There was an error in this gadget

Monday, October 17, 2011

Ron Paul Unveils $1 Trillon Spending Reduction Scrapping Five Federal Departments - Rush Limbaugh Endorses Plan

I have watched a few speeches by Herman Cain and I must say that I find something rather humorous and ridiculous. Usually somewhere in Herman's speech he proclaims 9-9-9 much like Obama did with his "Yes We Can" slogan. I see people in the crowd cheering and I have to snicker because people are cheering a tax plan. 9-9-9 means tax-tax-tax. Yes, he may claim to lower taxes but we have a much greater problem in our economy that the 9-9-9 plan will NOT fix. I think 0-0-0 would be a much better platform. That would be something to get excited about. Or how about Freedom-Freedom-Freedom. I would cheer for that. Why are people so excited over a tax plan that will not fix anything.

Without fail Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that offers REAL solutions. Paul has proposed many budget cuts including a reduction in the US President's salary.

Even Rush Limbaugh said: “Ron Paul has a good idea… fooling around the margins isn’t going to get it done… genuine big spending cuts are the only thing that is going to bring us back” (listen to audio below). Anyone who is a pro-freedom conservative and wants a candidate that will actually do the job he is elected to do should get behind Ron Paul.

Paul is a pro-constitutional candidate. I am beginning to see that those who call themselves conservatives only seem to like the constitution when it suites them and when it is convenient. The great thing about Ron Paul is his unswerving devotion to the constitution.

- Michael

The following articles outline Paul's new no-nonsense budget plan:

Ron Paul proposes $1T in specific budget cuts

Ron Paul proposes saving $1T by scrapping five federal departments

ObamaCare Starts to Unravel

The real story behind the Class program failure, and what to do now.

Now that one of ObamaCare's major new benefit programs has been scrapped, liberals are trying to make stone soup by claiming that the Obama Administration merely committed an act of "good government." They claim that when this long-term care insurance program proved to be unworkable, the Administration conceded as much, and now it's gone. So let's review the evidence, not least because it so perfectly illustrates the recklessness that produced the Affordable Care Act.

When Democrats were pasting it together in 2009 and 2010, the immediate attraction of the program known by the acronym Class was that its finances could be gamed to create the illusion that a new entitlement would reduce the deficit. Ending the complicated Class budget gimmick erases the better part of ObamaCare's purported "savings," but it's also worth focusing on the program's long-run political goals.

For decades Democrats have been trying to put government on the hook for middle-class costs like home health services ($1,800 a month on average) and nursing homes ($70,000 to $80,000 per year). On paper, Class was supposed to be like normal insurance, funding benefits through premiums with no subsidy. But since the budget gimmick and the program's larger structure meant that premiums could never cover benefits, Democrats were trying to force a future Congress to prevent a Class bankruptcy using taxpayer dollars.

As the costs to the federal fisc continued to climb, the Democratic gambit was that Class would gradually morph into another part of Medicare. Insurance depends on younger, healthier people signing up to cross-subsidize the older and sicker, but under the Class program as written almost all of its enrollees would soon also be beneficiaries.

So to fix this "adverse selection," the plan was for Congress to eventually make participation mandatory, with the so-called premiums converted into another payroll tax and the benefits into another entitlement. Former White House budget director Peter Orszag has been writing that the long-term care insurance market can't function without a mandate, while HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius declined to rule one out at a Senate hearing in February. Now they tell us.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich Rises in Polls

from October 14th

Herman Cain on Meet The Press

from this morning

900 Days Without a Senate Budget

The Democrat Senate continues to break the law by not passing a budget. Where's the outrage of the Marxist revolutionaries at Occupy the USA rallies? - Reggie

'Fast and Furious' on Face the Nation

Face the Nation aired a report on 'Fast and Furious' this morning. Congressman Darrell Issa, CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson and Congressman Elijah Cummings are guests.

Once again, I feel compelled to confess I am not a professional at video capturing but it's the information I want to post and, hopefully, spread to as many people as possible. For the first time ever, I captured this live from a CBS video stream and maybe that's progress on my part. The aggravating thing about the live stream were the ads that popped up several times that I had to click away.

I don't blog for a living (although there are days that I feel like I do!) so I haven't had the time to study editing features on my video software and I still haven't figured out my audio capturing software (I would love to post Mark Levin audio clips!). Perhaps, someday. - Reggie

The report below, by Sharyl Attkisson, was on CBS evening news.

