United States Senator Scott Brown

Congratulations, Mr. Brown on your exciting and convincing victory in the Massachusetts Senatorial Special Election.

It was a great pleasure to finally again cast a vote that counted, and that matters.

Now, please go to Washington D.C. and be the senator you promised to be throughout your campaign. Do not turn into a typical politician (or self-serving-son-of-a-bitch as my wife would say about most or all politicians). Fight for us, the voters; fight for the United States of America; fight for our Constitution, from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Congratulations again, United States Senator Scott Brown.

BREAKING NEWS; Boston Globe Endoreses Martha Coakley for US Senate

The Boston Globe, in a truly surprise move, actually endorsed the Democrat candidate in a Massachusetts election. This is the first time since the last election in Massachusetts that the Globe did not support the Republican. In fact, I can't recall the Globe ever endorsing a Republican.

In a bizzare two Internet-page endorsement, the Globe rolled out a host of lies and distortions in their effort to bolster the Coakley campaign (much the same way that Coakley has in her recent negative campaign ad blitz).

From the editorial:

"Coakley, for one, deeply opposes the restrictions on abortion coverage (in Washington health care plans), but would not block the whole reform effort to get her way."

Here, the Globe celebrates a person who abandons her principles, to support the party-line. We do need more of that in the U.S. Seante.

"Blocking bills is easy; finding a politically acceptable response to complicated problems is hard."

While true that Coakley has never found "a politically acceptable response to complicated problems;" that is because she has never held a position that would require her to. It is hard to compromise on legislation when when has never held a representative elected position.

Scott Brown has. In fact, one "compromise" he made regarding emergency contraception is at the heart of a cruel lie being perpetuated by Coakley.

"She is by far the more qualified candidate, in experience and judgment. She has prosecuted hundreds of criminals and helped coordinate plans to protect the state from terrorist threats."

Exactly how does this qualify her to be a U.S. Senator? One could argue that state senate experience may not prepare someone for U.S. Senate, but to say experience being Attorney General does is ludicrous.

"But this year, a lot of people want to send a message. The message they should send is this: Massachusetts is fed up with Senate wrangling and wants clear answers on health care, climate change, and loose regulation of financial institutions. Coakley, with her hard work and proven skills, is well-qualified to carry this message to Washington."

Coakley supports measures opposed by the majority of MA voters; the current health care proposals, cap-and-trade, increased taxation. She will most certainly not carry the message to D.C. that the voters of Massachusetts want. She will certainly carry the voice of the special interests and lobbyists that she has been courting.

The true message that should be carried is that we are fed up with the way business is currently transacted in D.C. Sending a rubber-stamp vote to Senate is hardly the way to change this.

"Coakley wasn’t the most forceful or visionary candidate in the Democratic field"

Well, I can't argue with that. Nor is she the "most forceful or visionary candidate" in this race either.

"A cap-and-trade plan to reduce pollution is the cheapest and most efficient way to combat global warming"

First, there is no clear evidence that global warming even exists (and real evidence exists to suggest it is a ); and second, in Obama's own words, energy costs would "necessarily skyrocket" Doesn't sound like a cheap option to me.

"Brown hasn’t hidden his positions"

Again, true; but the editorial fails to mention how Coakley has hidden hers.

"It’s a vote for gridlock, in the form of endless Republican filibusters, and for the status quo in health care, climate change, and financial regulation. That’s what will happen if Brown gives the Republicans the additional vote they need to tie up the Senate."

Wrong again. Having a 41st vote will make it harder for the Dems to force things through with no input from the opposition. The majority party can pass anything with only 51 votes (or 50 with the vice president breaking the tie). The 60-vote threshold is for cloture, which moves a bill towards a majority vote.

Failing to achieve cloture is a relatively rare occurrence and is generally a sign that the bill is truly partisan.

In this article, they mention some of the more positive outcomes of a potential Brown victory:

...(Brown)would give the Republicans enough votes to block, under Senate rules, anything Obama wants to do.

And, conversely, Coakley would do anything that Obama wants to do, without question or hesitation.

Republican State Senator Scott Brown, who drives an old truck, channels voter skepticism more directly.

That is because, unlike Coakley, Brown actually listens to the voters.

In this bizarre endorsement, Coakley's name was mention 7 times; while Brown's name appears 14 times.

This is not an endorsement of Coakley as much as it is a screed against Brown. Which, knowing the Globe, is a backwards endorsement of Scott Brown, if you ask me.

CBO: Health Care Reform May "Reduce Access to Care"

According to a blog post on the Weekly Standard's Web site, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf has defined the "death panels" that have been alleged to be an integral part of the Obama/Democrat health care "reform" efforts.

In a letter to Sen Harry Reid, the Weekly Standard has discovered, the cuts to Medicare may well necessitate health care rationing:

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.

