living” is? And what is a “decent living?” This discussion alone could last into eternity. For some, “decent” would be “three hots and a cot” for others nothing short of the “rock star” lifestyle will do. Fortunately, in America, you have the opportunity to have either one. Not the right, but the opportunity.
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
Sounds good, where do I sign up!
How do we stop nations abroad from unfair practices? I can hear the anti-war protesters now! Instead of shouting “no war for oil” it’ll be “no war for unfair business practices!” Just doesn’t have that same ring, does it?
But just as it IS our nation’s policy to go to war over oil, it would necessarily be policy to go to war against nations that trade or compete unfairly on the open market.
Let me know how that turns out, I’ll wait here.
*The right of every family to a decent home.
Who decides what a “decent” home is. And what is “decent?” Is it a shotgun shack, a FEMA trailer, forty acres and a mule, or one of the McMansions that are popular among new home buyers in Texas? What if they run out of mules?
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.
That’s right, you too can become “too big to fail“, and even too big to get sick!
*The right to a good education.
This is already an epic failure. We had good schools, led the world. Then Jimmy Carter came up with a central command and control system through the creation of the Department of Education during his presidency. The march to mediocrity thus began!
The bottom line on all of this is simple. In order for this Utopian system to come to pass, you must surrender all of your rights to the state. You must give up every semblance of freedom and liberty. You submit your life to the will of nameless, faceless bureaucrats who answer to no one.
Capitalism seeks to bring everyone up, to allow everyone the potential to experience unlimited growth and success, so long as they work for it. Under capitalism, there are no guarantees whatsoever, except the right to either spectacularly succeed, or fail, based on your own talent, and ambition.
Under communism, “economic justice” is sought. Those that produce are actually punished, sometimes greatly, for personal achievement. In an effort to “spread the wealth,” those who have the drive, the spirit to excel are punished through confiscatory taxes, and other penalties for exceeding an artificial “limit to success” placed on them by government.
So unlike capitalism, where the goal is to allow success for all, in effect raising the standard of living for all people, communism, socialism, Marxism, whatever ism you want to call it, in effect, reduces the standard of living, the quality of life, for all.
Quite simply, where capitalism seeks to build up, communism seeks to tear down.
Communism is the ideology of destruction.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Just so you know, Roosevelt’s “Second Bill of Rights” the notion of them, have never went away. They are deeply rooted in communism, and all of the cool communists, like Barack Obama and his corrupt Congress, are embracing these ideas with gusto.
We are on the precipice of disaster in this nation. Our Constitution has been rendered null and void by the actions of this corrupt Congress. This isn’t the first America has faced destruction through communism. It’s just the first time it has seemingly succeeded.
In 1948 John Southerland, through his animated series Fun Facts About America, created a short film Make Mine Freedom. This film is just as prudent now, as it was then.
A bit of a side note, our friends over at Hillbuzz.org use the name “Dr Utopia,” exclusively, when referring to Barack Obama. After watching the film, you’ll understand why!
So what the hell does this have to do with Jim DeMint?
Well……. it’s quite well known that the nation is solidly against the so-called “health care bill” that is on the eve of becoming the law of the land. Only one third of the nation supports this travesty. Obama and his corrupt democrat/communist Congress don’t care.
In fact, it looks like the 2010 elections are going to see the absolute destruction of the democrat/communist party at the ballot box. It’s going to be a disaster for them. They will lose both Houses of Congress, and their President may, if the right people are elected, face impeachment. They don’t care. This bill so destroys America as it is, so tears down the Republic, they feel it’s all worth it.
Oh, I know, some think that’s crazy talk. But what this health care legislation does is enslave the nation, and in their calculations will set up a system where they can gain permanent control.
Now I know that may not make sense. But look at programs like Social Security and Medicare Over time, they have become sacred. Democrat/communists have scared old people to death for decades by telling them “evil” Republicans were going to take away their goodies.
Ironically, this very legislation does just that! It cuts programs by a half trillion dollars. It will severely limit access to health care to those on Medicare.
The democrat/communists feel their way to permanent rule, and they want to rule, not govern, is by getting everyone used to depending on the government, not themselves, for their most basic needs.
So…in the short term, they are willing to lose it all, to gain their long term dream of total domination of America, their total domination of mankind.
Now, the Republicans, for their part, have done an incredibly poor job of stopping the destruction of the Republic, pretty much useless, in fact, but that’s a whole entire column unto itself.