Herman Cain at Faith & Freedom Rally

Speech was given October 13th at Ohio Christian University.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Wall Street Protesters’ Economic Myths

Manhattan Institute economist Josh Barro debunks the cries of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Obama pulls plug on part of health overhaul law

Great news, America! - Reggie

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration Friday pulled the plug on a major program in the president's signature health overhaul law—a long-term care insurance plan dogged from the beginning by doubts over its financial solvency.

Targeted by congressional Republicans for repeal, the program became the first casualty in the political and policy wars over the health care law. It had been expected to launch in 2013.

"This is a victory for the American taxpayer and future generations," said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., spearheading opposition in the Senate. "The administration is finally admitting (the long-term care plan) is unsustainable and cannot be implemented."

Proponents, including many groups that fought to pass the health care law, have vowed a vigorous effort to rescue the program, insisting that Congress gave the administration broad authority to make changes. Long-term care includes not only nursing homes, but such services as home health aides for disabled people.

Known as CLASS, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program was a longstanding priority of the late Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

Although sponsored by the government, it was supposed to function as a self-sustaining voluntary insurance plan, open to working adults regardless of age or health. Workers would pay an affordable monthly premium during their careers, and could collect a modest daily cash benefit of at least $50 if they became disabled later in life. The money could go for services at home, or to help with nursing home bills.

But a central design flaw dogged CLASS. Unless large numbers of healthy people willingly sign up during their working years, soaring premiums driven by the needs of disabled beneficiaries would destabilize it, eventually requiring a taxpayer bailout.

After months insisting that could be fixed, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, finally admitted Friday she doesn't see how.

"Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time," Sebelius said in a letter to congressional leaders.

The law required the administration to certify that CLASS would remain financially solvent for 75 years before it could be put into place.

But officials said they discovered they could not make CLASS both affordable and financially solvent while keeping it a voluntary program open to virtually all workers, as the law also required.

Without Visuals, a Different Impression

This article is a fascinating look at the most recent GOP presidential debate at Dartmouth College. I do not agree with the author about everything but he makes some excellent points. - Reggie

Some belated, sobering thoughts about Tuesday's debate.

In order to volley some tennis balls on Tuesday night, I missed the verbal volleys at the GOP presidential debate at Dartmouth. I'm glad I did. As it turns out, one can learn a lot by being forced to read a transcript rather than watching a debate live. The main thing I learned is that Mitt Romney is significantly less substantive, in terms of his words, than he appears to be when you watch him live.

Much of a debate's effect on a viewer is determined by body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice. It's quite possible, for instance, that the superbly substantive Rick Santorum hasn't gained significant polling momentum despite an unbroken series of generally acclaimed debate performances because his youthfulness of both visage and body language makes it hard for him to project the mien of a chief executive. If so, it's a shame. With the exception of the equally well-schooled Newt Gingrich, nobody in these debates knows the substance of more issues more deeply, or articulates that substance more understandably, than Santorum does. (Santorum also has a deeper list of actual accomplishment in government than most of the others, but that's another subject.) If the debate moderators would stop giving him short shrift in terms of the numbers of opportunities to talk (and if he stops complaining in public about that unfairness, which doesn't help him project authority), maybe he'll still catch on.

Even fifty years after a pale Dick Nixon proved the importance of visuals and tonality, though, it's still hard to understand just how big a difference those intangibles make until you completely take them away. That's what reading a transcript, rather than watching or listening, allowed this observer to do.

Candidate by candidate alphabetically, then, here's how I thought they did just from reading their words on a page.

Michelle Bachmann: Readers may have noticed that for months I have been largely indifferent to Bachmann, neither criticizing nor praising her performances very much.  But, as it turns out, when she knows a topic, she really knows it. Her answer on the causes of the financial meltdown was as good, and understandable, an exposition of an issue as compelling as any we've seen during the series of debates (with the exception of Herman Cain's explanation a few weeks back about exactly why Obamacare would have made it more difficult to recover from cancer): "It was the federal government that pushed the subprime loans. It was the federal government that pushed the Community Reinvestment Act. It was Congressman Barney Frank and also Senator Chris Dodd that continued to push government-directed housing goals. They pushed the banks to meet these rules. And if banks failed to meet those rules, then the federal government said we won't let you merge, we won't let you grow. There's a real problem, and it began with the federal government, and it began with Freddie and Fannie. If you look at these secondary mortgage companies which the federal government is essentially backing 100 percent, they put American mortgages in a very difficult place…."

