Posts Tagged ‘Pelosi’

NYT/CBS Poll- Who are the Tea Partiers?

April 16, 2010

Liberals have taken the “results” of this poll as a way to characterize the Tea Party as being controlled by a bunch of rich people who are just looking out for themselves. They also want to portray them as being on the fringe and not reflective of the way America really thinks.

So, I thought that I would look at the actual poll results itself. Here is a link– http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-national-survey-of-tea-party-supporters?ref=politics You can even download the results as a PDF.

I’m not a pollster, but all of the Tea Party responses were marked with TP. All other stats provided were from prior national polls (CBS) to, as liberal pundits on MSNBC would call it, reflect the view of mainstream America.

So, on to question #1 (slight paraphrase), do you approve of the way Obama is doing his job?

  • Tea Party- 7% approve, 88% disapprove
  • However, all of the CBS polls conducted before that, shows that “mainstream America’s” approval of Obama has dropped from 62% down to 50%. But liberals will tell you that America is absolutely thrilled with him as president even though his numbers are dropping.

Questions #2/3 (slight paraphrase), what do you like/dislike about him?

  • 46% of America say that they just like him or they don’t what they like about him. (Hmmm…I thought liberals and progressives were supposed to be educated, and they don’t even know why they like him.)
  • 48% of Tea Partiers have the same opinion. (Maybe the Tea Party does reflect mainstream America?)
  • 46% of America say they just don’t like him or don’t know why.
  • 26% of Tea Partiers have the same opinion. (Maybe they are better educated? Who knew?)

Question #4 (slight paraphrase), is the country going in the right direction? Note: They provided CBS polling data going back to 1991. I am going to focus on the timeframe from 1/2009.

  • Tea Party- 6% right, 92% wrong
  • America- Peaked at 45% (May 2009) in the right direction and has gone down ever since. (Maybe the Tea Party is leading the way…oh, yeah, by educating the public.)

Question #5 (slight paraphrase)- what’s the biggest problem facing the country?

  • Tea Party- 56% Economy, Jobs, and Deficit
  • America- 55% Jobs, Economy, and Deficit (Tea Partiers are such fringe extremists.)

I could go on, but even the most ardent liberal can see the point. The New York Times is clearly pushing their own agenda while polls are supposed to reflect views of the public at large.

If one looks closely at the data, the Tea Party seems to reflect the views of mainstream America. It is progressives (like Obama) who do not reflect the views of mainstream America.

Advertisements

The Case Against the Tea Party

April 12, 2010

On numerous occasions, the Tea Party has been maligned by critics as un-American, Nazis, Members of the KKK, racists, ignorant, homophobes, and many, many more. The mainstream media has described the movement as a fringe group that is not representative of the majority of Americans.

If this is the case; then can someone explain a few things to me?

Why was the website, CrashTheTeaParty.org, even created if the Tea Party is a fringe group? The mission of this group, and I quote, is:

“To dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary.”

The plan of action, and I quote, is:

“By infiltrating the Tea Party itself…”; “…act on their behalf in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities…”; “…disrupt and derail their plans.”

The Democrats/Progressives have also attempted to mischaracterize the Tea Party as a fringe group of racists, homophobes, and various other derogatory terms.

Question: Why did the Congressmen choose to walk through the middle of a crowd of protestors other than to incite them to do something that would discredit the movement? Congressmen have never walked to the Capitol Building in my lifetime. Why this time?

Then there is the issue of the Tea Party candidate in the Nevada Senate campaign to replace Harry Reid. It seems that people thought the Tea Party candidate was a Democratic plant. Then the same candidate is now facing felony charges. Criminal convictions tend to do a bang-up job of discrediting a political candidate; or in this case a political movement.

Hollywood and the media has also joined the fight against the Tea Party. Jeneane Garafolo, in an interview with Keith Olbermann, had this to say about the Tea Party:

For such a fringe group, the Democrats/Progressives seem to be absolutely obsessed with them. Could it be because the Tea Party is now a force to be reckoned with? The Democrats’ opposition to the Tea Party is not on the merits of ideas, but based on the same fear and paranoia which is what they claim created the Tea Party in the first place.

