Smoky Mountains Sunrise
Showing posts with label 111th Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 111th Congress. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

GOP Rep. Buyer Blasts Acting Dem Speaker: "This is Why the People Have Thrown You Out"

Rush Limbaugh provided a wonderful example of why the American people, in their righteous indignation, have thrown the statist thugs out of the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives. Here's a glimpse of how the "People's House," under Democrat administration, has foisted Obamacare and scores of other unwanted, big-government, budget-busting legislation on the American people.

Monday, August 2, 2010

Stark Raving Mad, or Just One of the Obamunists?

"The Federal Government, yes, can do most anything in this country" Modern Day Slavery in America? Democrat Congressman Pete Stark says that the US government has the right to make you a Slave if it wants to.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Congress Ranks Last in Confidence in Institutions

Fifty percent "little"/"no" confidence in Congress reading is record high

From Gallup
By Lydia Saad

Gallup's 2010 Confidence in Institutions poll finds Congress ranking dead last out of the 16 institutions rated this year. E
leven percent of Americans say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress, down from 17% in 2009 and a percentage point lower than the previous low for Congress, recorded in 2008.

Confidence in Institutions, 1973-2010:  Congress -- % Great Deal or Quite a Lot of Confidence

The Gallup poll was conducted July 8-11, shortly before Congress passed a major financial regulatory reform bill, which President Obama signed into law this week.

Underscoring Congress' image problem, half of Americans now say they have "very little" or no confidence in Congress, up from 38% in 2009 -- and the highest for any institution since Gallup first asked this question in 1973. Previous near-50% readings include 48% found for the presidency in 2008, and 49% for the criminal justice system in 1994.

This year's poll also finds a 15-point drop in high confidence in the presidency, to 36% from 51% in June 2009. Over the same period, President Barack Obama's approval rating fell by 11 points, from 58% to 47%. However, confidence in the presidency remains higher than in 2008 -- the last year of George W. Bush's term -- when the figure was 26%.

Confidence in Institutions -- % Great Deal  or Quite a Lot of Confidence, June 2009 and July 2010, and Difference  Between the Two

Military Still No. 1

The military continues its long-standing run as the highest-rated U.S. institution. Small business and the police occupy second and third places, respectively. These three top-tier institutions all earn high confidence from a majority of Americans, something no other institution achieves this year.

The military has been No. 1 in Gallup's annual Confidence in Institutions list continuously since 1998, and has ranked No.1 or No. 2 almost every year since its initial 1975 measure.

The high level of confidence in small business contrasts with the low level of confidence in big business; the latter is tied with HMOs at 19% for next-to-last place. Confidence in organized religion is similar to where it has been since 2002, but is significantly lower than in prior years.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Friday, July 9, 2010

The Obama-Pelosi Lame Duck Strategy

Union 'card-check,' cap and trade, and so much more.

From The Wall Street Journal
By John Fund

Democratic House members are so worried about the fall elections they're leaving Washington on July 30, a full week earlier than normal—and they won't return until mid-September. Members gulped when National Journal's Charlie Cook, the Beltway's leading political handicapper, predicted last month "the House is gone," meaning a GOP takeover. He thinks Democrats will hold the Senate, but with a significantly reduced majority.

The rush to recess gives Democrats little time to pass any major laws. That's why there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don't want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation.

"I've got lots of things I want to do" in a lame duck, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W. Va.) told reporters in mid June. North Dakota's Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, wants a lame-duck session to act on the recommendations of President Obama's deficit commission, which is due to report on Dec. 1. "It could be a huge deal," he told Roll Call last month. "We could get the country on a sound long-term fiscal path." By which he undoubtedly means new taxes in exchange for extending some, but not all, of the Bush-era tax reductions that will expire at the end of the year.

In the House, Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters last month that for bills like "card check"—the measure to curb secret-ballot union

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate committee overseeing labor issues, told the Bill Press radio show in June that "to those who think [card check] is dead, I say think again." He told Mr. Press "we're still trying to maneuver" a way to pass some parts of the bill before the next Congress is sworn in.