When Bachmann isn't as well versed on an issue, it really shows, much to her detriment. But what she does know, she explains with great skill.

Herman Cain: For the past two days I've read rave reviews about how well he parried most of the attacks on 9-9-9. In print, he did far less well. He misstated the "scoring" for his own plan, wrongly calling it dynamic; he falsely repeated several times that his advisor Rich Lowrie is an economist; he repeatedly said he would surround himself with good people but couldn't name them; he cited Alan "Bubble" Greenspan as a great Federal Reserve chief; he misrepresented the vociferousness of his past statements belittling the idea of auditing the Fed; and of the three arguments he provided for why 9-9-9 wouldn't be subject to creeping higher rates, two of them were seriously dubious.

In every other debate, watching on TV, I've given Cain among the highest grades. On paper on Tuesday, he merited no better than a C-minus. But I'd enjoy him, more than anybody else on that stage, as my dinner guest, and I'd trust him in a heartbeat with investing my personal finances.

Newt Gingrich: He comes across as substantive when watching, substantive on paper. The man knows his stuff, and once upon a time he did a great job leading congressional Republicans out of the wilderness and, until he imploded, led them to serious legislative accomplishments. It's too bad that his whole career has proved him far less temperamentally steady in actual conduct than he has been throughout the summer and fall on stage. Right now he's play-acting as avuncular; in practice, for decades, he's been more like a volatile mob boss minus the criminality (fortunately) and (unfortunately) minus the insistence on covering the backs of his own men. (Ask Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, among many others.)

Jon Huntsman: On many things, he really is out of step with the Republican primary electorate. Viewed on TV, he is (to me at least) extraordinarily annoying, like a know-it-all with a petty streak. On paper, though, his advocacy of free markets/free trade comes across very well. Even if I were a trade warrior (which I'm decidedly not), I would respect how he explained his positions.

Ron Paul: In the words of an old traditional jazz tune, "Oh, Didn't He Ramble?" When one watches Dr. Paul, there's an oddly compelling nature about his high-pitched, semi-staccato delivery. On paper, there are times you want to tell him to just stop talking, because he digresses and meanders. To be fair, he's very good at defending the concept of freedom. But when he said that the way to accomplish things is "by building coalitions," one wonders if he's living in an alternate universe, considering that he's known in Congress as one of the two or three members out of all 435 who is least likely to work with others on anything, anywhere, anytime.

Rick Perry: Poor guy, now it's actually becoming hard to remember that he has been a mostly good governor of Texas. On paper his answers on Tuesday night were just as excruciatingly inept as the reviews have all said they looked live. When he tries to turn almost every single answer, regardless of the original topic, into a disquisition on oil, he gives the impression of a candidate running on fumes.

Mitt Romney: Does anybody remember the comic strip called "Bob Forehead"? He lives in the form of Mitt Romney. (Quoting the NYT: As Forehead finds out from his personal charismatician, '"When the going gets tough, the tough learn to fake it.") When Dustin Hoffman's character in The Graduate was given career advice to go into "plastics," Hoffman (if he had taken the advice) would have been creating a Romney. How much poll-tested blather can one man get away with saying, yet still sound like he's a man of substance? Elect him because he's a "leader"! (And then repeat "leader" several more times.) Elect him because he's for the "middle class"! (And then repeat "middle class" umpteen more times.) "Bring people together." "Both sides of the aisle." Again, "Listen to a leader who has the experience of leading."

Say that "if you think the entire financial system is going to collapse, you take action to keep that from happening" -- but, Lord forbid, don't let them catch you actually saying what action(s) you would take. But assure people that whatever you do, you would do so "very carefully." "Go after" China, but don't have a trade war. Pander to the "middle class" by setting a tax-cut threshold that excludes people making over $200,000 (credit to Gingrich for nailing Romney on that). Adopt the language of the Left, to the effect that money belongs to the government first: "If I'm going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes…"

Uh, Governor, those dollars aren't yours or the government's to "use," but rather only either to confiscate or not confiscate.

The Exasperation of the Democratic Billionaire

Real-estate and newspaper mogul Mortimer Zuckerman voted for Obama but began seeing trouble as soon as the stimulus went into the pockets of municipal unions.

'It's as if he doesn't like people," says real-estate mogul and New York Daily News owner Mortimer Zuckerman of the president of the United States. Barack Obama doesn't seem to care for individuals, elaborates Mr. Zuckerman, though the president enjoys addressing millions of them on television.

