OBAMA, NANCY PELOSI LIES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON HEALTH CARE

I am sitting here and suddenly on my TV appears a Live shot of the LIAR "Nancy Pelosi on TV talking about the health care reform bill now before congress. Both houses.

Obama will be on TV tonight talking about healthcare.

Neither Obama or our entire congress have no clue about health care.
Obama has no clue what the 535 jerk offs in congress have even put in this bill they are trying shove down our throats. What does the bill have it. Obama has no clue , he has not read it. Who reads any of the bills they sign into law. No one.

They had some women talking about her cervical cancer. She has no clue about what the Nelasta shot was for. SHE LIED...SHE SAID IT WAS FOR Nausea. It is actually to keep your white blood cells from getting to low because chemo does that to your blood and you don't have the ability to fight off infection. It is "not" for Nausea.

She said a Nelasta shot after you have Chemo cost 6,000.00. That is a blantent LIE. The shot cost around 3,000.00. I had the shot. My insurance did not want to pay for it either, and I was going to have to take a different shot everyday for 6 days in a row that was cheaper that required me to have to go to the hospital everyday and get it. When you do chemo you feel weak and terrible and you are nto able to get up everyday and go and get this cheaper series of shots. I call the company that makes the drug. I was approved for the drug and the company sends the Dr. a vile of replacement for their inventory when they give it to you. You only have to have the Neulasta shot on time the day after your chemo.
I know. Been there done that.

http://www.neulasta.com/?wt.srch=1

If the government takes over the healtcare in this country then we will all be screwed.

SPACE SHUTTLE ENDEAVOR LIFTS OFF TODAY JULY 15TH, 009 @6:03PM

AFTER 5 SCRUBS SINCE JUNE SPACE SHUTTLE ENDEAVOR LIFTS OFF TODAY, 7-15-2009, @6:03 WITHOUT A HITCH. ENJOY THE VIDEO.
GOD SPEED TO OUR ASTRONAUTS.

SO NO TO THE HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL PRESENTED TODAY, OVER 1,000 PAGES

I am not oppossed to people who are legal residents of the United States that cannot afford Health Care being able to get it someway, but, why should the RICH pay for it and why should the burden be shifted to the states ?
The rest of this countries states will end up like CALIFORNIA. BROKE AND BUSTED.
There is a way that Health Care for the poor that are not on medicare or medicare can be helped to get coverage.

The government needs help all the time sending out things to folks in the mail and a lot of other things. Let these people that need health care stuff envelopes for Uncle Sam. That will help pay for the healthcare.
I am sure that our socialist left congress can come up with a better plan that what they have concocked this time around.

The bill they have on the floor now that is over 1,000 pages long that none of us will probably have the chance to read it? It is all the small things in the bill that people do not read. Those are the items of interest that is always missed.

CALL YOUR HOUSE OF REPRESENTAVE AND TELL THEM NO TO THIS BILL. NO NO NO ! DO YOU REALLY WANT NANCY AND HER GANG TELLING YOU THAT YOUR GRANDMOTHER HAS NTO GOT LONG TO LIVE AND TO JUST LET HER DIE. I DON'T THINK SO. !q!

Health Care Overhaul Threatens States

Even as California struggles with a catastrophic fiscal crisis and other states scramble to avoid the same fate, Democrats in Washington are proposing health care measures that would add hundreds of billions of dollars of spending to state budgets.

Thus far, very little of the debate surrounding the push to overhaul the nation’s health care system has focused on the federalism concerns raised by several provisions within legislation pending in Congress. Taken together, the measures will impose a raft of new financial and regulatory obligations on individual states.

Most directly, Democratic plans to extend health care coverage to all Americans are contingent on a massive expansion of Medicaid. The program, which covers about 40 million people now, would gain 15 million to 20 million new beneficiaries if Democrats get their way.

The Congressional Budget Office pegged the cost of such an expansion at $500 billion over 10 years, but the total cost is likely higher because the estimate only counts the projected burden on the federal government. Under the current arrangement, Washington picks up about 57 percent of the cost of Medicaid and states pay for 43 percent. While the latest draft of the bill by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee has the federal government subsidizing the Medicaid expansion for the first five years, after that, the burden will gradually shift back to the states.

“There’s an air of unreality here,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, a member of the HELP committee. “The language is, ‘we’ll shift it back to the states’ as if the states had the money or a printing press. But this isn’t just a little increase. This is a bankrupting increase for most states.”

Alexander, who had to balance a state budget when he served as governor of Tennessee, quipped, “Any Senator that votes to expand Medicaid the way it is currently being proposed in Democratic bills ought to be sent home to serve as governor for eight years and try to manage the program.”

He said that financing this Medicaid increase would require Tennessee to introduce a new 10 percent state income tax. He also noted that as it is, the economic stimulus package passed in February already expanded Medicaid by $85 billion over two years, imposing costs on the states thereafter.

Ray Scheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association, testified before the committee last month that the state executives were concerned about the proposed expansion.

“Governors oppose changes to the Medicaid program that will result in an unfunded mandate imposed on the states,” Scheppach said. “Any increase in the mandatory minimum eligibility threshold will cost states tens of billions of dollars per year.”