Other lame-duck possibilities? Senate ratification of the New Start nuclear treaty, a federally mandated universal voter registration system to override state laws, and a budget resolution to lock in increased agency spending.

Then there is pork. A Senate aide told me that "some of the biggest porkers on both sides of the aisle are leaving office this year, and a lame-duck session would be their last hurrah for spending." Likely suspects include key members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Congress's "favor factory," such as Pennsylvania Democrat Arlen Specter and Utah Republican Bob Bennett.

Conservative groups such as FreedomWorks are alarmed at the potential damage, and they are demanding that everyone in Congress pledge not to take up substantive legislation in a post-election session. "Members of Congress are supposed to represent their constituents, not override them like sore losers in a lame-duck session," Rep. Tom Price, head of the Republican Study Committee, told me.

It's been almost 30 years since anything remotely contentious was handled in a lame-duck session, but that doesn't faze Democrats who have jammed through ObamaCare and are determined to bring the financial system under greater federal control.

Mike Allen of reports one reason President Obama failed to mention climate change legislation during his recent, Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil spill was that he wants to pass a modest energy bill this summer, then add carbon taxes or regulations in a conference committee with the House, most likely during a lame-duck session. The result would be a climate bill vastly more ambitious, and costly for American consumers and taxpayers, than moderate "Blue Dogs" in the House would support on the campaign trail. "We have a lot of wiggle room in conference," a House Democratic aide told the trade publication Environment & Energy Daily last month.

Many Democrats insist there will be no dramatic lame-duck agenda. But a few months ago they also insisted the extraordinary maneuvers used to pass health care wouldn't be used. Desperate times may be seen as calling for desperate measures, and this November the election results may well make Democrats desperate.

Mr. Fund is a columnist for

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Tea Party Express Responds to Stupak

In response to Bart Stupak's claim that the Tea Party Movement had nothing to do with the abrupt end of his 18 year Congressional career, the Tea Party Express has issued the following:

"Congressman Bart Stupak showed his arrogance and ignorance yesterday as he attacked the Tea Party movement. He insisted the $250,000 campaign we here at the Tea Party Express had absolutely nothing to do with him being driven from office.

And then he attacked the tea party movement saying he was taking credit for sucking the tea party movement's "treasury dry."

"If anything I just made the tea party people spend a lot of money that wasn't necessary on all these ads they have to run against me so they can't use it on anyone else. So I'll take credit for sucking their treasury dry."
Here's the video clip:

Well guess what Mr. Stupak, you're a real genius!

You see, by running in fear from the campaign being waged against you - while we were still in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and in the middle of our TV & radio ad campaign - you've allowed us to stop the campaign against you with only $50,000 of the $250,000 having been spent. You can see the report from Congressional Quarterly - HERE, we'd only spent $50,000 by the time you made your announcement.

Congressman Stupak: you are as ignorant as you are arrogant. You could have kept your mouth shut another week or so and truly drained the tea party movement's treasury dry.

To our supporters in the tea party movement: let's keep this up. We're about to announce our giant 2010 Election Targets on April 15th. Let's fatten up the tea party campaign treasury so that Bart Stupak's friends in Congress can join him in the retirement home playing checkers and watching the soon-to-be-elected constitutionalist conservatives in Congress on C-SPAN taking our country back!

You can contribute any amount from as little as $5 to the maximum allowed $5,000.


Friday, April 9, 2010

The House Cleaning Begins: Stupak to Retire

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) plans to announce his retirement today, Democrats briefed on his decision said. Stupak, the leader of a pro-life faction within his party, had received death threats and was under intense political pressure after he agreed to support the Democratic health care reform legislation, even though pro-life groups insisted that it would allow federal funds to be used for abortion.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Monday, March 29, 2010

Obama Finally Generates Bi-Partisanship

From Power Line

327 members of the U.S. House of Representatives -- three quarters of that body -- have signed a letter expressing concern about "the highly publicized tensions" in US-Israeli relations. The letter leaves unsaid that President Obama has contributed mightily to both the tensions and their publicity, but that fact is almost too obvious to require recitation. The letter was addressed to Secretary of State Clinton, another major contributor to the problems it cites.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