Alinsky’s Rule #10

March 26, 2010

First off, let me say that violence against anyone for their opinion is wrong. No flowing rhetoric, no long-winded diatribe. It’s just wrong. So, if the recent rash of violence or threats of violence against Congressmen is even remotely true; then the people who are committing these acts should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

However, with my current distrust of the media, this got me thinking about the entire situation. There’s an old joke– How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving– which spurred me to find out more about the incidents of violence and see if there is more to the story.

According to an Associated Press article (on MSNBC.com), at least 10 Democrats and a few Republicans, Eric Cantor being the highest ranking among them. Why such a disparity? Then I remembered something I read during the campaign. Saul Alinksy, one of Obama’s “heroes”, wrote a number of rules for community activists to adhere to if they want to be successful in implementing the change they want.

The one in question is rule #10 which says: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

I had to wonder if the Democrats were making a conscientious effort to implement this rule in an attempt to win public opinion. So I decided to dig further.

Threats against Congressmen:
In response to Cantor, DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse said, “Let’s be clear: Calling on Republican leaders who have contributed in part to this anger by wildly mischaracterizing the substance and motives of health reform to condemn these acts is entirely appropriate.”

Cantor had said the Democrats were using the incidents as political weapons to “fan the flames.”

So, let’s keep going.

“…anyone would make threats against me or my family,” said Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) said his office received a letter with white powder (possibly anthrax) in it.

Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH) said he had received threats. Just like Weiner, he posted it on his congressional website.

E-mails sent to Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, D-Fla., another member who switched her vote, urged her to commit suicide and said she and her family should rot in hell.”

Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat and chairwoman of an influential House committee, said someone had left her a voicemail that used the word “snipers.” In a written statement, she said GOP leaders have been “fanning the flames with coded rhetoric.” (She mentions Sarah Palin by name.)

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), who had opposed the healthcare bill until he caved to party leadership, received threatening phone and fax messages. Here are examples released by the congressman:

* “I hope you bleed … (get) cancer and die,” one caller told the congressman between curses.
* A fax carried a picture of a gallows with “Bart (SS) Stupak” on it and a noose. It was captioned, “All Baby Killers come to unseemly ends Either by the hand of man or by the hand of God.”
* “Stupak, you are a lowlife, baby-murdering scumbag, pile of steaming crap. You’re a cowardly punk, Stupak, that’s what you are. You and your family are scum,” an unidentified caller said. “That’s what you are, Stupak. You are a piece of crap.”
* “Go to hell, you piece of [expletive deleted]” another called said.

Someone cut a propane line leading to a grill at the home of Rep. Tom Perriello’s brother after the address was posted online. Perriello also said a threatening letter was sent to his brother’s house.

House Democratic Majority Whip James Clyburn, who is African-American, said he has received a fax in his office with a picture of a noose drawn on it and had threatening telephone calls at his home. The CNN article portrays this one as appearing to be racially based.

Now, there may be hope if it had stopped here, but there is more. Prior to the healthcare vote, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and others brazenly walked through a crowd of protestors. Immediately afterwards, the Democrats stated that the protestors hurled various epithets, and one protestor spat on Rep. Cleaver.

However, the Capitol Police said Cleaver could not identify the individual. There are numerous YouTube videos of the encounter where no one is seen or heard using an epithet. In the case of Frank, several protestors have stated that Frank initiated the cursing. The mainstream media is now continuing the story without attempting to verify any of the circumstances.

Wait, there’s more…

As I mentioned in a previous post, the Democrats characterized Tea Party protestors as being “Nazis”, “Un-American”, and “sabotaging democracy.” This is among a whole hosts of other unsavory names. The mainstream media carried on the fight for the Democrats as a willing accomplice. Don’t believe me– Watch MSNBC news. Chris Matthews has stated that it’s his job “to make this presidency work.”

So, while violence against a person is reprehensible, one has to question the authenticity of some of these events. How many were real? How many were concocted to gain public sympathy? Or to ostracize opponents of the progressive agenda of the Democrats? The reason I say this is because it seems that Democrats have an established pattern of negatively characterizing anyone who opposes their agenda.

One has to question this especially since Saul Alinsky is someone President Obama admires…

The Socialist Agenda

March 26, 2010

According to Dictionary.com, socialism is:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

According to Marxist theory, socialism is an intermediate stage betweem capitalism and communism characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

So, the question I have is this. Do you think that Obama has a socialist agenda based on this definition? Let’s cite a few facts.