Here’s the thing…. the communists know the jig is up come November 2010. They fully expect to lose it all. One of the litmus tests for anyone running to replace these evil men and women in Congress will be their promise to repeal this legislation. In fact, due to ineptness on their part, the GOP is basically reduced to using this as their only option. Not much of a strategy.
As you know, this entire process has taken place behind closed doors, with no Republicans allowed. The Senate bill is 2700 pages long. It took less than 20 to write the entire Constitution!
Knowing that Republicans are already promising to repeal this unconstitutional monstrosity once they take back Congress, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, a certain casualty in 2010, has added wording that makes this virtually impossible to repeal. This, of course is unconstitutional, in and of itself, and violates Senate rules.
This provision seeks to illegally bind future Congresses to this incredibly bad legislation forever.
From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:
At first, Senator Jim DeMint starts off with a few points of parliamentary inquiry which seem rather dull, but like any good prosecutor, DeMint is carefully building a case — and his target is a particularly noxious clause in Harry Reid’s ObamaCare bill. On page 1020 of the text, DeMint discovers that Reid has created a rule binding future sessions of Congress to a supermajority requirement to overrule the bill’s rationing board, the Independent Medical Advisory Board, whose purpose (stated on page 1001) is to “reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending.” DeMint demands an explanation of how the Majority Leader can allow legislation to alter the rules of the Senate, both on the floor and in committee. The Weekly Standard has the key portion of the transcript:
There ’s one provision that I found particularly troubling and it’s under section C, titled “Limitations on changes to this subsection.”
And I quote — “It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”
This is not legislation. It’s not law. This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.
I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a Senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future Senates.
I mean, we want to bind future Congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of Senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future Congresses.
Morrissey goes on to add:
As I recall, Congress is not allowed to pass rules that bind future Congresses. In the House, the rules have to be offered and approved at the beginning of each session. The Senate has standing rules, but they are not in the form of law that requires further legislation to alter — legislation that would be, under this bill, out of order even to introduce. It basically makes Harry Reid the dictator of the Senate, not just now, but in perpetuity.
Is it unconstitutional? The ability of each Congress to govern itself is certainly strongly implied in Article I, Section 5:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Clearly the founders did not intend that to mean that the first Congress could set the rules in perpetuity, and indeed as DeMint points out, rule changes have been made consistently without resorting to legislation to accomplish them because of the orders of a prior Congress. Put another way, the elected representatives of today should not have greater authority than those who will follow them. Any attempt to pass this into legislation aggrandizes the power of this Congress at the expense of those that follow.
And as DeMint points out, it sets a very dangerous precedent regardless of which party is in power. What will be next — a Republican Congress declaring any future bill that increases taxes out of order? Would Democrats sit still for that, too?
Update: Gabriel Malor says the issue isn’t constitutionality, but the substance of what it protects. Be sure to read it all.
So this is where we are at. Communist thugs, disguised as legislators, have killed the United States of America. They have voided the Constitution. They have rendered the 222 years of precedence since the ratification of our Constitution, irrelevant.
The rule of law no longer exits in the United States of America.
We no longer live in a Representative Republic. We now reside in a communist dictatorship where the will of the people no longer matters and the will of the government will be forced upon the people with an iron fist.
Can this be stopped? Not by anyone in Washington, that’s for sure.
So what now?
Many are making their way to Washington as I write this. The chat rooms, twitter tweets, and Facebook posts are filled with those who are going and imploring others to “just show up” in DC on Christmas Eve, presumable to stage a large protest, and possibly some civil disobedience of some kind.
Here’s what I know for sure: The time for reasonable negotiation with the radicals in this nation is over. Conservatives outnumber the evil liberal/progressive/communist element in this country three to one. We can defeat them by sheer numbers alone. But we must be willing to fight. We must be willing to risk it all to save the nation.
We must all come together and stand up against the most tyrannical and corrupt government out people have ever known. The old Revolutionary cry of “Unite or die” has never been more poignant, more appropriate than now.
The price of doing this will be high, almost unbearable to some, but the price of doing nothing will be eternal slavery for us, our children, and their children. The price of doing nothing will be allowing the greatest nation mankind has ever known to vanish from the face of the earth. To see the beacon of liberty and freedom to go dark forever.
The price for either course of action is high. It’s up to the good people of America to decide if they want that price to be paid in the service of liberty and freedom, or of tyranny and evil.
Here is the latest polling from Battleground. This comes right on the heels of Gallop polling that also shows the majority of Americans consider themselves conservative. This is no fluke either. And as much as we’d love to say that Obama is driving people away from his and his party’s rapidly dying ideology, the truth is Battleground polling, since 2002, has consistently found similar results. Battleground, a bipartisan polling group, has a record of being very accurate.