The Boston Properties CEO is trying to understand why Mr. Obama has made little effort to build relationships on Capitol Hill or negotiate a bipartisan economic plan. A longtime supporter of the Democratic Party, Mr. Zuckerman wrote in these pages two months ago that the entire business community was "pleading for some kind of adult supervision" in Washington and "desperate for strong leadership." Writing soon after the historic downgrade of U.S. Treasury debt by Standard & Poor's, he wrote, "I long for a triple-A president to run a triple-A country."

His words struck a chord. When I visit Mr. Zuckerman this week in his midtown Manhattan office, he reports that three people approached him at dinner the previous evening to discuss his August op-ed. Among business executives who supported Barack Obama in 2008, he says, "there is enormously widespread anxiety over the political leadership of the country." Mr. Zuckerman reports that among Democrats, "The sense is that the policies of this government have failed. . . . What they say about [Mr. Obama] when he's not in the room, so to speak, is astonishing."

We are sitting on the 18th floor of a skyscraper the day after protesters have marched on the homes of other Manhattan billionaires. It may seem odd that most of the targeted rich people had nothing to do with creating the financial crisis. But as Mr. Zuckerman ponders the Occupy Wall Street movement, he concludes that "the door to it was opened by the Obama administration, going after the 'millionaires and billionaires' as if everybody is a millionaire and a billionaire and they didn't earn it. . . . To fan that flame of populist anger I think is very divisive and very dangerous for this country."

Hate at Occupy Wall Street

Crisis of Decadence

Mark Steyn
A society can live on the accumulated capital of a glorious inheritance for only so long.

When the think-tank chappies ponder “decline,” they tend to see it in geopolitical terms. Great powers gradually being shunted off the world stage have increasing difficulties getting their way: Itsy-bitsy colonial policing operations in dusty ramshackle outposts drag on for years and putter out to no obvious conclusion. If that sounds vaguely familiar, well, the State Department reported last month that the last Christian church in Afghanistan was razed to the ground in 2010. This intriguing factoid came deep within their “International Religious Freedom Report.” It is not, in any meaningful sense of that word, “international”: For the last decade, Afghanistan has been a U.S. client state; its repulsive and corrupt leader is kept alive only by NATO arms; according to the World Bank, the Western military/aid presence accounts for 97 percent of the country’s economy. American taxpayers have spent the best part of half a trillion dollars and lost many brave warriors in that benighted land, and all we have to show for it is a regime openly contemptuous of the global sugar daddy that created and sustained it. In another American client state, the Iraqi government is publicly supporting the murderous goon in Syria and supplying him with essential aid as he attempts to maintain his dictatorship. Your tax dollars at work.

As America sinks into a multi-trillion-dollar debt pit, it is fascinating to listen to so many of my friends on the right fret about potential cuts to the Pentagon budget. The problem in Iraq and Afghanistan is not that we are spending insufficient money, but that so much of that money has been utterly wasted. Dominant powers often wind up with thankless tasks, but the trick is to keep it within budget: London administered the vast sprawling fractious tribal dump of Sudan with about 200 British civil servants for what, with hindsight, was the least worst two-thirds of a century in that country’s existence. These days I doubt 200 civil servants would be enough for the average branch office of the Federal Department of Community Organizer Grant Applications. Abroad as at home, the United States urgently needs to start learning how to do more with less.

As I said, these are more or less conventional symptoms of geopolitical decline: Great powers still go through the motions but increasingly ineffectually. But what the Council on Foreign Relations types often miss is that, for the man in the street, decline can be very pleasant. In Britain, France, Spain, and the Netherlands, the average citizen lives better than he ever did at the height of Empire. Today’s Europeans enjoy more comfortable lives, have better health, and take more vacations than their grandparents did. The state went into decline, but its subjects enjoyed immense upward mobility. Americans could be forgiven for concluding that, if this is “decline,” bring it on.

But it’s not going to be like that for the United States: Unlike Europe, geopolitical decline and mass downward mobility will go hand in hand. Indeed, they’re already underway. Whenever the economy goes south, experts talk of the housing “bubble,” the tech “bubble,” the credit “bubble.” But the real bubble is the 1950 “American moment,” and our failure to understand that moments are not permanent. The United States emerged from the Second World War as the only industrial power with its factories intact and its cities not reduced to rubble, and assumed that that unprecedented preeminence would last forever: We would always be so far ahead and so flush with cash that we could do anything and spend anything and we would still be Number One. That was the thinking of Detroit’s automakers when they figured they could afford to buy off the unions. The industrial powerhouse of 1950 is now a crime-ridden wasteland with a functioning literacy rate equivalent to West African basket-cases. And yes, Detroit is an outlier, but look at the assumptions its rulers made, and then wonder whether it will seem quite such an outlier in the future.