The healthcare bill is an attempt by the federal government to provide insurance coverage for all Americans if you were to only listen to the news reports. However, if you were to read the actual bill itself, the government is mandating insurance coverage, setting minimum standards for coverage and quality of care, dictating types of research that must be conducted, and ensuring access to end-of-life care. (…tell grandma whether to get the treatment or take a pill…)

The automotive industry was the benficiary of a huge bailout. The U.S. government is now the current owner of approximately 60% of General Motors.  They forced out one CEO and installed another one in his place. So, not  only does the government own the company; they hired the new CEO. They also provided backing for warranties offered by both GM and Chrysler. They also determined GM was too big to fail while Chrysler was too small to survive.

According to a New York Times article written in 1999.  The housing industry takeover was initiated by the Clinton administration in an attempt to expand home ownership. According to Franklin Raines, ”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions…”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required…” So, this was clearly initated by the Clinton administration. Now, the Obama administration now proposes taking on these loans, on behalf of people who truly didn’t qualify in the first place, according to an Associated Press article.

FYI- The Bush administration attempted to correct the problem, but did not have enough control over Congress to stem Democrat opposition. It started in 2001 when the Bush administration warned that the “…financial trouble of a large GSE (such as Fannie and Freddie) could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”  In 2003, the Bush administration asked Congress to enact legislation to provide supervision over Fannie and Freddie. Barney Frank (D-MA) responded by saying, “these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” Thomas Carper (D-DE) stated that the GSEs did not need to be reformed saying,  “…if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”  The Bush administration repeatedly asked Congress to pass reform legislation which the Democrats opposed, led by Barney Frank, until July 2008. 

This can easily be construed as a means for individuals to shirk their own personal responsibilities and to increase their reliance on the federal government. If these people did not qualify for a mortgage, why would the government force Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mac) to extend financing to these people? Why would the government clean up the mess left by people who should have known better than to purchase something they could not afford?

The Democrats also took over the student loan industry by including provisions within the healthcare bill. Now, any college student needing a loan to go to college will have to get that loan from the Department of Education. The banks have now been removed as “the middlemen” so millions of students can afford to go to college.”

Is the government takeover only limited to these areas? According to Nancy Pelosi, now that healthcare has passed “…there’ll be more legislation to follow.”

So, what is next industry that needs to be taken over by the government? The widely accepted answer is Wall Street needs to be subjected to government oversight and regulation to ensure this financial crisis does not happen again. The House of Representatives has already passed this act. The bill would create a new agency dedicated to consumer protection, establish a council of regulators to police the financial landscape for systemic risks, install oversight of the vast derivatives market and give the government power to wind down large, troubled firms whose collapse could endanger the entire financial system.

So, as you can see, the process has already begun. The question becomes– Where will it end?

10 Facts about Health Care

March 24, 2010

There was an article in the St. Petersburg Times where they list ten facts about healthcare. I decided to check their facts against the Senate healthcare bill itself. Here is my response to them. (I’ll add #2 and 7 when I have time. 2074 pages would take a long time to read, and I have a life.)

__________

#1 is so pathetically sad it’s not even funny. Isn’t a “takeover” the entire point of this bill? Doctors may not become government employees like they are in Britain, but the entire system (insurers, hospitals, doctors, and individuals) would be accountable to the government or face penalties of varying amounts. So, not only is the government managing and enforcing involvement in the system; it is also setting minimum standards for coverage, quality of care, and the development of alternative therapies (wonder why– could it be for costs reasons?). And to quote “the annointed one”, it will also provide information (through your doctor) concerning the likelihood that a health care treatment will result in disability. — How many seniors go against the advice of their doctors? “…tell grandma if she should seek treatment or take a pill…” (Google Obama + ABC + healthcare on the videos page.)
 
#3 is also wrong. It is not an individual mandate, but a shared responsibility payment where it states that an individual who fails to maintain minimum coverage will have a penalty imposed upon them.
 