Bruce Walker over at the American Thinker has some great analysis:
The Battleground Poll and the Battle for America
There’s good news for conservatives in the latest Battleground Poll. The political implications are profound…if the already-energized conservative base takes even more initiative.
In August 2008, I wrote an article on “The Biggest Missing Story in Politics.” The article explains that conservatives are an overwhelming majority of America. One year later, I wrote an update on that theme, this time based on the Gallup Poll which showed that conservatives outnumber liberals in virtually every state in the union. I have been writing about the remarkable Battleground Poll results in many articles for many years.
The Battleground Poll reveals the internals of its poll. It also asks respondents the same demographic questions in each poll: What is your education level? What is your age? What is your religious affiliation? What is your marital status? Question D3 asks respondents to describe their ideology. The choices are “very conservative,” “somewhat conservative,” “moderate,” “somewhat liberal,” “very liberal,” and “unsure/refused.” Those asked by the Battleground Poll — if they dislike the liberal label — can call themselves moderates, they can refuse to answer, and they can express an uncertainty about their ideology. Only those certain of their ideology and willing to label themselves are considered conservative in the poll.
The Battleground Poll is not a Republican polling organization. It is, rather, one of the few bipartisan polling organizations. Republican and Democrat pollsters agree on the language of the questions for respondents, so that the questions asked are not only fairly worded, but unusually fairly worded. Republican and Democrat pollsters agree on the population sample, so that polls results are not skewed because too many Democrats, too many Republicans, or too many independents are included. The Battleground Poll also has proven very accurate over many elections.
The responses to Question D3 have been remarkably consistent. Respondents have changed dramatically about what they thought of President Bush or of the state of the economy or the most important issues facing our nation. Respondent may swing quite a bit about which party they support or trust the most. But in one single area of this long list of polling data, the American people have not wavered at all from Battleground Poll to Battleground Poll: About sixty percent of the American people, in poll after poll, year after year, describe themselves as “conservative.”
On December 16, 2009, Battleground released its latest poll. In this one, 63% of the American people described themselves as “very conservative” or “somewhat conservative.” The rest of America — not just liberals, but moderates and people who were unsure about their ideology or chose not to respond to that question, totaled only 37% of America. A measly one percent of Americans called themselves moderates; 25% of Americans called themselves “somewhat liberal“; and 8% of Americans called themselves “very liberal.”
This is no aberration. Consider in Battleground Poll results since June 2002 the percentage of Americans who have described themselves as conservative: June 2002 (59%), September 2003 (59%), April 2004 (60%), June 2004 (59%), September 2004 (60%), October 2005 (61%), March 2006 (59%), December 2007 (58%), July 2007 (63%), May 2008 (62%), August 2008 (60%), September 2008 (59%), and October 2008 (56%).
In the November 2008 Battleground Poll, for the first and only time, the straight question of “conservative” or “liberal” was not posed to respondents. Instead, the poll asked respondents two separate questions: fiscal ideology was asked in Question D6 and social ideology was asked in Question D7. The Battleground Poll clearly intended to refine Question D3. What were the results? Fiscal conservatives in Question D6 were 69% of respondents. Social conservatives were 53% of respondents and social liberals were 39%. While that sounds like social conservatism is a weak link, that is misleading: a whopping 34% of all Americans described themselves as “very conservative” on social issues, by far the largest very intense group in any Battleground Poll.
What does this mean for American politics today? It ought to boldly empower conservatives. The “right,” which every Democrat leader reflexively attacks whenever political opposition to his plans grows strong, boasts the overwhelming majority of Americans. This explains why the left’s ballot initiatives in California last year failed, in some cases, in every single county of the state and why the gay marriage ballot measure failed in liberal Maine. This also explains why Obama runs away from “labels” (all leftists do, and have for many years).
What it means in politics is that any true conservative against a true leftist should carry every state and win by a landslide. But it means more than that. Conservatives in the areas of culture, media, entertainment, and education are treated like unwanted stepchildren, or worse (despite the fact that conservatives on average are better-educated than liberals).
The worst victims of invidious bigotry in America today are conservatives. Only a tiny percentage of professors are conservative. The same is true for government-supported media like NPR, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the National Endowment for the Arts. Libraries are dominated by the minority left. How different would America be if fifty or sixty percent of teachers, librarians, professors, public media producers, and staff in government-supported organizations were conservative?