Take, for example, the complaints of the young Americans currently “occupying” Wall Street. Many protesters have told sympathetic reporters that “it’s our Arab Spring.” Put aside the differences between brutal totalitarian dictatorships and a republic of biennial elections, and simply consider it in economic terms: At the “Occupy” demonstrations, not-so-young college students are demanding that their tuition debt be forgiven. In Egypt, half the population lives in poverty; the country imports more wheat than any other nation on the planet, and the funds to do that will dry up in a couple months’ time. They’re worrying about starvation, not how to fund half a decade of Whatever Studies at Complacency U.

Sarah Palin "Defending the Republic"

On October 7th, Palin spoke at "Defending the Republic" rally in the St. Louis area.

h/t Palin TV

In other news, Palin has changed her political affiliation from "Republican" to "Conservative" on Facebook. I truly think the Republican party did some dirty things to Palin, behind the scenes,  and that's why she decided not to run for President. The Republican Party may eventually regret the way they have treated her and the fact they are openly telling the world how much they dislike the Tea Party.
- Reggie

Sharyl Attkisson Interview on 'Fast and Furious'

On October 12th, C-SPAN's Susan Swain interviewed CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson on the 'Fast and Furious' gunwalker scandal involving US sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels. A US Border Agent was murdered with one of those guns.

Attkisson is doing great investigative work on this story. Is Sharyl Attkisson the only investigative reporter left in the US? - Reggie

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Republicans Admit Their Dislike for the Tea Party

Today Rush talked about a very lengthy article in the New York Times Sunday Magazine. In the article Republican establishment types (Progressives) admit their dislike for the Tea Party and everything it stands for. They believe the power of the Tea Party is gone and they are working on changing the Tea Party House freshman into establishment Republicans (Progressives). - Reggie

Top Rubio Staffer Reportedly Pushed for Early Florida Primary to Help Romney

Hot Air: Update: Rubio camp denies

If true, this is very distressing. Rubio is supposed to be a conservative and Romney is Obama lite. Are there any politicians that can be trusted? Are there any politicians that want to live by the Constitution of he United States? More and more, I think not. - Reggie

When Florida defied Republican National Committee rules to move the state’s 2012 presidential primary from an RNC-approved March date to Jan. 31, conservatives immediately suspected that state party insiders had orchestrated the move to help former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney thwart the momentum of Tea Party-backed candidate Herman Cain. Some Florida activists focused their suspicion on moderates in state party leadership – allies of Senate candidate George LeMieux and of former Gov. Charlie Crist — as orchestrating the change in the primary date. The move was seen as helping the centrist Romney, whose superior fund-raising resources would enable him to score an early knockout in the Sunshine State before Cain could fully leverage the boost he got from an upset victory in a Sept. 24 Florida GOP straw poll.

Yet while the moderate Republican faction in Tallahassee was immediately blamed for the primary date-switch, only insiders knew that a key factor was a push from inside the staff of the Tea Party’s own 2010 hero, Sen. Marco Rubio. GOP sources in Washington and Florida say that Rubio’s senatorial chief of staff, Cesar Conda, has been a major force in persuading Florida Republicans to move their primary to January.

“Cesar used to be with Romney’s campaign,” one informed source explained to me in an interview today, adding: “Conda used his contacts to push the primary to the 31st because they want Romney in.”

Conda’s loyalty to Romney was highlighted in a Politico story by Scott Wong last week: “At least six past and current Rubio Senate aides, including chief of staff Cesar Conda and his deputy, Terry Sullivan, worked for Romney’s 2008 presidential bid, establishing a direct link and a line of communication between the front-runner for the 2012 GOP nomination and the front-runner in the Republican veepstakes. There’s also a trail of fundraisers, donors and consultants who have overlapping relationships with Rubio and Romney.”

Obama : 'I Didn't Know You Were the Spokesperson for Mitt Romney'

Episode Two: Economic Freedom in America Today

Mike Lee Discusses Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party, and the Jobs Bill

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Republican Debate at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire

Republican presidential debate at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire on October 11, 2011

To read the transcript, click here and to read Michelle Malkin's review of the debate, click here.