Another problem posed by the Medicaid expansion involves access. If Congress approves lower payments to doctors to cut the cost of the program, it means that more providers will stop accepting Medicaid patients and thus reduce the quality of available care.

Alexander proposed an amendment to the HELP bill (also known as the “Kennedy bill” after the committee’s chairman, Sen. Ted Kennedy) that would have prevented any Medicaid expansion from adding to the financial burden of the states. But Democrats struck it down, leaving the issue to be resolved in the Finance Committee, which oversees the program.

But Medicaid is only one of many areas in which Democrats seek to use the power of the federal government to impose their health care vision on states.

The Kennedy bill would also create health insurance exchanges called “Gateways” in every state, allowing individuals to use government subsidies to purchase a private health care plan or a new government-run plan. While the legislation claims to offer flexibility in how states set up the exchanges, any state that refuses to establish an exchange within four years will have one imposed from Washington.

Among the hundreds of new powers the unelected Secretary of Health and Human Services would be granted by the legislation is the authority to “establish and operate a Gateway” in a state that does not create one on its own. And once this happens, all of the new insurance regulations created by the legislation “shall become effective in such State, notwithstanding any contrary provision of State law.”

Every individual in the state would be required to purchase “qualifying” health insurance and employers would be forced to provide insurance or pay a tax. And once again, the HHS Secretary (currently Kathleen Sebelius) would be tasked with “establish(ing) criteria” to define “qualifying” coverage.

Michael Greve, an American Enterprise Institute scholar who focuses on federalism, said that any state that accepts Medicaid money would have to go along with any conditions the federal government attaches to it. “The central problem is the temptation by the states,” he said.

However, he said that the imposition of health insurance exchanges on the states raises much more complex legal issues involving the hotly contested concept of “conditional preemption,” which is when the federal government tells states to enact a given regulation or else have the federal government do it for them. Greve said his hunch is that the current U.S. Supreme Court would find such a provision unconstitutional.

As legislation moves through Congress, at least one state is trying to protect its citizens against federal overreach. Last month, the Arizona state legislature voted to include a referendum on the 2010 ballot that would amend the state constitution to prevent anybody in the state from being forced to participate in any health care system. Practically speaking, the provision would mean that people and businesses in Arizona would be exempt from insurance coverage mandates.

“This is an effort to create a federalism shield to protect the rights of Arizonans,” said Clint Bolick, a director at the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, who supports the measure.

In 2008, Arizona voters narrowly rejected a similar proposal by less than 9,000 votes out of more than 2.1 million cast after then Gov. Janet Napolitano campaigned vigorously against it. But Bolick said that the 2010 proposition has different language that prevents opponents from arguing that it would affect existing state programs.

The legislation would not seek to address the issue created by the imposition of an insurance exchange on the state, but Bolick said such a provision could be challenged under the “anti-commandeering” principle. This applies when “the federal government enlists the state as if it were an agent of the federal government,” he said. “That raises constitutional alarm bells.”

Christie Herrera of the American Legislative Exchange Council, which boasts 1,800 conservative state legislators as members, said that efforts are already underway in five other states (Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Wyoming) to imitate the Arizona example if it succeeds next year.

Health care has already been the subject of several failed state experiments. In 1994, Tennessee expanded Medicaid coverage, but by 2003 its health care system was deemed “not financially viable” and Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen was forced to rein in the program.

In 2006, then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney signed health care legislation in which the state government forced individuals to obtain coverage and offered them subsidies to purchase government-designed plans on a government-run exchange. The result has been skyrocketing costs and longer waits in doctors’ offices. A Rasmussen poll taken last month found that just 26 percent of voters in the overwhelmingly liberal state said the effort was a success.

Instead of learning from these failed experiments, Democrats in Washington are planning to use federal power to muscle all states into replicating them.



http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/14/health-care-overhaul-threatens

OLD FOLKS NEED TO HURRY UP AND DIE, SO OBAMACARE CAN HELP YOUNGER FOLKS, SAYS NEW YORK TIMES

Is NYT Encouraging Old Folks to Give up and Die to Help Pay for Obamacare?

Hey, grandma, hurry up and die so that Obamacare can pay for healthcare for more worthy, younger folks. That seems to be the message that The New York Times is selling in order to smooth the waters for the nationalized healthcare system that president Obama is trying to peddle to us all.

The Times is running a series titled "Months to Live" in order to help spread the sort of end of life issues that are helpful to Obama's healthcare agenda, one of which seems to be the idea that elderly should forgo any sort of heroic measures to keep them alive so as not to waste those resources that might be able to go to younger, more vital patients.

In a July 8 article reporting on the end of life care afforded Catholic Nuns in Pittsford, New York, the Times hailed the "dignified" way that nuns end life there with particular emphasis on how many of them refuse extraordinary efforts to keep themselves alive. Apparently, the Times thinks we should emulate the nuns and just let ourselves die without trying too hard to keep on living.

But, even in its first few paragraphs the Times displayed several conflicting talking points one being that the nun that serves as the article's initial subject may be uninterested in life saving procedures, but her sister is definitely not of that same opinion. This tends to show that not everyone wants to just wither way and die without fighting to stay alive as the Times seems to be suggesting we should be.