GOP Lawmaker Darrell Issa Poised to Call for Special Prosecutor to Investigate White House

Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight committee, told CBS News Wednesday that he will call for a special prosecutor to investigate the White House if it does not address Rep. Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a federal job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Hoyer Alarmed at Public Contempt for Democrats, Says Members are at Risk

The Democrats' Campaign Advance Team

Could he be laying the foundation for a police state muzzling of dissent?

ouse Majority Leader
Steny Hoyer is warning that some of his Democratic colleagues are being threatened with violence when they go back to their districts — and he wants Republicans to stand up and condemn the threats.

Friday, March 19, 2010

90 Seconds To Government Run Health Care

Here's a quick overview of how Democrats are trampling on the Constitution in order to seize unprecedented power, transform America, and make us all wards of an all-powerful, socialist state.

Family Research Council, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and National Right to Life Committee to Host News Conference Call Today at 3 PM ET

Leading Pro-Life Groups to Address Abortion Funding and Mandate Provisions of Health Care Bill

Today, Friday, March 19, 2010 at 3 PM EST, Family Research Council, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and National Right to Life will hold a news conference call to showcase a united pro-life movement opposed to the abortion funding and mandate provisions as well as the lack of conscience protections within the health care bill.


Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council

Tom McClusky, Senior Vice President for FRC

Richard Doerflinger, Associate Director of the USCCB Secretariat of Pro Life Activities

Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee


Media Conference Call on Health Care Reform


Friday, March 19, 2010


Dial 866-939-3921

Obama's Approval Rating Lowest Yet, Congress' Declines

Slightly more disapprove than approve of Obama

From Gallup
By Jeffrey M. Jones

President Barack Obama's job approval is the worst of his presidency to date, with 46% of Americans approving and 48% disapproving of the job he is doing as president in the latest Gallup Daily three-day average.

Do You Approve or Disapprove of the Way  Barack Obama Is Handling His Job as President?

Obama's approval rating has hovered around 50% since November, but in the last two days has declined to the point that slightly more Americans now disapprove than approve of his performance in office.

The new low ratings come during a week in which the White House and Democratic congressional leaders are working to convince wavering House Democrats to support healthcare reform, which they hope to pass using a series of parliamentary maneuvers in the House of Representatives and Senate.

Americans hold Congress in far less esteem than they do the president -- 16% approve and 80% disapprove of the job Congress is doing, according to the latest update from a March 4-7 Gallup poll. That is just two points off the record-low 14% Gallup measured in July 2008. Gallup has been measuring congressional approval since 1974.

Do You Approve or Disapprove of the Way  Congress Is Handling Its Job?

Congress' image improved during the early part of the Obama administration, peaking at 39% in March 2009. But by last month its ratings were back to where they were before Obama took office, mainly due to a loss in support from Democratic identifiers.

Bottom Line

Public support for President Obama and Congress -- both of which were running near their low points prior to the beginning of this month -- continues to slip. That is an ominous sign heading into this year's midterm elections. As of now, Gallup's tracking of congressional election preferences suggests a close House race, and a much worse performance for Democrats than in the 2006 election that restored the party to majority status in Congress.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Stupak: It's Been 'A Living Hell'

"For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places."

Ephesians 6:12
From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen Gilbert

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) on Thursday was quoted in The Hill as describing the level of pressure upon him and his fellow pro-life Democrats to pass the health care bill as "a living hell."

"How's it been? Like a living hell," Stupak told the newspaper, describing how his district offices have been "jammed" with strong feedback, much of it from non-constituents, over his opposition to the massively abortion-expanding bill.

The vitriol has even affected his home life, said the Michigan Democrat, who described the measures his wife has taken to block out the anger that is being directed at her husband. "All the phones are unplugged at our house - tired of the obscene calls and threats. She won't watch TV," he said. "People saying they're going to spit on you and all this. That's just not fun."

Despite the enormous pressure, the former state trooper indicated he wasn't about to budge. "I'm pretty stubborn," said Stupak.