The 1960s radicalism of Occupy Wall Street will help elect a Republican in 2012

The Occupy Wall Street movement is an exercise in nostalgia. It’s an attempt to recreate the excitement of 1968, when the world’s youth took to the barricades. That cosmic revelation hit me while sitting crossed-legged on a bean bag reading about the earnest search for "the Bob Dylan of our age". Among the people being touted for that position is Kanye West (worth $70 million). On Monday, he toured the cardboard boxes and rainbow flags of Zuccotti Park, New York. Out of solidarity for the bling-ridden poor, Mr West wore a gold chain. He was accompanied by record producer Russell Simmons (worth $340 million). When I first read that piece of news through the blurred light of a burning joss stick, I thought it said Richard Simmons. The two men are very different people. Russell Simmons ran a pioneering hip hop record label and transformed the US music scene. Richard Simmons is a camp white guy who makes fitness videos. I wish I was right and it was Richard Simmons who had accompanied Kanye to Zuccotti Park. He could have elevated the whole thing with an impromptu rendition of The Age of Aquarius on roller skates. 

Of course, wherever there’s dirty people and hemp, you’ll find a hippy environmentalist. Channelling Rachel Carson, activist Bill McKibben told a crowd, “The reason that it’s so great that we’re occupying Wall Street is because Wall Street has been occupying the atmosphere.” He said that the fossil fuel industry “cannot keep using [the sky] as a sewer into which to dump their carbon!” It’s OK to use the streets of New York, though. The Daily Mail reports: “Protesters said the site smells like a sewer and the free condoms have given visions of what the Woodstock festival was like. In one shocking picture, a man can be seen defecating on a police car.”

Photos confirm what I suspected: that most of the protesters are kids looking for their Sixties rush. Naked girls are painted in psychedelic colours. Handsome boys lounge around in cable-knit sweaters. Angry, doomed youth wave signs in the faces of frustrated policemen. Numbers are exchanged; kisses are snatched behind the barricades; disease is spread. This is what every generation of liberal has tried to recreate since 1968, be it the Watergate protests, the Battle of Seattle or the Stop the War Movement. I know this because I, too, once grasped for my 1968 moment. In 2003, I joined the sweaty ranks of the antiwar campaign. I was honestly motivated and intellectually sound, but I can’t deny the heady anticipation that a life of protest would lead inexorably to drugs and girls. I got the drugs but not the girls, and woke up several months later in a squat surrounded by Trotskyite bores who seemed far more intelligent when I was stoned. Zabriskie Point it was not. 

OWS vs Tea Party

Who actually called for violence, Occupy Wall Street or the Tea Party

RINOs Stick Together

White House used Romney health-care law as blueprint for federal law

This is one of many reasons for Republicans to reject Mitt Romney as the nominee for President of the United States! I haven't decided which candidate I will vote for but I know it will not be Romney. The last two ads Perry has released are right - Romney is a carbon copy of Obama (see the ads here and here). Don't be fooled again, America. - Reggie

Three advisers to GOP candidate met a dozen times with senior Obama officials, records show

Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as “Obamacare.”

The records, gleaned from White House visitor logs reviewed by NBC News, show that senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006, when the Republican presidential candidate was governor of Massachusetts. One of those meetings, on July 20, 2009, was in the Oval Office and presided over by President Barack Obama, the records show.

“The White House wanted to lean a lot on what we’d done in Massachusetts,” said Jon Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney administration on health care and who attended five meetings at the Obama White House in 2009, including the meeting with the president. “They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model.”

Romney has forcefully defended the Massachusetts law he signed, but says he is adamantly against a “one-size-fits-all national health-care system” imposed on all 50 states. “I will repeal Obamacare,” he has said. “And on day one of my administration, I will grant a waiver from Obamacare to all 50 states.”

Asked about the White House records, a Romney campaign spokeswoman responded by citing comments that Romney made last April after Obama suggested the White House had borrowed from his law in Massachusetts.

Racist Fascism on Tape: Lisa Fithian, Organizer Behind #OccupyWallSt, Addresses Activists in Chicago

Lisa Fithian, the anarchist who is organizing #OccupyWallSt “direct actions” with unions and Democrats across the country, addressed several hundred evidently brainwashed activists at their “General Assembly” in Chicago on October 10, 2011.

She described the coordination between “community-based organizations” and unions across the country in a “fall campaign,” and described the racial speech codes that #Occupy enforces at its meetings.

Fithian actually calls for white men to speak first at meetings, in order to create a racial solidarity that can unite all of #Occupy’s disparate groups.

The cult-like crowd repeated almost every word.