The Times also tries to make a point on how many elderly people "are often overmedicated" and showcases how this nun refused most of the "23 medications not essential for her heart condition," but then adds that these medications were winnowed by a geriatrician. So, was she prescribed these medications or not? It isn't quite clear. This makes a poor case for the claim of overmedication and seems more like an assertion by the writer that is not germane to the case.

The Times goes on to describe how the sisters and several priests along with the church pay for this hospice-like care of those at the end of their lives, the story making it all seem like the perfect system. But one cannot help but realize that we are talking about a system built to serve a small handful of people with the support of the church behind them. How this financial burden can be translated to 300 millions of citizens is never addressed.

Misleadingly, the Times also tries to make it seem as if the church system being described quells any talk of both rationing of care and euthanasia of the elderly.

Laura L. Carstensen, the director of the Center on Longevity at Stanford University, says the convent setting calms the tendency for public policy discussion about end-of-life treatment “to devolve into a debate about euthanasia or rationing health care based on age.”

“Every time I speak to a group about the need to improve the dying process, somebody raises their hand and says, ‘You’re talking about killing old people,’ ” Dr. Carstensen said. “But nobody would accuse Roman Catholic sisters of that. They could be a beacon in talking about this without it turning into that American black-and-white way of thinking: Either we have to throw everything we’ve got at keeping people alive or leave them on the sidewalk to die.”


The problem with this rhetoric is that it denies the simple fact that should these concepts become federalized in a national healthcare system, then the patient's choice in the matter will be summarily dispensed with as rules and regulations prescribing procedures will take over.

In short, the second these ideas become the norm, government MUST by necessity of control begin to determine which citizens are "worth" saving and which aren't worth the efforts and should be denied services. And from there it won't be long before prescriptions of euthanasia for those "not worth" the costs of government largess will become de rigueur everywhere.

So, while the process of dying practiced by these nuns described in the Times might have something going for it, translating it to a nationalized healthcare system is fraught with eugenics styled evils.

But, if it soothes suspicions about Obamacare, why the Times is happy to oblige.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/07/13/nyt-encouraging-old-folks-give-die

HEALTHCARE OBAMA STYLE~OBAMA HATES OLD PEOPLE,LET THEM DIE HE SAYS

Obama Says We Shouldn't Treat Old Folks to Save Money And the Media Goes Deaf

I am wondering when the euthanasia folks are going to start touting this one? I mean, it sure seemed to me as if the most caring, most civil, most intelligent president evah just said that healthcare could be cheaper if we don't give old folks and the infirm the full measure of care they now get. It appeared that Obama said we should just let them die or suffer because they aren't worth the effort. Imagine if Bush had said something like this? The left wouldn't have hesitated to call him any manner of names. Oddly, though, the Old Media have not had so much as a raised eyebrow over his statements on Wednesday.

Obama said during the ABC Special on Wednesday night that a way to save healthcare costs is to abandon the sort of care that "evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve" the patient's health. He went on to say that he had personal familiarity with such a situation when his grandmother broke her hip after she was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Obama offered a question on the efficacy of further care for his grandmother saying, "and the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?"

But who is it that will present the "evidence" that will "show" that further care is futile? Are we to believe that Obama expects individual doctors will make that decision in his bold new government controlled healthcare future? If he is trying to make that claim it is a flat out untruth and he knows it.

Does your homebuilder negotiate with your city hall over whether you get a building permit, or does the permit get levied no matter what? Does a cop decide if you really broke the law, or does he simply arrest you and let the courts hash it out? Does your tax preparer negotiate with the IRS or is he supposed to just calculate your tax bill on their terms and have you pay the required amount?

Government does not work by negotiation. Government does not work from the bottom up. It works from the top down. This singular fact means that no doctor will be deciding if you are too old or infirm to get medical care. It will be a medically untrained bureaucrat that sets a national rule that everyone will have to obey. There won't be any room for your grandma to have a different outcome than anyone else's.

So, what will it be then? Who will decide when medical care is just too expensive to bother with? Who will be left to perish because they just aren't worth the lifesaving effort? Well, for sure it won't be any members of Congress or anyone that works for the federal government because they won't be expected to suffer under the nationally socialized plan. It also won't be Obama's buddies in the unions who are about to be similarly exempted from the national plan, at least if Senator Max Baucus has his way.

Ah, but we are told that Obama's ideas on healthcare are "evolving," dontcha know? During the recent campaign for president (that was only 7 months ago, if you'll recall) Obama insisted that he would never tax your healthcare benefits from work. He even ridiculed McCain for proposing such a plan. Lately, however, he's "evolved" toward saying that such a new tax is on the table. What about his stance against fining people and businesses that don't join his UberPlan? He was against that sort of coerciveness before. Now he's "evolved."

Originally, he said it was "healthcare for all," but as of Wednesday night, it seems he's "evolved" to say that only those worth the bother should get healthcare. The rest should be left to died and/or suffer. If he does any more "evolving" we'll all be finding just who is "worth" what as far as he and his Democrats are concerned. Somehow I'd guess that many of you reading this today won't quite be worth as much as certain others!

Let's hope none of us are ever in a position to find out if Obamacare deems our grandmothers worth saving.

And what ever happened to the left's mantra that healthcare is a "right" and that money should never enter into a life or death decision? Now The One is saying it's just too darn expensive to save the old and infirm? Will our friends on the left now disown Obama the "murderer"?