Shouldn't we all slow down and figure out if these alleged Medicare savings could be achieve through "greater efficiencies" or by slashing care for our Seniors before we institute these reductions?

After all, the provisions in the health care "reform" won't kick in for four more years; it seems that such a waiting period would allow some further investigation.

But, even if the savings work, it seems that they aren't savings at all:

Republicans, emboldened by a new letter from the Congressional Budget Office, accused Democrats on Wednesday of "Bernie Madoff accounting" for double counting the savings from Medicare as a means to pay for the Senate health care bill.

Check this out from CBO top-dog Elmendorf:

..(the) government counts money two ways, either through trust fund accounting, in which money is borrowed from future Medicare payments to pay for existing Medicare programs but is like a revolving line of credit, or unified budget accounting, in which the trust fund money is borrowed from Medicare but then spent on other health care programs that don't generate money to be be paid back into Medicare later.

Say what?

Even after we find out if this works or grandma gets left out in the medical cold, the Liberals in the Senate are trying to make sure no one fixes -- I mean, changes -- the Medicare "reforms" later on.

In a questionably Constitutional, and definitely immoral, provision, Harry Reid et. al. want to block any changes to the Medicare "reforms" they are instituting:

"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."

Once the Death Panels are firmly established, the Libs want no one to take them away.

One can only hope that the Republicans gain some traction with their charges that parts of the Senate bill are unconstitutional.

Two key issues seem to be attracting the bulk of the legal threats: a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance and the special treatment that states like Nebraska are getting in the bill.

"I don't believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev said in a statement.

But, lest anyone think that the Liberals have no interest in the Constitution, Harry Reid calls the efforts to ensure Constitutionality as "a sign of desperation."

Yes, Harry, we are desperate. You must kill this bill before it kills the best medical system in the world.

Sen. Ben Nelson "Compromises" His Principles for Cash

Another great day in the U.S. political system.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid engineered a last-minute compromise in the health care debate that has won the support of the lone Democratic holdout and clinched the required 60 votes to pass a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care system.

The compromise? Nebraska DEMOCRAT Ben Nelson sold out his principles for a couple hundred million dollars that the U.S. doesn't have so that he can buy votes back home.

Democratic leaders offered Nelson a deal similar to the $300 million in Medicaid assistance Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana got for her support, numerous sources told Fox News.

Is there any wonder why Congress' rating are in the tank and 60-70% of American don't want them screwing with the best medical care system in the world?

Thank gawd for political whores.

Health Care Control for All

For those who think that the health care plans being debated by Congress will not affect you if ObamaCare goes through, you are mistaken.

After all, we have all heard President Obama tell us that if like our health care plan, we can keep it. While this is true on a semantic level, on a paperwork level, the government will tell your health insurance company what all plans can and must include.

From the latest version of the health care bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 3926):

Sec. 201: On or after the first day of Y1, a health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division unless the plan meets the applicable requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year involved:
4 (1) Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage).

Sec. 221 A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 224 for the essential benefits package described in section 222 for the plan year involved.

This means that a health care plan will not be considered qualified unless it meets requirements that will be decided upon later. While we have no idea what will actually be covered by health insurance plans, we do know that your plan will be "average."

Sec. 222. In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 224, to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security, that—

(5) is equivalent in its scope of benefits, as certified by Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to the average prevailing employer-sponsored coverage in Y1.

In order to carry out paragraph (5), the Secretary of Labor shall conduct a survey of employer-sponsored coverage to determine the benefits typically covered by employers, including multiemployer plans, and provide a report on such survey to the Health Benefits Advisory Committee and to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

After all, average is fair. We can't have people buying "cadillac" plans when others can only afford to buy, or their employers can only support, Kia plans. You won't mind sacrificing on medical care coverage for your family, will you?

Sec. 224 Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary (of Health and Human Service) shall, through the rulemaking process consistent with subsection (a), adopt an initial set of benefit standards.

But, Obama told us we can keep our plan! Where does it say that it will change?

Right here:

Sec. 241 The Health Commissioner shall...promote accountability of Qualified Health Plan Benefits offering entities in meeting Federal health insurance requirements, regardless of whether such accountability is with respect to qualified health benefits plans offered through the Health Insurance Exchange or outside of such Exchange.

But, that just talks about "qualified" health plans. Can't my insurer come up with a scaled-down plan, like a catastrophic plan, that will cover my basic needs but not necessarily meet the "initial set of benefit standards"?

Well, they could, but:

Sec 241. In the case that the Commissioner determines that a QHBP offering entity violates a requirement of this title, the Commissioner may... (work) with State insurance regulators to terminate plans for repeated failure by the offering entity to meet the requirements of this title.