Hello Occupy Chicago!
Hello Occupy Chicago!
My name is Lisa.
My name is Lisa.
I was on Wall Street September 17th.
I was on Wall Street September 17th.
I’ve had the pleasure to be involved [in] OccupySanFrancisco, OccupyLA, OccupyDC, and now OccupyChicago!

Walking Guns Not Talking

by Bok

h/t Sharyl Attkisson

"Gunwalking" subpoena for AG Holder imminent

By Sharyl Attkisson

(CBS News) CBS News has learned a Congressional subpoena directed to Attorney General Eric Holder could go out as early as Tuesday, ordering him to appear before lawmakers and testify about when he was aware of a controversial gun smuggling operation known as Fast and Furious.

CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports the the subpoena will come from the House Oversight Committee, led by Republican Darrell Issa. It will ask for communications among senior Justice Department officials related to Fast and Furious and "gunwalking."

The subpoena will list those officials, says Attkisson - more than a dozen of them - by name.

In Fast and Furious, the ATF allegedly allowed thousands of assault rifles and other weapons into the hands of suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels. The idea was to see where the weapons ended up, and take down a cartel. But the guns have been found at many crime scenes in Mexico and the U.S., including the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry last December.

Not a Single Christian Church Left in Afghanistan, Says State Department

The attacks on Christianity are on the rise, worldwide. Our court system continues to chip away at our religious freedoms in the US, as well. Because of that, I expect the persecution of Christians to increase dramatically in the coming years especially in America. - Reggie

( -- There is not a single, public Christian church left in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. State Department.

This reflects the state of religious freedom in that country ten years after the United States first invaded it and overthrew its Islamist Taliban regime.

In the intervening decade, U.S. taxpayers have spent $440 billion to support Afghanistan's new government and more than 1,700 U.S. military personnel have died serving in that country.

The last public Christian church in Afghanistan was razed in March 2010, according to the Statet Department's latest International Religious Freedom Report. The report, which was released last month and covers the period of July 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, also states that “there were no Christian schools in the country.”

“There is no longer a public Christian church; the courts have not upheld the church's claim to its 99-year lease, and the landowner destroyed the building in March [2010],” reads the State Department report on religious freedom. “[Private] chapels and churches for the international community of various faiths are located on several military bases, PRTs [Provincial Reconstruction Teams], and at the Italian embassy. Some citizens who converted to Christianity as refugees have returned.”

In recent times, freedom of religion has declined in Afghanistan, according to the State Department.

“The government’s level of respect for religious freedom in law and in practice declined during the reporting period, particularly for Christian groups and individuals,” reads the State Department report.

“Negative societal opinions and suspicion of Christian activities led to targeting of Christian groups and individuals, including Muslim converts to Christianity," said the report. "The lack of government responsiveness and protection for these groups and individuals contributed to the deterioration of religious freedom.”

Most Christians in the country refuse to “state their beliefs or gather openly to worship,” said the State Department.

Andrew Breitbart talks about Occupy L.A.

Andrew Breitbart's Journey Through #OccupyLA is below:

Monday, October 10, 2011

Glenn predicts protestors will turn on their political supporters

This is the first segment from Glenn Beck's radio program today.

BREAKING: Operation #OccupyWallStreeters–SEIU’s Stephen Lerner Leaks Plan to Terrorize Corporate Executives

Radical labor organizer Stephen Lerner of SEIU intends to terrorize the families of bank executives in their homes as part of the Occupy Wall Street protests.

SEIU Marxist, Stephen Lerner

SEIU, a longtime ally of ACORN, has done it before, as ably documented by Big Government’s Liberty Chick.

The home invasions are scheduled to begin Tuesday.

Lerner, a prime architect of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, laid out the Left’s plans to his fellow Marxists at the left-wing Take the American Dream Back conference in Washington, D.C., on October 3, 2011.

Here’s the video of his remarks:

Paul Ryan — Fixing government and not running for president

YouTube description: In a wide ranging interview, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin discusses his plans for repealing ObamaCare, fixing Medicare and Medicaid, the federal budget, and why he's not running for president in 2012.

Romney's Remedy

Another great Rick Perry ad about Romney.

Meet The Anarchist Leaders Behind The ‘Leaderless’ #Occupy Movement – Part One: Lisa Fithian

The #OccupyWallStreet movement that been embraced by Democratic politicians, liberal pundits, progressive groups, Big Labor and celebrities was actually created and is being led behind the scenes by far-left anarchists whose goal isn’t reform, but the total annihilation of the American economic and political system.