Even worse, why has the media remained mum on the possibility that President Spock, Doctor of life, just said that old folks are too expensive to treat? Hello, CNN, NBC, New York Times... anyone?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/06/26/obama-says-we-shouldnt-treat-old-folks-save-money-media-goes-dea

NANCY PELOSI AND HARRY REID NEED TO "GET A ROOM" !

THESE TWO SCUMBAGS NEED TO GET A ROOM. NANCY AND HARRY SUX !
DID YOU PUT YOUR TOUNGE IN HER EAR ? LMAO. WHY DON'T YOU TWO GET A REAL JOB ! ? QUIT TRYING TO TAKE CONTROL OF ALL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND TELL US WHAT TO EAT, WHAT TO DRINK, WHAT COLOR OUR ROOFS SHOULD BE, WHAT OUR THERMOSTATS SHOULD BE SET AT, WHAT KIND OF CAR WE SHOULD DRIVE AND ON AND ON. WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ? GET A DAMN LIFE. DEFEAT THESE TWO NEXT TIME THEY COME UP FOR ELECTION. WHAT A BUNCH OF LOW LIFES WE HAVING RUNNING OUR COUNTRY NOW.






















































































YOU ARE DAMNED RIGHT SHE IS LIAR. SHE IS A LOW LIFE SCUMBAG.

CAP AND TAX BILL MUST BE DEFEATED IN THE SENATE !!

Glenn Beck
- FOXNews.com
- July 01, 2009
While You Were Sleeping

The passage of cap-and-trade serves as a powerful reminder that whatever it is that the rest of the media is ignoring -- that's what we need to keep an eye on

"Dateline -- Los Angeles. After dying on June 25th, 2009, pop star Michael Jackson remains dead. Stay tuned for more breaking news on the minute-by-minute status of Michael Jackson's death."

The above isn't taken from an actual newscast, but really, are you going to tell me that the position of most of the media has been any less absurd? Any death is a loss -- I believe that, and my heart goes out to anyone suffering with grief. But let's leave that to the Jackson family and try to remember that the 299,999,999 Americans who didn't die on June 25th are in some pretty big trouble. It was last Friday night when the dreaded "cap-and-trade" vote took place, it passed 219-212, and we're now facing some of the most sweeping challenges to our sovereignty in our nation's history. First, let's read what President Obama thinks of his cap-and-trade plan--this is from an interview that appeared in The New York Times on June 28th, 2009:

I think this was an extraordinary first step. You know, if you had asked people six months ago -- or six weeks ago, for that matter -- whether we could get a energy bill with the scope of the one that we saw on Friday through the House, people would have told you, no way. You look at the constituent parts of this bill -- not only a framework for cap and trade, but huge significant steps on energy efficiency, a renewable energy standard, huge incentives for research and development in new technologies, incentives for electric cars, incentives for nuclear energy, clean coal technology. This really is an unprecedented step and a comprehensive approach.

So I think that at the end of the day this bill represents an important first step. There are critics from the left as well as the right; some who say who doesn't go far enough, some who say it goes too far. I am convinced that after a long period of inaction, for us to have taken such a significant step means that we're going to be in a position to advance technologically, obtain huge gains in efficiency. I think what we're going to see is that if we're able to get this in place that it's going to be very similar to the Clean Air Act of '91 or how we approached acid rain, where all the nay-sayers are proven wrong because American ingenuity and technology moves a lot faster when incentives are in place.

Gee, I wonder what color the sky is in his world? "Incentives?" I think it's funny when a guy like President Obama tries to use capitalist "lingo" to make us think that his plan is market-based, when really, nothing could be further from the truth. I think cap-and-trade is bad for all kinds of reasons, but here are three of the biggest.

To begin with, it punishes America for being in America. Let me explain --in this country, there's New York City and Washington on the East coast and California on the West. What happens on the edges of this country are largely crazy and have little to do with what's really going on in the states in-between, you know, the America those elitist dopes fly over on their way to award shows. (Of course I'm not saying there aren't plenty of good people in D.C., New York and California, but I'm making a point --stay with me.)

See, the cap-and-trade nonsense is wildly anti-coal (never mind that the coal industry is how approximately one million Americans put food on their family's table). The reality is, the Northeast and Pacific regions don't rely as heavily on coal as most of the rest of the country. If you live where coal is cheap, easy to get to and there's a whole lot of it, cap-and-trade hits you right in the pocketbook (you know the "T" word...taxes). This is yet another example of minority pockets of the country (and their lawmakers) making decisions for the majority of us. Believe me -- there's a way of thinking in New York City, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. that would not work in Boise, Idaho. As far as I'm concerned I'll take the Boise way.

Secondly, the government is acting like a middleman between citizens and businesses, and "we the people" just don't need the help. Now all of California's housing standards must be imposed on every American community. Um...I would think that considering the way things are going in California, we'd want the other 49 states doing things the opposite way, no? Thanks to this new legislation, we have to make sure that buildings have a place to plug in your electric hybrid vehicle. You know, the one no one can afford to buy and the failing auto industry can't afford to make. And now there's an additional credit for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac housing goals for "energy efficient" and "location efficient" mortgages. There is even the establishment of something called "green banking centers." What this stuff means, I haven't got a clue (and that's not just because I'm a rodeo clown -- a lot of the smart people I pay to make me seem like less of a rodeo clown don't know what it means either). We're also going to require that every car sold in America now has an engine capable of operating on alternative fuel, so that way we can pay our farmers to grow corn that we won't eat to make ethanol that costs $1.25 to make $1.00 worth of fuel. Brilliant! "Cap-and-trade" may be the headline, but there's a whole lot of fine print (and as usual, they hope you only check out the headline, skip the fine print, and go back to thinking about what Michael Jackson had for lunch on the day he died).