The Hill reports that the group of Democrat lawmakers who are prepared to vote with Stupak (Stupak confirmed there are still at least twelve of them) met Tuesday morning to strategize and commiserate over the heavy pressure.

Stupak lamented that his pleas to party leaders to allow his language, which provided a ban on abortion funding in the House health care bill, into the Senate version, have been ignored.

"In the past, we've always been able to work it out," said Stupak. "This is the first time we've not been able to work it out."

While many have singled out Stupak and his group to blame for holding up the bill, the lawmaker pointed out: "I can't block it. Bart Stupak and his 'dirty dozen,' however you want to call it, we can't block it. There's 39 other [Democrats] who didn't vote for it."

Stupak noted that he feels conflicted because he does support health care reform - but compromising on abortion is not an option. "It's a belief for me, so it's easier to do," he said. "And it's a belief for my district, so I guess it's easier to do."

Democrats are expected on Thursday to unveil the reconciliation "fix" package, created to appease Blue Dog House Democrats' concerns over the bill, which the chamber may vote on instead of the health bill itself. According to the scheme devised by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Senate health bill could simply be "deemed" to pass once the House passes the fix package.

While constitutional concerns over the procedure have already been raised - raising the spectre of the bill's lengthy entanglement in the Supreme Court - even should it pass the House, Senate Republicans are warning that they will stop at nothing to keep the "fix" package from passing in the Senate.

Sources on Capitol Hill are now floating Sunday as the projected D-Day for the final health care vote.

ObamaCare Loses Another One; Arcuri to Vote No

From National Journal
By Erin McPike

key House Dem
has begun informing party leaders he plans to vote against health care legislation both on the House floor and in the rules committee, on which he sits.

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY), a sophomore Dem who had a tougher-than-expected re-election bid in '08, has told the Dem caucus he will vote against the bill.

He becomes the 3rd member, along with Reps. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) and Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), to have switched from supporting the first bill, in Nov., to opposing the Senate version.

Arcuri's vote will not hurt the bill's chances in committee, where Dems hold a 9-4 advantage over GOPers. The panel's other 8 Dems all voted for the first version of health care, and only Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) voted in favor of the Stupak amendment.

But Arcuri's decision could make Speaker Nancy Pelosi's goal of winning the 216 votes necessary for passage all the more difficult. Sources say Dems remain short of the votes necessary for passage, but that they have not reached their goal yet.

What the Senate Bill Would Do To America

From The Heritage Foundation
By Conn Carroll

nother day, another no-show for the Obamacare reconciliation bill.
House Democrats were quick to shift blame to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with Rep. Robert Andrews telling
The Hill that the delay "has been much more technical than substantive. ... It’s not like what tax has to go or what spending has to go." Which is an interesting claim, since Politico reported that AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka was summoned to the White House yesterday afternoon "to discuss a higher-than-expected excise tax on some health care plans." In fact, Politico added: "A labor source said Trumka's meeting would focus on the entire bill, not just the excise tax question." Sounds like more than just technical details are still in flux.

But in reality, none of these discussions really matter. The reconciliation bill being drafted is nothing more than thin political cover for House Democrats who believe the Senate bill is terrible public policy but want to please their leadership and the President by voting for it anyway. As we detailed yesterday, there is no bill but the Senate bill. Once the House passes the Senate bill, the President will sign it. Game over. It has been almost three months since the Senate passed their bill in the dead of night on Christmas Eve. A review of just how terrible it really is, is in order:

New Middle-Class Taxes:
Throughout his campaign, President Barack Obama promised he would not raise taxes on American households making less than $250,000. The Senate bill shatters that promise. For starters, just look at the reason Trumka went to the White House yesterday: the excise tax on high-cost health insurance plans. This tax would overwhelmingly hit middle-class taxpayers. Taxes on prescription drugs, wheel chairs and other medical devices would also be passed on to all consumers, hitting the lower- and middle- classes the hardest.