#4, on the surface, is irrelevant and contradictory. If the individual would have to pay a fine for not having insurance, who would care about the employer? (But I digress…)
Employers with more than 50 full-time employees (30 hours or more) would be required to offer insurance or pay a fine. (Do notice that I listed an example of what it means to be a full-time employee. There are several other examples detailing how any business could circumvent this requirement, including firing people.) Also, realize that employers who do not meet this requirement would force employees to buy insurance through the government exchange and therefore lose control over what types of insurance they could get. Not to also mention, what do you think would happen if it would be cheaper for a business to pay a fine than offer insurance? (Which would probably apply to large employers)
 
#5 is wrong as well. Federal subsidies will be provided for people making less than $88K/year. People making more than that will see increases in their premiums on somewhat of a sliding scale
#6 is subject to interpretation. Providing insurance coverage to 32 million, at government expense, will cut costs. That ia obviuosly a political statement if there ever was one. There is no logical explanation for this. Conservative estimates have the deficit increasing by at least a half a trillion dollars, somewhat similar to Medicare costs which is, oh yeah, run by the federal government.
 
#8- This one depends on how you define poor. The bill defines it ass people who are below the poverty line. The bill states people with an income no more than 133% of the poverty line would be covered. It also states that parents of children enrolled in Medicaid would also be eligible without mention of income limits. It also says that any state could expand coverage to include anyone they deem appropriate. It also says that states must submit a report, disaggregated by population, including children, parents, nonpregnant childless adults, disabled individuals, elderly individuals, and such other categories or sub-categories of individuals eligible for medical assistance under the State plan or under a waiver of the plan as the Secretary may require. So, it seems that anyone who qualifies for medical assistance would qualify for Medicaid.
 
#9 violates the Hyde Amendment which says that federal funds can not be used to fund abortions. Since federal subsidies will be used to purchase insurance, that would make it in violation of the Hyde Amendment. This is why Stupak (D-MI) opposed the bill until he caved. (Don’t forget the executive order the “annointed one” is about to sign.)
 
#10 is interesting because it is so vague and open-ended. The immigrant’s status seems to play into determining eligibilty for healthcare with a social security number being the only stated form of identification. This means that if the immigrant can document that they are a “citizen”; then they would be eligible. I can tell you that the primary way illegals enter the country is through the use of falsified documents. It also states that an employer shall not rescind coverage with respect to an enrollee once the enrollee is covered. So, if the illegal is covered; then they can keep that coverage. Also, each health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the individual or group market in a State must accept every employer and individual in the State that applies for such coverage. So, while it may not mention giving illegals coverage outright, I can see numerous ways for an illegal to circumvent the law, including, but not limited to, simply showing up at an emergency room in need of medical attention since it is illegal for a hospital to deny treatment.
 
__________
 
Another tidbit…
 
So, you can keep your current insurance– are you sure? A quote from the bill—
 
 
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), coverage of eligible individuals under a high risk pool in a State shall terminate on January 1, 2014. The Secretary shall develop procedures to provide for the transition of eligible individuals enrolled in health insurance coverage offered through a high risk pool established under this section into qualified health plans offered through an Exchange.

So, if you’re considered “high-risk”; I guess that means you will be on the government insurance plan as of 2014.

 
 
 
 

Healthcare reform for all Americans??

March 23, 2010

In making his sales pitch for health care reform, “the annointed one” said that it would benefit all Americans. However, he failed to mention that he would be exempt. There was no mention that members of Congress would be exempt. When pressed, several members of Congress said (and I’m paraphrasing here) that they shouldn’t be made to take it.  Also, there is the deal “the annointed one” made with the unions to exempt them from this as well.

Now, it seems that even the staffers who work for these people are exempt from buying healthcare from the government as well.

“…on page 158 of the legislation, which appears to create a carveout for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans.”— Source: The New Ledger

Then the supporters of this have the nerve to insist that everyone should be on board with this because it would benefit all Americans. Pelosi said, right before the vote on the bill, that this “would release the entreprenurial spirit” of Americans and “would allow them to pursue their dreams” without the overriding concern of providing healthcare for themselves and their families.

If this is the case; then why so many exemptions? Why isn’t everyone, and I mean everyone, forced to get their healthcare from the same spot? Especially since it would release the “entreprenurial spirit of all Americans.”

And to say that the opponents of healthcare is politicizing the issue. If you read the relevant text (p. 156 of the linked PDF),  an average American would think that members of Congress would have to take the same healthcare as the rest of us. Don’t be fooled! It was written that way, but look again. Notice the following:

“Notwithstanding any other provison of law, after the effective date of this subtitle”  

Two questions– When is the effective date of this subtitle? If I were to venture a guess, it would be far enough in the future that the furor over this insanity would have died down.  If this is good for all Americans, why would they need to put in a qualifier? All they would have to do to exempt themselves from this is to pass another bill.