That ought to be a goal for conservatives. Winning elections is fine, but how much more vital is it for us to recover at least an equal voice in colleges, media, schools, libraries, and entertainment? What is wrong with us, the overwhelming majority of Americans, demanding not to be consigned to a ghetto or treated by Jim Crow standards? We begin by pointing out the obvious: conservatives are the majority of Americans, but we are almost invisible in our public and private institutions of education, information, entertainment, and study.
Then demand that those who want our tax dollars, our commercial business, our donations — anything, really, from us — treat us fairly, portray us honestly, and invite us into the halls of influence. It is a modest demand, but it is very important. It is a cultural “game-changer,” and that, more than anything, is what we need.
Walker nails it here. This is more than just about who wins elections. This polling shows that conservatism is greatly under represented in this country. The implications, for business, media, entertainment, and marketers are incredible.
Let’s take the media first. It’s no secret that liberals make up the bulk of those who choose “journalism” as their career. Even at the so-called “Republican” Fox News, liberals far out number conservatives on the payroll. Everywhere else, conservatives are almost non-existent.
Oh sure, every network and big newspaper has their “token conservative.” They all have their David Brooks or David Frums. But none are actually conservative. Most are “progressives” masquerading as conservatives. Is it any wonder that the newspaper industry is collapsing and the two cable news networks that aren’t Fox are going virtually unwatched?
A smart operator would shake things up and get back to being a news agency rather than a shill for the democrat/communist party. Their profits would soar, and America would be better for it.
The same goes for Hollywood. You ever notice that when Tinseltown makes a movie or television show that is family friendly that folks flock to them in droves? Shows like American Idol and Dancing With The Stars are huge hits because they appeal to a conservative audience. Now that’s not to say every show should be a version of these two, but it shows that Americans enjoy more wholesome fare than what they are generally served up.
Frankly, I enjoy films and shows that are considered “edgy.” There is absolutely a place for these sort of things. Where Hollywood loses me is when they turn otherwise entertaining and delightful movies and TV shows into nothing more than vehicles for liberal propaganda.
One has to look no further than the NBC/Universal to see this on display. Although under new management, NBC/Universal is the poster child for unrelenting propaganda. Owned by General Electric, whose CEO is an adviser to Barack Obama, NBC/Universal has pushed the global warming hoax to the max for years, going so far as having “green weeks” where all of their shows, and entertainment work the global warming shtick into the story line.
NBC uses their long running series Law and Order to bash conservatives, Christians, gun owners, pro-life advocates, and so on. Portraying them as evil and unstable.
It’s easy to see the motivation behind Law and Order. They despise conservatives and use tactics right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules in order to demean and marginalize the object of their scorn. While the far left eat this up, conservatives, by nature, are too timid to act. This needs to change, and change big time.
Of course, for GE, it’s all about the money. NBC pushes “green” as much as possible because GE makes most of the implements of this movement. By hammering viewers constantly with propaganda, they hope to convince people to fall for the global warming scam. Hundreds of billions of dollars are riding on this deal for GE alone. Big Global Warming, if not stopped, will be a trillion dollar industry built on the back of the American people.
Again, smart operators in the entertainment industry would take a pass on all of the propagandizing and get back to just entertaining. The ones who do that will have great success and loyal viewers.
Now this is not to say that TV shows shouldn’t have messages built in. The greatest movie ever made, Casablanca, is one of the most patriotic films ever made. Whether it was intentional or by accident, this movie stirs great emotions, even to this day.
Years ago, television was leading the way with socially relevant programming. TV tackled tough subjects like racism and sexism. Important issues of the day and issues Americans agreed needed addressing. That was responsible and appropriate. What we see now is just pushing an agenda that most of the country doesn’t care for.
Liberals always have to force their agenda on the people, because few would willingly submit.
With all of that said, this has the greatest implications for the Republican Party. The Party is in shambles. For decades the so-called “moderates” have attempted to marginalize conservatives, and conservatism. It’s why they are completely out of power in Washington.
The country club, blue blood, Rockefeller Republicans, the RINOs and DIABLOs (Democrats In All But Name Only) are, and always have been, “progressives.” This is worse than liberal, and frankly all of us are guilty of labeling “progressives” as liberals. The “progressive” movement goes all of the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, a Big Government Statist. “Progressives” totally control the democrat/communist party.
Conservatives, when in power within the Republican Party, have always come out as winners. One has to look no further than the Great Ronald Reagan, who won two unprecedented landslide elections to the presidency, to see that conservatism is attractive to the American people.
We are seeing the same sort of buzz around Sarah Palin, an unapologetic conservative icon. Not since Reagan has a single politician truly aroused the American people.