Lastly, all this happened in the middle of the night--while you were sleeping, they were scheming. This cap-and-trade package is over 1,500 pages long, and get this --341 pages were sprung on lawmakers at 3:00 a.m. How could anyone be expected to digest all that information --especially hundreds of new pages filled with that crazy language known as "Washingtonese" -- and make an informed decision on behalf of the American people? We need MORE transparency in Congress, not less. And honestly, we have to not only hold the president accountable for this lunacy, but also our representatives who let it get by them. Michael Jackson may have died on June 25th, but we as a country suffered a far greater loss.

Maybe the real reason President Obama was so hell-bent on ramming cap-and-trade through is that the tide of international scientific opinion is turning against him and the false assumption that global warming is a man-made condition. The Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions plan. And last April, the Polish Academy of Sciences released a document challenging human-caused global warming. Even more questions are being raised in the Czech Republic, France, and New Zealand.

What Al Gore didn't see coming was that his bold assertion that global warming was FACT didn't quiet the world's scientists, but woke them up! At its core, science is about challenging accepted beliefs, and now it's widely held that over 700 scientists from across the world (and political ideological spectrum) don't believe that climate change is our fault. And yet, cap-and-trade is now something we all have to live with. I guess the old saying of "never letting the facts get in the way of a good story" can be applied to "never letting the facts get in the way of a good tax scheme."

But as frustrated as I am, as angry as I get and as hopeless as things can seem, I'll never get so discouraged that I stop. Or quiet my voice. Or avoid being attacked because I dare ask the hard questions of the people who work for you. And the same should go for you -- there is only defeat when the game is over, so we need to stay on the field and play harder than ever.

Remember, we surround them, and the passage of cap-and-trade serves as a powerful reminder that whatever it is that the rest of the media is ignoring.

that's what we need to keep an eye on.

And oh, Michael Jackson? Yup, you guessed it--still dead.

2010 Will Be a GOP Year~GOD BLESS AMERICA !

The GOP comeback begins in 2010.


Obama's extremely ambitious plans to remake and expand the federal government's role in American life is running up against popular resistance.

His climate change bill barely squeaked by in the House. It remains hugely controversial because most independent estimates forecast dramatic increases in energy prices and unemployment if the president ultimately winds up signing it into law.

His health care overhaul is stalled in the Senate as lawmakers grapple with the prospect of a much larger federal role in health care, not to mention a price tag of $1 trillion. Speaking of trillion dollar spending plans, the president's cherished $787 billion stimulus bill which was enacted in February has failed to create jobs. Unemployment is now at 9.5% and still climbing. When their domestic agenda stalls, presidents traditionally look abroad. Hence, Obama showed up this week in Moscow to meet with Russian leaders, argue missile defense and the meaning of the Cold War with Vladimir Putin, and perhaps take some solace from the continuing cheers of the international news media and opinion elites.

It was Yogi Berra who said, "It's deja vu all over again." History does repeat itself. If history is a guide to the future, 2010 will be a good year to run as a Republican.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the party not in control of the White House has gained seats in every off-year election after a president's first election except for two times (1934 and 2002). Off-year dynamics are different and by the time they roll around many of the themes dominant in the presidential election have faded. Most importantly, new presidents and their administrations almost always overreach. And Barack Obama and his Democratic Party are overreaching in a big way.

Did Americans who supported Obama in November ever imagine that his administration would aspire to run the auto industry and GM? "Obama Motors" is now in business after spending billions in taxpayer dollars. Does anyone really think getting the federal government more involved in the car industry will make things better?

Did Americans think an Obama administration would aspire to take control of our health care system? There are major problems in our current system that need to be fixed, but having the government compete with private insurance plans will not make things better. There is also the matter of the additional one trillion dollars that Obama plans to spend. Does anyone think more spending on a government insurance option will make things better?

Did Americans think an Obama administration would aspire to take control of our financial system? The original justification for the bank bailouts was to, supposedly, clean up bank balance sheets and remove "bad loans" or "toxic assets" from their books. Instead, we have bailouts and more proposed government control of our entire financial system. Obama's plan is so bad that banks are racing to repay government loans to be free of federal controls, proving yet again that government intervention in any sector almost always makes things worse, not better.

Did Americans think that an Obama administration would propose the equivalent of a "carbon tax" on energy sources that could double electricity rates for everyone? -- We need to tap our own sources of energy in America, not make it even more difficult to develop the energy we need to grow our economy and create new jobs.

Finally, did Americans think that an Obama administration would already succeed in doubling our national debt during his brief time in office? Under Obama's own budget figures, should he end up serving two full terms in office his deficits would be larger than the deficits of all 43 of his predecessors combined. Does anyone think that doubling the national debt will make things better?

This is not change we can believe in.