Increased Health Care Costs:
The Senate bill manifestly does nothing to bend the health care cost curve downward. According to the latest CBO report, the Senate bill would actually increase health care spending by $210 billion over the next 10 years. This follows a previous report from the President's own Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) showing the Senate bill would result in $234 billion in additional health care spending over 10 years.

Increased Health Insurance Premiums: The President initially promised that Americans would see a $2,500 annual reduction in their family health care costs. But under the Senate bill, premiums would go up for millions of Americans. In fact, according to the CBO, estimated premiums in the individual market would be 10–13 percent higher by 2016 than they would be under current law.

Increased Deficits:
Despite claiming to be comprehensive health care reform, the Senate bill does not address the fact that Medicare's current price-fixing doctor reimbursement scheme is set to reduce doctor payments by 21% this year. That simply is not going to happen. Congress will pass that fix separately. If that cost were included, Obamacare is already $200 billion in the red. Now throw in the fact that the Senate bill is paid for with another $463 billion in Medicare cuts to health care providers. CMS says if these cuts occur, one-fifth of all health care providers will face bankruptcy. That simply is not going to happen. Just like the doctor reimbursement cuts have never happened, the Obamacare Medicare cuts will never happen. So in reality, Obamacare will add almost $700 billion to our national deficit in the next ten years alone.

Increases Unemployment and Puts Millions of Americans on Welfare:
According to The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA), a dynamic analysis of the tax hikes and deficits created by the Senate bill shows that an average 690,000 jobs per year would be lost if it became law. In addition, over half of all Americans who would gain health insurance through the bill (18 million out of 33 million) would do so by being placed on Medicaid, which is a welfare program.

Higher taxes, higher health care costs, higher health insurance premiums, higher deficits, more unemployment and more Americans on welfare. That is America's future should the Senate Obamacare bill become law.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Chief Justice Says State of Union Speech has 'Degenerated to Political Pep Rally'

From The Examiner

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Barack Obama's first State of the Union address was "very troubling" and that the annual speech to Congress has "degenerated into a political pep rally."

Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question about the Senate's method of confirming justices, Roberts said senators improperly try to make political points by asking questions they know nominees can't answer because of judicial ethics rules.

"I think the process is broken down," he said.

Obama chided the court for its campaign finance decision during the January address, with six of the court's nine justices seated before him in their black robes.

Roberts said he wonders whether justices should attend the address.

"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

15th House Democrat Announces Retirement Amid Allegations He Sexually Harrassed a Male Staffer

One term New York Congressman Eric Massa

The party of sodomy, socialism, abortion and war now has 15 Congressmen who have announced they will leave voluntarily, before "we the people" impose term limits.

Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) will not seek reelection — after only one term in office. He is abandoning New York's most Republican seat.

According to several House aides on both sides of the aisle, the House ethics committee has been informed of allegations that Massa, who is married with two children, sexually harassed a male staffer.

Abuse of Power

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

'An undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role.'

From The Wall Street Journal

A string of electoral defeats and the great unpopularity of ObamaCare can't stop Democrats from their self-appointed rendezvous with liberal destiny—ramming a bill through Congress on a narrow partisan vote. What we are about to witness is an extraordinary abuse of traditional Senate rules to pass a bill merely because they think it's good for the rest of us, and because they fear their chance to build a European welfare state may never come again.

The vehicle is "reconciliation," a parliamentary process that fast-tracks budget measures and was created in 1974 as a deficit-reduction tool. Limited to 20 hours of debate, reconciliation bills need a mere 50 votes in the Senate, with the Vice President as tie-breaker, thus circumventing the filibuster. Both Democrats and Republicans have frequently used reconciliation on budget bills, so Democrats are now claiming that using it to pass ObamaCare is no big deal.

Yet this shortcut has never been used for anything approaching the enormity of a national health-care entitlement. Democrats are only resorting to it now because their plan is in so much political trouble—within their own party, and even more among the general public—and because they've failed to make their case through persuasion.

"They know that this will take courage," Nancy Pelosi said in an interview over the weekend, speaking of the Members she'll try to strong-arm. "It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare," the Speaker continued. "But the American people need it, why are we here? We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress."