Oh sure, Barack Obama achieved pop star status, but it was all smoke and mirrors. There was absolutely no substance. In fact, as it is now painfully clear, Obama had to lie about his actual agenda in order to win the election. Obama had to work over time to keep his radical associations from derailing his run for office. Of course, he had plenty of accomplices in the willing media to carry his water and hide the real Barack Obama. Now that he is in, the American people are mortified by the incredible mistake that was made. The American people are horrified now that any pretense that Obama isn’t an out and out communist is gone.
Bounce this off of Sarah Palin’s incredible popularity. Unlike Obama, she actually has decades of experience as an executive level leader. She has an actual public record, going back 20 years, that can be examined by all. She is quick to state her position on any given subject, and all one has to do is look back at her actual record as a public servant to see that she’s pretty consistent in her beliefs and agenda. In other words, if she is saying it now, she has a record of doing before. She doesn’t have to hide behind trickery and the slight of hand. She is what she is.
Sarah doesn’t have to hide from the American people who she is. She is genuine. In this way, Sarah Palin is just like Ronald Reagan: Outspoken and unabashedly conservative. People see this, and respond favorably.
The implications for the Grand Old Party are many, and great, but the biggest is the myth that the GOP needs to “moderate it’s message” to win elections. The current GOP wisdom, or what passes for it, is that we need to pander to the oh so precious “moderate” vote to win. (A whopping 1 percent of the population, according to this poll!) That we need to be a “big tent party” to regain power. The end result is a party that is nothing more than democrat/communist light.
Yes, there are differences in the parties, but on many issues top candidates from our party sure sound a lot like the democrat/communists, and certainly vote with them in their misguided effort to be bipartisan. Our last presidential candidate made one of his center piece talking points the fact that he was known for “reaching across the aisle.” You see where that got us! And I’m not just talking about the election!
Conservatism is the big tent. Always has been. In 1984 Reagan won crushing victories in 49 states by governing as a true conservative in his first term. A feat that hasn’t been, and may never be, duplicated. Running as an unbridled conservative, Reagan “only” won 44 states in 1980.
If you look around at the current political landscape, all of the stars are unabashedly conservative. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Jim DeMint, James Inhofe, Michael Williams, and Lt Col. Allen West are all solid conservatives and not afraid to say so.
Speaking of Michael Williams:
Williams is the Railroad Commissioner of Texas, a very powerful job, that among other things, regulates energy in Texas. Hmmm…..Sarah Palin had a powerful job in Alaska doing pretty much the same thing!
Williams is wildly popular in Texas, and a shoe-in to take Kay Baily Hutchison’s seat, giving Texas an actual conservative in the Senate for the first time, in some time. Make sure you check out his You Tube channel that is filled with inspiring speeches.
Then you have Lt Colonel Allen West, from Florida, who is running for Congress:
This is the message of conservatism. This is the message of liberty and freedom. This is the message of America. One of the most powerful speeches you’ll see.
The video below is what is considered the best speech given by any leader since Ronald Reagan’s iconic 1964 address to the Republican National Convention. In this speech Sarah Palin solidified her position as the new leader of the conservative movement:
Of course, the original is still the blueprint for greatness in America. I’ve always considered this “must see TV” and go so far as to say that schools need to teach an entire subject based on this speech alone, and no one should graduate high school without a working knowledge of it’s concept.
It’s amazing how much of what Reagan had to say still applies today. It’s chilling what decades of liberal control of our culture has done to us, as a nation. The destructive nature of liberalism is seen all over the fruited plain. It touches our lives daily. It makes our lives just a little less whole, just a little less free.
Few, if any, in Washington get it. Our nation has been taken over by the most radical elements on earth. Vicious elements that have no problem using brute force, as well as trickery and deceit, to see their agenda prevail.
Liberty and freedom are the enemy of the liberal movement. The current communists in Washington are the enemies of liberty and freedom. They only bring tyranny and oppression to the table. The opportunity is ripe for true conservative leaders to step forward and assume the mantle of freedom and liberty, of the American way.
America sorely needs conservatives to answer the call at every level We need conservatives to step up to the plate in local and national races. We need conservatives to seek careers in education, journalism, and the arts. Most importantly we need conservatives to stand up and speak out. You are by far the majority in this nation, it’s about time you realize this, and no longer remain passive, no longer remain silent.
America is a conservative nation and it’s time that our conservative nature is both respected, and celebrated. It’s time for our government to respect the will of the people. It’s our duty to replace those that won’t, with those that will.
“Screw political correctness. Stand up, speak up, and be bold!”