“Occupy Everything” is the culmination of a decades-long effort by militant radicals to create and fund a mass movement that has broad popular appeal. With the enthusiastic help of the institutional left, that effort finally seems to be working.

Case in point: Lisa Fithian. Fithian is a career “community organizer” and anarchist who specializes in “direct action” protests, and who has close ties to labor unions. She has been on the ground at the #OccupyWallStreet demonstration since its inception.

Local television station NY1 interviewed her as an ordinary “woman on the street,” presenting her as just another well-intentioned New Yorker who’s worried about the big, mean banks.

NY1 did not mention that Fithian lives in Austin, Texas, and failed to inform its audience about Fithian’s true motivations or her lengthy activist resume.

“Wall Street is certainly the heart of why we’re here. It’s the corporations — the big banks in this country have been destroying this country.”

Lisa Fithian says she’s not part of any official group–that this event is the work of many people coming together with the same message.

“Overfees or high mortgages, student loans–the banks are touching every aspect of our lives.”

She says banks and the wealthy have taken money for their own interests and their own survival.

“And the people here are saying enough of that.”

Inspired by events around the world, she drew the analogy to Tahrir Square in Egypt, and says the power of the people is leading to change.

It doesn’t take much digging to discover the real Lisa Fithian.

Read the rest of the article

'How to Fight Back Against Out-of-Control Judges'

from October 7, 2011
Newt Gingrich at Values Voter Summit

And there is this...

The Root-and-Branch Candidate

Gingrich doesn’t want to beat just Obama, but statism, too.

The question is simple but profound: Will the 2012 presidential-election campaign be about big ideas? Ideas like whether the American people are still masters of their own destiny or instead have resigned themselves to a rule of lawyers advertising itself as “the rule of law”?

To push these fundamentals to the fore is the rationale of Newt Gingrich’s candidacy. If ever there were a big-ideas guy, it’s the former House speaker. Ideas seem to churn out of him faster than the Treasury churns out greenbacks for “green energy.” But do we want to think about them? Newt believes we do — perhaps not so much that we want to but that we have to think about them, if we are to remain an America that is worth preserving. He is also a historian uniquely sensitive to a unique historical moment.

The Obama years have pushed the accelerator on what had been a long, inching slide into the progressive abyss. For three-quarters of a century, statism was a Fabian project. It was reminiscent of what Jefferson, explaining his fear of the federal judiciary’s gradual imperialism, described as “working like gravity by night and day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all consolidated into one.”

Bucking this trend, President Obama has leapt way ahead to the endgame: a blizzard of unaccountable czars, nationalized sectors, suffocating regulations, and redistributed trillions. The result is economic stasis, massive unemployment, crony socialism, and the hovering prospect of punishing taxes, crippled productivity, mounting social unrest, and a loss of liberty so dramatic one actually notices that it is happening. Americans have now seen the future, and, in growing numbers, they are horrified by it.

In addition, after three years of watching congressional Democrats slavishly toe the line — watching spectacles such as majority leader Harry Reid’s decision to blow up time-honored Senate parliamentary rules just to avoid taking a vote that would embarrass the president — Americans are also grasping that what makes Obama and his Occupy Wall Street base “radical” is mainly their impatience. They want — right now — the end of history that the progressive establishment has heretofore been content to crawl toward, inch by cautious inch.

One of the few virtues of Obama’s pedal-to-the-metal approach is that it forced Democrats to choose sides. They’ve chosen him over a public that repeatedly shows it does not want what he’s redistributing. In the 2010 elections, that choice proved catastrophic for Democrats, but the rout hasn’t mattered. They’re still with him, because they accept his premises even if they’re not crazy about his pace. That illustrates that the trajectory we’ve been on since the 1930s leads inexorably to where the Obama Left wants to go. There is a reason why Bill Buckley yelled, “Stop!” — not “Slow down!” — as he stood athwart history.

So here is the dilemma: We have a moment in time in which it is possible to demonstrate, starkly, that statism does not work, and therefore that it ought to be removed root and branch. That argues not only for dumping Obama but also for rolling back the tide of which Obama is merely the most destructive wave. On the other hand, Obama is uniquely destructive. Therefore, the GOP Beltway Bible instructs, our priority is to come up with a safe candidate — one who is smooth enough to fade into the woodwork and make the election solely about the president. This is no time to scare people, the pros tell us. Let’s not get independents fretting about some conservative counterrevolution.