Leave aside the irony of invoking "the American people" on behalf of a bill that consistently has been 10 to 15 points underwater in every poll since the fall, and is getting more unpopular by the day, particularly among independents. As Maine Republican Olympia Snowe pointed out in a speech last December, Social Security passed when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House, yet 64% of Senate Republicans and 79% of the House GOP voted for it. More than half of the Senate Republican caucus voted for Medicare in 1965. Historically, major social legislation has always been bipartisan, because it reflects a durable political consensus.

Reconciliation is the last mathematical gasp for ObamaCare because Democrats can't sell their policy to Senator Snowe, any other Republican, or even dozens of Democrats. This raw exercise of political power is of a piece with the copious corruption and bribery—such as the Cornhusker kickbacks and special tax benefits for union members—that liberals had to use to get even this far.

Democrats often point to welfare reform in 1996 as a reconciliation precedent, yet that bill passed the Senate with 78 votes, including Joe Biden and half of the Democratic caucus. The children's health insurance program in 1997 was steered through Congress with reconciliation, but it, too, was built on strong (if misguided) bipartisan support. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that created Schip passed 85-15, including 43 Republicans. Even President Bush's 2001 tax cuts, another case in reconciliation point, were endorsed by 12 Senate Democrats.

The only precedent within historical shouting distance is Ronald Reagan's 1981 budget, which was controversial because it reshaped dozens of programs. But the Senate wasn't the problem—it ultimately passed the budget 80 to 14. The real dogfight was in the Democratically controlled House, where majority rules have always obtained, yet Reagan convinced 29 Democrats to buck Speaker Tip O'Neill. Reconciliation, in other words, wasn't used to subvert the 60-vote Senate threshold, but rather to grease the way for deficit reduction.

The process was designed for items that cut spending or affect tax revenue, to meet targets in the annual budget resolution. Democrats want to convert it into a jerry-rigged amendment process: That is, reconciliation wouldn't actually be used to pass ObamaCare per se. Instead, it would be used only to muscle through substantive changes to the bill that passed the Senate on Christmas Eve, without which 216 House Democrats won't vote for it. So Democrats would be writing amendments to current law that isn't in fact law at all—and can't become law without those amendments.

President Clinton preferred to use reconciliation to pass HillaryCare in the 1990s, but he was dissuaded by West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who argued that it would be an abuse of the process. Mr. Byrd, author of a four-volume history of Senate rules and procedures, told the Washington Post last March that "The misuse of the arcane process of reconciliation—a process intended for deficit reduction—to enact substantive policy changes is an undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role," specifically citing health reform and cap and trade.

Regrets, they've got a few. Yet these Democratic Sinatras will still do it their way. President Obama is expected to endorse reconciliation in remarks this morning.

The goal is to permanently expand the American entitlement state with a vast apparatus of subsidies and regulations while the political window is still (barely) open, regardless of the consequences or the overwhelming popular condemnation. As Mr. Obama fatalistically said after his health summit, if voters don't like it, "then that's what elections are for."

In other words, he's volunteering Democrats in Congress to march into the fixed bayonets so he can claim an LBJ-level legacy like the Great Society that will be nearly impossible to repeal. This would be an unprecedented act of partisan arrogance that would further mark Democrats as the party of liberal extremism. If they think political passions are bitter now, wait until they pass ObamaCare.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

A Den of Thieves -- A Day of Reckoning

In our lifetime, we remember only one previous upset that was as improbable as the outcome we expect in Massachusetts this evening -- and that was when James L. Buckley, older brother of the late William F. Buckley, Jr., was elected to the U. S. Senate from New York in 1970. In that race liberals were split between a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat. James Buckley won with 38.7% of the vote in a field of six. Tonight should be even more astounding.

As those notorious gun and Bible clinging conservatives in Massachusetts head to the polls today, it is important for all Americans to remember what brought us to this juncture, and it has everything to do with the criminal thugs in the White House and the Congressional leadership.

The following is just some of what we know about these felons. How much more is hidden?