So you see folks, the federal government, through a agency of unelected, unaccountable people, including at least one practicing physician (Sec. 223), will be deciding what your health insurance plan can and will offer and what kind of medical care your doctor can provide to you -- and your children and your family -- whether you sign up for the plan "offered through the Health Insurance Exchange or outside of such Exchange."

And there ain't no other way to get a health insurance plan.

AP's Palin Investigation 52 Times Higher Than Health Care Bills. No Media Bias Here!

A brilliant piece published in the Best of the Web Today column from the Wall Street Journal online highlights -- yet again! -- just how Liberally-biased the mainstream media are. This time, the Associated Press, whose stories run in papers across the country, gives the white-gloves treatment to the biography of Sarah Palin while giving passing glances at the U.S. House and Senate health care bills:

An Associated Press dispatch, written by Erica Werner and Richard Alonso-Zaldivar, compares the House and Senate ObamaCare bills. We'd like to compare this dispatch to the AP's dispatch earlier this week "fact checking" Sarah Palin's new book. Here goes:

Number of AP reporters assigned to story:
• ObamaCare bills: 2
• Palin book: 11

Number of pages in document being covered:
• ObamaCare bills: 4,064
• Palin book: 432

Number of pages per AP reporter:
• ObamaCare bill: 2,032
• Palin book: 39.3

On a per-page basis, that is, the AP devoted 52 times as much manpower to the memoir of a former Republican officeholder as to a piece of legislation that will cost trillions of dollars and an untold number of lives. That's what they call accountability journalism.

That's what I call Liberal bias.

The Obama Mammogram Scan Scam

When the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force announced on Monday that women under 50 should not get mammograms, I was a puzzled and troubled as anyone else. Why would this government panel, under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services, exhume 7 years old study data and reverse 20 years of thinking and medical care, and end a practice that has saved countless lives.

The right-wing blogosphere and talk radio were rife with suggestions that this represents the kind of rationing that we will see under ObamaCare.


However, after pondering this puzzling finding for awhile, I figured out the scheme behind this announcement. And, from the words of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, I may have my proof.

Someone parsed the old data (likely an HHS hack with no real work to do that day) and came up with this notion. The Obama Administration demanded these new recommendations be released, thinking that the mainstream media would not pick up on a story that would cast the administration in a bad light (I mean, why start now).

Sooner than later, they hoped, insurance companies across the U.S. would take these findings as justification to change their policies towards mammograms. Gotcha!

Obama would then come out and lambaste the insurance companies for restricting care to women in need. If we had passed my health care reforms, he would assure, this would never have happened. I would never allow mammograms to women under 50 to be curtailed in any way. This just shows that the evil health insurance companies are only out for profit! EVIL!

But the story caught fire, not just in the right-wing realm, but in mainstream media outlets too. This forced Obama to distance himself from this ludicrous policy sooner than he wanted to.

Sebelius said the task force's conclusions have "caused a great deal of confusion and worry among women and their families across this country" and noted that "they do not set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government.

Sebelius' statement is aimed at "making it clear these recommendations are not ours," a White House source said.

Um, the Agency falls under your jurisdiction, Ms. Sebelius (who was directly appointed by Obama) therefore the recommendations are yours.

"Indeed," said Sebelius, "I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action."

Sure you are, Madame Secretary. You are now that you got caught putting the cookies into the cookie jar that you hoped someone would take.

Obama Admits His Deficit Spending May Backfire

In an interview with FoxNews' Major Garrett, President Obama announced that deficit spending "could actually lead to a double-dip recession."

"It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession," he said.

And yet, keep spending he does.

One analysis from the Heritage Foundation projects:

President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016... Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

Here's a thought, Obama. Stop spending money you don't have. Stop spending money you don't have on programs we don't want, like "stimulus" that doesn't stimulate, health care "reform" that doesn't reform, and Cap and Trade that trades reasonable energy costs for "skyrocketing" energy costs to consumers to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Stop spending this country into oblivion. Please.

Can Anyone Help Make Sense of the Era of Obama?

Can somebody please help me make sense of all this.

In the 10 months that Barack Obama has been president, we have been treated to some of the most outrageous policy moves and politics in the history of this country.

In his very first act as president -- on his way home from the inauguration -- Obama swore that he would close Guantanamo Bay; even though he had no plans for what to do with the terrorists there.

He told us that we could not use the word "terror" any more. No more terrorism. No more War on Terror. Instead, we have "man caused disasters" and "overseas contingency operations.

We had an $800 billion dollar "stimulus" package that stimulated nothing but some pet Liberal projects. We pledged to borrow nearly a trillion dollars to fund programs that are 90% Liberal special interest projects. Where are the "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects? He told us that under this plan, unemployment would not go higher than 8%; if we did nothing it would climb to 9%. Well, unemployment is at least 10.2% and rising. Where are the jobs he promised?