The American people instinctively understand that more government control of health care, of energy, of manufacturing and of our financial system will not make things better. Republican candidates who offer a competing vision of less government, more choices for individuals and families, lower taxes, and a growing economy with more jobs will be rewarded by the voters.

Let's look to the future.

Republicans are the party of American greatness. We aim to help everyone realize their full potential but not by relying on government paternalism. The comeback begins in 2010.

Frank Donatelli is chairman of GOPAC, the center for training and electing the next generation of Republican leaders.

ABC IN BED WITH OBAMA ON HEALTHCARE AND EVERYTHING HE WANTS TO DO

How ABC Stacked the Deck for Obama

With the very first question of its prime time special, Questions for the President: Prescription for America, ABC set the tone that essentially confirmed for viewers that the president was right in his desire to radically remake America's healthcare system. As the infomercial began, "moderator" Charles Gibson asked a seminal question of the doctors and other participants that were about to hear the president speak: "How many of you agree with the president that we need to change our healthcare system?" Naturally they all raised their hands.

Imagine that? This handpicked crowd all agreed with ABC and Obama that "change" was paramount. Surprised? Hardly.

So, as the viewer is introduced to the infomercial, they start off with the unanimous affirmation that the president is right, radical changes have to be made. The premise is set and even the sharp questions to the president later in the show are blunted by the assumption that some major change is needed. And since the president is the only person allowed to offer any plan during this ABC special, the further assumption promulgated is that he is the one that must affect that change.

For viewers of this healthcare infomercial, Obama wins thanks to an assist by ABC. The viewer is deftly led to the desired conclusion.

The problem with the "change" question is, what sort of change are we talking about? Why is Obama's change the only plan on the table, here? Is there no other plan for change out there? ABC's viewers sure won't know from what they got Wednesday night.

Granted, ABC did throw some pointed questions at the president. But, sadly, his non-answers were rarely challenged and Obama was allowed to dole out his talking points without opposition. For instance, the president kept to his "you can keep your plan if you want to" talking point even as more and more politicians, political pundits, and healthcare and economics experts are beginning to say this claim is an untruth. Obama himself recently moderated his claim a bit by saying that he really meant that government wouldn't specifically require that people must lose their current plans. The difference is he went from explicitly saying no one would lose their current plan to tacitly admitting that his policies will force people to lose their plans whether government specifically says they must or not. It's as if he were slowly inching toward the truth. Unfortunately, Obama was not pressed on this point during the ABC infomercial and was allowed to reiterate his earlier, obviously false, claims. A recent study shows that "anywhere from 10.4 million to 119.1 million people could end up switching from their current plans" and onto the public plan if it gets implemented. This will not be a voluntary move, but one forced on them by their employers dropping their current plan in favor of the public option.

ABC did a masterful job setting up the claim that they were fair and balanced, too. A webpage has been launched to "fact check" the president's Wednesday appearance where ABC says that the president was "eager to make his case to the public -- but sometimes glossing over the thorny details of how to achieve reform." But, while they do talk of some of the president's errors, it is unlikely that more than a small percentage of Americans will ever see this webpage. The chances that only one or two percent of the TV audience will see the "fact check" webpage is strong. Even as ABC can say they corrected the president, most people that saw the special will come away on the president's side due to how the show was presented.

Finally, without any strong, intelligent counter voices, this ABC special was all Obama. It did not do much to advance the education of the audience or better inform those at home watching and left anyone viewing with the impression that the only "solutions" are coming from Obama.

Only The One cares. That was ABC's message.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/06/25/how-abc-stacked-deck-obama

"IT" Todd Stanley Purdum CAME FROM Chicago,

BOYCOTT VANITY FAIR AND HELP KICK TODD STANLEY PURDUM TO THE CURB !!!













Joe the plumber has something for your ASS !!

Several have written, independently of one another, that they had consulted the definition of 'narcissistic personality disorder' in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — 'a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy' — and thought it fit Todd Stanley Purdum perfectly.

Todd Stanley Purdum "It" came from Chicago. This man is a piece of toliet scum. He wishes he had as much intellect in his little finger tip as Sarah Palin. It is slime like him that is ruining America ! Go bury your head in the sand like a damn Ostrich you scumbag. You are a real piece of GARBAGE.
If I saw you on the street I would trip and fall and hit you where it hurts. SCUM, PURE SCUM.

For the July 2008 issue of Vanity Fair, Purdum wrote a scathing article about former President of the United States Bill Clinton entitled "The Comeback Id." The article analyzes Clinton's post-presidency business dealings, behavior, and possible personal indiscretions, citing several anonymous current and former Clinton aides.

Purdum is a son of Jerry S. Purdum, a Macomb, Illinois insurance broker, investor, and realtor, and Connie Purdum. He was graduated from St. Paul's School in 1978 and from Princeton University in 1982. He married Tiffany Windsor Bluemle in 1987; the couple were subsequently divorced.

In 1997,[1], Purdum married former White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers, who served President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1994. Their relationship is the basis for the relationship between C.J. Cregg and Danny Concannon on the TV show The West Wing. Purdum and Myers have two children.