Again, I ask why? Could it be because Congress does not want anyone to make that choice for them?

If you would like to read the text of H.R. 3590, click here.

A Second American Revolution

March 22, 2010

Democracy by its very nature involves dissent. The government has to be held accountable for their actions. This used to be done by the media which would habitually scrutinize every action taken by a politician. Sometimes, the average citizen would also take it upon themselves to question the government.

The Declaration states: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” — This simply means that any government which is established is granted its power and authority by the people which they govern.

“whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government” — This means that it is the right of the people to change government if it abuses its power and becomes self-serving or destructive.

These are statements found in one of this country’s foundational documents which gives every American the right to voice their opinion and for it to be heard by the government. The Declaration also states that every American has the responsibility to oppose a government that repeatedly abuses its power.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

I bring this up for one reason. We are currently dealing with a government that has repeatedly attempted to abuse its power. As Jefferson so eloquently stated, here is the beginning of the long train of abuses:

1) Government takeover of industry (I’ll focus on health care for now.)

The government is attempting to take over the health care industry which comprises approximately 20% of the nation’s economy. The idea is to force all Americans into a single-payer plan which the government controls and penalize those who don’t through fines. If this succeeds, there is no free enterprise, no personal liberty, and some almost Hollywood-like scenarios which could possibly play out in the real world. (Let your imagination run wild with this one.)

If you want proof, google Obama + SEIU + healthcare under Videos  and see what comes up.

2) Elimination of a Free Press

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The idea is that without a free press to hold the government accountable; the government would inevitably abuse its own power. Rosa Brooks, a former prominent reporter for the L.A. Times, proposed the idea of the government subsidizing the newspaper industry. She did this right before taking a job with the federal government. This idea would be the beginning of state-run media in the United States which would violate our First Amendment rights.

Again, google it!! 

Another example is the incredible amount of positive news coverage the president has received. Most major news outlets have simply chosen not to air any story that is derogatory about the president. Instead, they have chosen to unabashedly assassinate the motives, character, and intentions of anyone who has the audacity to criticize, much less oppose, any proposal made by the president.

Here are some examples: 

CNN reporter, Susan Roesgen, chose not report the news during the first Tea Party, but instead, chose to inject her own political opinion into the conversation. Her journalistic integrity be damned. Another example is when Chris Matthews of MSNBC describes how listening to Obama makes him feel. (Remember his tingling leg.) He also has stated that his “job is to make this new presidency work.” Is he still a journalist or did he go to work for the president? 

Again, google it! I dare you! The final point I’ll make in this post is this:

3) The silencing of dissent

There has been a growing movement of opposition to the president’s policies with each passing day. First, there were the tea parties on April 15 and July 4 in opposition to excessive spending, among other reasons, by the government. The “free press” went out of their way to ostracize this opposition as a fringe group of extremists who should not be listened to by anyone.

When that did not work, character assassination and humiliation became par for the course. Here are examples:

Anderson Cooper (CNN) and Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) made crude sexual references on live television. The idea would be that they would humiliate the opposition into silence. The “free press” was soon joined by members of Congress. Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) tried to link people who opposed the health care plan to the Nazis. (I am speechless.) Barbara Boxer (U.S. Senator from California) said the opposition to the president is fake because they are well-dressed. (Huh?)

However, when that did not work, the White House stepped into the fray.

A new position was created for Linda Douglas to monitor disinformation which was circulated about the president’s health care plan. The White House even went a step further. They made a public request on the White House blog for the public to send “fishy” information about health care reform to flag@whitehouse.gov. This move is clearly Orwellian in purpose. The government is attempting to silence all dissent by requesting the public to report any “disinformation” to them.

This madness must end!!

The “Slaughter” Rule

March 17, 2010

One could only wish this was a reference to the wrestler known as Sgt. Slaughter. Unfortunately, it is not.

What this really is is an end-run around constitutional requirements that both houses of Congress actually “pass” a bill before sending it to the president. No where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that either house can “deem” a bill to be passed without actually voting on it.

So Obama, Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrats didn’t read the bill and now they won’t even vote on it. Since they don’t want to do their job; then they should be removed from their job.