In March, we got a comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan, which was shown to be not working a few months later. It is now November, and we still have no new plan. Americans are being killed in Afghanistan and Obama has met with the general there once.

Then, we had the "Cash for Clunkers" program -- which was poorly run. This program took cars off the streets that had nothing wrong with them and "gave" people money to buy new cars they likely would have bought anyway. Cars that are no better for the environment than what folks had before. The minor economic blip from the program was more than offset by a huge drop-off in car sales in September. And just wait until you see what happens to used car prices when the supply is reduced because of this debacle.

We have thousands of people turning out for free handouts from the government, described by one in the crowd as "Obama Money," whose source no one knew nor seemed to care about.

We have working people being asked to return hundreds of dollars in "stimulus" funds that were given to them in error, all because of an IRS error. Forcing them to pay back the bailout while the major corporations getting billions in bail outs do not.

We have politicians in Washington killing themselves to pass a health care takeover that poll after poll indicate the American people do not want and know we cannot afford. Thousand of pages of proposals with no details of what the plan would do. Other than raise taxes and put people in jail if they don't buy health insurance.

We had an avowed Muslim extremist shoot up an Army base killing 13 or 14 people and wounding dozens of others; all the while he screamed the Muslim praise "Allah Akbar." But, our president assures us, it had nothing to do with Muslim extremism or terrorism.

We now have the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks being brought to New York City, blocks from the World Trade Center for a civilian trial. Despite the fact that almost everyone knows that American covert secrets will be revealed or requested to be revealed. We will see demands for our intelligence, how we got that intelligence, and who got it.

We have an administration that pledged to prosecute CIA agents for "torturing" known terrorists, even though they were just following orders. Obama wants to persecute the very people who pledged their lives to protect ours.

And today, the agency that sets guidelines and recommendations for our medical professionals tell women that they need not bother with breast self-exams for cancer, and that they should wait 10 more years before being checked, despite the fact that we know countless women are diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40s, 30s, and 20s.

We have self-avowed Communists and fans of Chinese Communist revolutionary Mao Tse Tung in the White House, direct advisers to the president. We have health care advisers who openly advocate for limiting or restricting medical care for the young and elderly, saving "scarce resources" for those 15 to 40. The same adviser believes that the death of a three-year-old is not nearly as bad as the death of a twenty-something because society has not invested in the child.

We have a president who has taken every opportunity to speak ill of the United States and insult her people while in other countries. He has openly mocked and demeaned any voices of opposition, calling tax protesters by a homo-phobic slur and dismissing the #1 cable TV news network as tabloid.

This country is spinning out of control and we are all so busy with our daily lives, trying to earn enough money to get by, trying to get the kids to soccer practice or worrying about who is being voted off Dancing with the Stars to notice.

Does any one of these items make sense? How about all of them in totality. And, I know I didn't get them all.

We have got to wake up, people, and pay attention. We need to face the reality that the President of the United States is not doing what is in the best interests of the country. He is trying to dismantle our way of life, change the way this country is run, and ceding authority over this country to world governing bodies.

This is real and it is happening. Wake up before Obama's "transformation" of this country has gone too far. If you don't want to wake up for yourself, do it for your children. Make sure there is something left of this country to pass onto them.

If not, you might open your eyes one day soon and have no idea where you are anymore.

Obama Does Not Care About 2010 and 2012

It struck me yesterday, as I heard the reports that Obama was not watching the election results Tuesday night that Obama truly doesn't care.

Obama is a true idealogue who only wants to push as much of his spreawling, big-government, Liberal, socialistic agenda on the U.S. If he can get that done in the first year, he doesn't care about what comes next.

This is why he wanted the "stimulus" bill done in a matter of days; this is why he wanted the health care "reform" done in a few weeks; this is why he started to push Cap and Trade before the healthcare debate was settled.

Obama is committed to expanding the reach of government into as many venues as possible while he has the congressional majorities and before the American people wake up to what he is doing.

If all he could accomplish is socializing America, he would not care. If he is a one-term president, he would not care as long as he grew governement control as much as possible. If he goes down in history as a lousy president, he doesn't care.

For, even if Obama is declared by Americans as the worst president ever, his friends and associates at the Harvard dinner galas will laud his "transformation" of America. World organizations like the European Union and the United Nations will applaud his work to lower the standard of living in the U.S. to match the rest of the world. He will be cheered back in Chicago by his academic buddies for having taken the wheels off the capitalism train.

For that's all that matters to him. The rest of us are people to be looked down upon, to be lorded over. We aren't as smart as he; we aren't as sophisticated as he. We are just "mostly decent," "typical white" people who "cling to our bibles and our guns." He has no regard for us or our opinions.

This man must be stopped and the time is now.