For the July 2008 issue of Vanity Fair, Purdum wrote a scathing article about former President of the United States Bill Clinton entitled "The Comeback Id." The article analyzes Clinton's post-presidency business dealings, behavior, and possible personal indiscretions, citing several anonymous current and former Clinton aides.[2] When asked about the article, Clinton said (in reference to Purdum): "He's a really dishonest reporter...and I haven't read (the article). There's just five or six blatant lies in there. But he's a real slimy guy." When Fowler reminded Clinton that Purdum is married to his former press secretary, he responded: "That's all right - he's still a scumbag" and later added "He's just a dishonest guy - can't help it." Clinton went on to observe: "It's all politics. It's all about the bias of the media for Obama. Don't think anything about it. But I'm telling ya, all it's doing is driving her supporters further and further away - because they know exactly what it is - this has been the most rigged coverage in modern history - and the guy ought to be ashamed of himself. But he has no shame. It isn't the first dishonest piece he's written about me or her."
The latest issue of Vanity Fair isn't even on newsstands yet and it's already making headlines for a not-so-politely titled article, "It Came from Wasilla," about Gov. Sarah Palin.

William Kristol at the Weekly Standard is calling it a "hit piece," taking writer Todd Purdum to task for his "dubious claims.

But other McCain staffers who are willing to go on record are refuting the article's tone and facts. Jason Rechem told the Washington Times blog that "the mean tone of this article is completely false, this is not the Sarah Palin I knew and spent two and a half months with."

In an email to a Washington Post blogger, McCain staffer David Welch wrote: "Purdum did not include quotes from pro-Palin staffers (Mike Goldfarb, Randy Scheunemann have been outspoken in their support) — a clear sign of biased hit piece. If that doesn't convince you, the countless cheap shots and comparison of Palin to Nixon should."

"Palin has shown herself to have remarkable gut instincts about raw politics, and she has seen openings where others did not. And she has the good fortune to have traction within a political party that is bereft of strong leadership, and whose rank and file often demands qualities other than knowledge, experience, and an understanding that facts are, as John Adams said, stubborn things. It is, at the moment, a party in which the loudest and most singular voices, not burdened by responsibility, wield disproportionate power."

- Lili Ladaga

Sarah Palin is now Free to do what she wants ! GOD BLESS SARAH PALIN !

Not only is SARAH PALIN a beautiful Lady....she is smart, she is a real person will real thoughts and not scripted BS.
She will do well and there is not a damn thing the Liberals can do about it. Take that LIBERALS. You are all SICKOS. Go to Cuba and seek help. They have good nut houses there I heard.















Ann Coulter Explains Palin's Exit
By Ann Coulter

© APEditor’s Note: Ann Coulter is a political commentator, syndicated columnist and bestselling author. Her latest book is Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America.
I’m confused by all the confusion among the chattering classes about Palin. I thought her press conference explained it very clearly – though she couldn’t put it precisely this way without sounding vain, but it’s obvious.

Even though she’s just a state governor, she’s a HUGE national star who is both sought after and attacked as if she is already a president (a Bush, not an Obama). But she basically can’t participate because she’s tethered to the governor’s office up in Alaska. Consequently, she has to fight with one hand tied behind her back and she also can’t go around the country campaigning for candidates and principles she believes in – because she’s governor and would be accused of neglecting the state.

Meanwhile, the Lt. Gov. is a great guy, so she’s leaving the state in good hands and now she can go on to be an even bigger star.

It’s a weird Washington insider perspective to be perplexed by what she’s doing. Contrary to Mark Sanford’s e-mails to his mistress, no one was really impressed with him; 99.99999999999999999% of Americans didn’t know who he was. Who is more influential: Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and Bill O’Reilly, or Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford (before the fall)? As Palin said, God bless people who run for political office, but – and she didn’t say this part – she’s too big to be a lame-duck governor stuck dealing with fishing licenses in Anchorage right now.

She’ll be much bigger now and can play on the national stage without constantly setting off state ethics investigations by loons, parasites and liberals. None of this applied to McCain or Kerry – both of whom went back to the Senate – because their national campaigns diminished them. Palin’s national campaign made her a major star. As she said, she’s not retreating, she’s advancing in another direction.

Nancy Pelosi would sell her mother for a vote, a real piece of slime.

Chaos, arm-twisting gave Pelosi win

After lawmakers had devoured the last of the Kalua Pig at last Thursday night’s White House Luau, Nancy Pelosi summoned her team back to the Capitol — to ensure the climate change bill wasn’t the next thing roasted on the spit.

Pelosi and her top lieutenants would spend the next four hours whipping, cajoling, begging and browbeating undecided Democrats — and triple-checking their whip lists to decide who was a solid “yes” and who was prevaricating on the cap-and-trade legislation.

Yet no matter how many calls they made — or how many times they checked and rechecked their list — Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) kept coming up between 12 and 20 votes short of the 216 votes needed to win.

“We didn’t have the votes — and we had to have this vote,” said a leadership aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “This was the big one for us. [Pelosi] staked her prestige on this one. ... This was her flagship issue, and this was a flagship vote for us.”

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 passed by only 219-212, after an epic day replete with Republican ambushes, petty betrayals, hastily rearranged flights and disappearing acts.

Yet for all the apparent chaos, the action was commanded by a House speaker maneuvering with the urgency of someone who knew her reputation was on the line.

Despite Republican promises to punish battleground state Democrats for supporting a “cap and tax” plan, Pelosi and her fractious caucus passed their most serious test to date.