The amount of federal taxes that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (D) failed to pay during his employment at The International Monetary Fund despite receiving extra Compensation and explanatory brochures that described his Tax liabilities.



The amount of money that the head of the powerful tax-writing committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), was forced to report on his taxes after the discovery that he had not reported income from a Dominican Republic rental property. His excuses for the failure started with blaming his wife, then his accountant and finally the fact that he doesn't speak Spanish.



The INCREASE in the amount of petty cash each of our Congressional representatives voted to give themselves in January 2009 during the height of an economic meltdown.
That's a $40 + million INCREASE! See video here from Fox


The amount Fannie Mae "invested" in Chris Dodd (D-CT), head of the powerful Senate Banking Committee, presumably to repel oversight of the GSE prior to its meltdown. Said meltdown helped touch off the current economic crisis. In only a few years time, Fannie also "invested" over $105,000 in then-Senator Barack Obama.



The amount of back taxes and interest that Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle (D) was forced to cough up after the vetting process revealed significant, unexplained tax liabilities.

Wall Street Journal


The approximate amount of income and deductions that Daschle (D) was forced to report on his amended 2005 and 2007 tax returns after being caught cheating on his taxes. This includes $255,256 for the use of a car service, $83,333 in unreported income, and $14,963 in charitable contributions.

True: http://online/
Wall Street Journal


The amount of "sweetheart" mortgages Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) received from Countrywide Financial, the details for which he has refused to release details despite months of promises to do so... Countrywide was once the nation's largest mortgage lender and linked to government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their meltdown precipitated the current financial crisis. Just days ago in Pennsylvania, Countrywide was forced to pay $150,000,000 in mortgage assistance following "a state investigation that concluded that Countrywide relaxed its underwriting standards to sell risky loans to consumers who did not understand them and could not afford them."



The estimated amount of donations by Denise Rich, wife of fugitive Marc Rich, to Democrat interests and the William J. Clinton Foundation in an apparent quid pro quo deal that resulted in a pardon for Mr. Rich. The pardon was reviewed and blessed by Obama Attorney General and then Deputy AG Eric Holder, despite numerous requests by government officials to turn it down.



The amount of TARP money provided to community bank OneUnited despite the fact that it did not qualify for funds, and was "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses." It turns out that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), a key contributor to the Fannie Mae meltdown, just happens to be married to one of the bank's former directors.

Wall Street Journal


The upper range of net worth Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) accumulated in four years time according to The Washington Post through earmarks of "tens of millions of dollars to groups associated with his own business partners."

True: Washington Post


($2 billion) the approximate amount of money that House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) is earmarking related to his son's lobbying efforts. The son, Craig Obey, is "a top lobbyist for the nonprofit group" that would receive a roughly $2 billion component of the "Stimulus" package.


and this is a list of related stories:


($3.7 billion) not to be outdone, this is the estimated value of various defense contracts awarded to a company controlled by the husband of Rep. Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Despite an obvious conflict-of-interest as "a member of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms."



($4.19 billion) is the amount of money in the so-called "Stimulus" package devoted to the fraudulent voter registration group, ACORN, under the auspices of "Community
Stabilization Activities". ACORN is currently the subject of a RICO suit in Ohio .


$1,646,000,000,000 ($1.646 trillion):

The approximate amount of annual United States exports endangered by the "Stimulus" package, which provides a "Buy American" stricture. According to international trade experts, a "US-EU trade war looms" which could result in a worldwide economic depression reminiscent of that touched off by the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act.



Background: Smmot-Hawley Act:

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Health-Care Anger Has Deeper Roots

From The Wall Street Journal
By Janet Adamy and Jonathan Weisman

Recent town-hall uproars weren't just about health care. They were also eruptions of concern that the government is taking on too much at once.

That suggests trouble for the president and his party, and fears of losses in next year's midterm election are likely to shape the Democrats' fall agenda.

At August's town-hall meetings, voters often started with complaints about health care, only to shift to frustrations about all the other things President Barack Obama and the Democrats have done or tried to do since January. The $787 billion economic-stimulus package, the government-led rescue of General Motors Corp. and climate-change legislation all came in for criticism.