And whatever the fallout, aides say that both Pelosi and President Barack Obama now know that their majority can hold together — barely — when placed under withering pressure — which may bode well for the equally arduous trials on health care reform.

At the end of it all, Pelosi, who floated in and out of the House cloakroom all day, impossible to miss in an arctic-white linen pantsuit, gambled big and pulled off one of the most important legislative victories of her career, a win she views as a personal vindication, according to those close to the San Francisco Democrat.

“There’s no question about it,” Clyburn said after the vote. “She went back to her whipping days of old. She is an incredibly good whip. I’m trying to learn from her every day.”

Despite the most coordinated push yet between Democrats on the Hill and the Obama White House, the outcome was not certain until the very end, according to two dozen aides and members of Congress interviewed by POLITICO.

“It was really never a solid [216],” one person said afterward.

Party leaders agreed to bring the bill to the floor during a meeting Monday night, even though some of the members present had reservations about forcing vulnerable Democrats to cast votes on a package that may not go anywhere in the Senate.

In the days leading up the vote, the number of Democratic “yes” votes was locked at 200, according to people familiar with the tally. Every time they’d pick up one vote, another would slip. Democratic leaders needed a cushion to help protect the most vulnerable among them, and they didn’t have it.

As the frustration grew, an aide joked in one meeting that White House staff should give fence-sitters the same colored leis so that the president and his Cabinet secretaries would know who to buttonhole. The desperation was such that others in the room paused for a split second to consider the joke before abandoning it as a logistical impossibility.

During the luau, Clyburn set up shop in the Oval Office with Obama to meet with wavering Democrats, like freshmen Reps. Frank Kratovil Jr. of Maryland and Eric Massa of New York. Members of Clyburn’s whip team patrolled the White House lawn, cornering colleagues and making the case for the bill.

As the week wore on, Pelosi was directing former Vice President Al Gore whom to call, but everyone decided late Wednesday night that the list of undecided members was small enough that he should stay in Nashville, Tenn., to make calls.

On the day of the vote, the bleary-eyed tag team of Pelosi and Clyburn camped out in the cloakroom, just off the House floor, for nearly three hours.

One of Pelosi’s first targets was Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), a key fence-sitter who wanted more money generated from the carbon trading to be directed to the research and development of green technology.

Pelosi talked to him again and again, but he wouldn’t budge. Her message to him was the same as it was to others: It wasn’t worth voting against the bill because of what wasn’t in it.

According to witnesses, Pelosi perched herself on the arm of Holt’s chair and went nose to nose with him for a half-hour warning him that his no vote could scuttle the entire climate change effort — and that liberals would have another chance to make their case once the bill came back from the Senate.

Around 2 o’clock, he became a “yes.”

Next up was Austin, Texas, liberal Rep. Lloyd Doggett, who had seemed to be leaning toward the bill during a Thursday night visit with Obama in the Oval Office — but then infuriated the White House midday Friday by declaring the measure too weak on polluters to win his vote.

An exasperated White House staffer told POLITICO it was “stunning that he would ignore the wishes not just of his president but of his constituents and the country.”

Then Pelosi began working Doggett as the two stood in the back of the chamber near the railing, making the same perfect-is-enemy-of-the-good argument she had used against Holt. Doggett ended up voting “yes.”During the vote, Washington Rep. Jay Inslee, one of the taller members of the House, guarded the doors on the floor leading out to the Speaker’s Lobby, warning members not to leave the floor in case anyone needed to switch his or her vote. But that didn’t stop some Democrats, like Colorado Rep. John Salazar, from voting no early and sneaking out to avoid getting pressured by party leaders.

Leadership aides say Texas Rep. Ciro Rodriguez promised Pelosi he’d vote yes, but voted no and sprinted from the chamber. California Rep. Xavier Becerra tried unsuccessfully to flag him on his cell phone — and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) bounded into the ornate Speaker’s Lobby off the floor shouting, “Rodriguez! Rodriguez!” as puzzled reporters looked on.

Pelosi forced members to postpone their trips abroad to stay in town for the vote, aides familiar with the situation said. At one point, she even promised to escort one member out to the airport in her motorcade to catch an early flight — as House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stalled the proceedings with an hourlong reading from the 300-page manager’s amendment.

California Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a master of floor procedure who left the House on Friday to take a top job at the State Department, may have made the biggest personal sacrifice by postponing a dinner the night before her wedding to preside over the debate — her last as a member of Congress.

When another Californian, Rep. Joe Baca, declared himself undeclared, Pelosi and her whip team surrounded him — and burst out into applause when he cast one of the decisive “yes” votes, according to an eyewitness.

Members who wanted to be spared of the Pelosi treatment — slinked in and out of the chamber hoping the speaker wouldn’t notice them.

Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.) — another progressive who didn’t think the bill was strong enough — was an especially elusive target, according to leadership aides. Pelosi’s attempts to contact Filner early Friday weren’t successful, staffers say, but she began lobbying him furiously when he showed up for a series of procedural votes leading up to the fateful climate change measure.

After Baca and others had cast their “yeas,” the speaker walked up to Filner and calmly said, “It’s now your time to be on the record, Mr. Filner,” according to a witness.

He voted yes.

MOON FOR SALE ? TO HIGHEST BIDDER FOR ENERGY ??