"A lot of the anxiety we face here has less to do with health care and everything to do with the overall state of the economy and government," said Rep. Anthony Weiner, a New York Democrat.

"I have seen a level of dissatisfaction and even anger that I haven't experienced in the years that I've been a member of Congress," Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, told an audience at a health-care meeting in Kansas City on Monday.

Although the election is still far off, political forecasters predict that Democrats could run into trouble in the 2010 midterm vote.

"What we're seeing now, both in terms of numbers and the feel out there, this is how big waves feel early on," said Charlie Cook, editor of the Cook Political Report.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs dismissed any talk of political doom hanging over the president and his party.

"It would be like me predicting who's going to win the World Series, not in a few months but in a year and a few months," he said Monday, adding that he will leave "extremely smart prognosticators" to "their stately craft."

[Midterm Backslide chart]

August, typically a sleepy month, dealt Democrats a tough hand this year.

Snafus in the federal "cash for clunkers" program -- which gave people rebates to trade in gas-guzzling cars for more fuel-efficient new vehicles -- highlighted how disorganization can hamper government plans. It was the bloodiest month for U.S. troops so far in the war in Afghanistan. Attorney General Eric Holder poked a potential hornets' nest by appointing a prosecutor to investigate Central Intelligence Agency interrogators. And White House budget forecasters said they now project $9 trillion of additional federal debt over the next decade, adding $2 trillion to an earlier estimate.

Last year's election gave Democrats a mandate for big changes that they feel still applies. They won seats by arguing that Republicans had failed to act to keep the housing market and financial system from crumbling.

Mr. Obama also inherited a large budget deficit and expanded it further with economic-stimulus spending.

Many town-hall attendees cite the deficit as a reason for holding off on health care, even though Mr. Obama and other Democrats say they won't pass a plan that adds to the national debt.

Current proposals would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years, mostly to expand coverage to the nation's uninsured. All proposals aim to be deficit-neutral, offsetting new spending with cuts and some new taxes.

Anger over financial bailouts, including the Troubled Asset Relief Program begun under the administration of former President George W. Bush, has been especially strong. At a meeting in Wheeling, W.Va., Democratic Rep. Alan B. Mollohan said a health-care bill was needed to help "folks in terrible situations." A member of the audience yelled out: "Use TARP funds!"

In South Sioux City, Neb., last week, Van Phillips took the microphone to ask Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson how America can pay for a health overhaul with all the other programs going on.

Getty Images

At town-hall meetings in August, such as this one in Reston, Va., voters often started with complaints about health care, only to shift to broader frustrations about actions by Democrats.

"We've got a pretty good chunk out there already in the stimulus. We just came back with the cash for clunkers," said Mr. Phillips, a retired superintendent of schools. "I guess I'm concerned -- how do we make all of this flow?"

Democrats concede they are fighting the perception that government is overstretched, though they say the economic stresses actually make a health-care overhaul more important because Democratic plans would help people who lose employer-provided health insurance.

Mr. Weiner said the crowded legislative calendar and a bruising battle in June over a climate bill narrowly approved by the House is wearing down Democrats, particularly those in the fiscally conservative Blue Dog coalition.

"We had a lot of House members who cast a tough vote on energy, and thought they could catch their breath, only to have health care bear down on them," he said.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said, "I've warned our colleagues from day one back in January, this is going to be a very challenging cycle. You just have to look historically....We're pleased people are being shaken out of their complacency."

Other analysts think any forecast this early is overblown.

"A year is an eternity, maybe two eternities, in politics," said Nathan L. Gonzales, political editor of the Rothenberg Political Report.

But Mr. Gonzales agreed that skepticism about too much action in Washington can drive voters. Anger about the government led to broad Democratic gains in 2006 and 2008, and now that Democrats are running the government, activism has only increased, he said.

"What we're seeing here is this larger debate about what the role of government is," said William McInturff, a Republican pollster who conducts The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. "The health-care debate is at that fault line.

Louise Radnofsky and Neil King Jr. contributed to this article.