October 30, 2009
Quote of the Day: Note to Nancy Pelosi: You people don’t own the Capitol – we do.
How drastically are they changing our system if it requires 2,000 pages to spell it all out? We probably don’t want to know. And, with only being given 72 hours to read the entire thing before it is put to a vote, we probably won’t ever know:
The original draft of the 1935 Economic Security Act, which established the Social Security Administration was 64 pages
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 – forbidding discrimination based on race and sex: 8 pages
The 19th amendment to the Constitution, giving Women the right to vote in 1920: 1 page
The Emancipation Proclamation, with which Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in 1863: 5 pages
Or, if you really want to get back to basics: The Declaration of independence came in at 1 page in 1776
And the Constitution: 4 pages long in 1787
Health care reform, Pelosi version – almost 2,000 pages.
The Democrats say they’ll post the final version online for lawmakers and the public to read 72 hours before a vote. Good luck reading 2,000 pages in 72 hours.Meanwhile although the Democrats keep talking about openness and transparency in this process, there are reports that they blocked the public from attending the unveiling ceremony for their health care bill outside of the Capitol yesterday. Videos online show people – not on a pre-approved guest list – being turned away.
Note to Nancy Pelosi: You people don’t own the Capitol – we do.
As we all know, though, they don’t want us to read the bill. That’s the whole point. This bill will put the government in every aspect of our lives. You name it, the government is there. And, all of this from the party that pushed abortion by saying they didn’t want the government in the doctor’s office with us. What an effing joke!
Comments (1)
Wait, politicians are corrupt? Tell me something I don’t know.
If this is the most ethical Congress ever, we’re in a world of trouble:
A leaked document shows that House ethics investigators are probing the activities of nearly three dozen lawmakers — an ethical dust storm that will empower the Republicans and could imperil efforts to get health care reform through the House next week.
The House ethics committee said Thursday that it was opening two new investigations — one into the foreclosure scandal of Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.) and one involving financial questions about Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and her husband.
But shortly after the committee met, chairs Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) interrupted proceedings on the House floor to say that an internal document on secret committee proceedings had been leaked to The Washington Post — and that it would name the names of many other members who had drawn the attention of either the committee or the Office of Congressional Ethics.
According to the Post, the document identifies more than 30 House members.
Much of the investigative interest swirls around lawmakers’ relationship with the PMA Group, a now-defunct lobbying firm that pumped campaign contributions to members and obtained earmarks for its defense clients.
Reps. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) and Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.) had been implicated in the PMA case previously, but the leaked document showed that investigators are also interested in Reps. Jim Moran (D-Va.), Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Bill Young (R-Fla.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), according to the Post.
The Department of Justice is also looking into allegations that Paul Magliocchetti, a former Appropriations Committee staffer and founder of PMA, used “straw men” donors to improperly funnel campaign funds to Murtha and the other Appropriations Committee members.
What can even be said? We have a corrupt system filled with corrupt individuals. And, even if they arrive in DC uncorrupted, it’s only a matter of time before they get corrupted. Don’t kid yourself into thinking this is about one party or the other or about these select individuals.
We have a system that encourages and rewards corruption. We can blame the politicians as much as we want, but we are the people who put them into office. And, although we cannot be held accountable for their misdeeds, we must take partial responsibility if we continuously vote for a candidate we know is lacking, especially if we do that just because they attach the same letter behind their name that we attach behind ours.
Comments (0)October 29, 2009
Hey, Mitt, political expediency speaks volumes, too.
This is just another reason why I won’t support Mitt Romney for president:
Is Mitt Romney weighing in on the intra-Republican Party fight in race for New York’s 23 Congressional District by refusing to make an endorsement?
That’s the special election where the GOP nominee, Dede Scozzafava, is facing a challenge not only from Bill Owens, the Democrat’s candidate, but also from Doug Hoffman, who’s running on the conservative party line. Because of the split among Republicans, Owens has a good chance of taking back a district the Democrats haven’t won in generations.
On Wednesday Romney was asked whether he’d make an endorsement in the New York 23 contest.
“I have chosen not to endorse the Republican candidate in New York’s 23rd District,” Romney told reporters while campaigning in Virginia for Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell. “That should speak a certain amount of volume. I can’t endorse our candidate in that race.”
You know what would speak volumes, Mitt? If you came out and endorsed Doug Hoffman.
Your non-endorsement speaks volumes, but I don’t think you’re realizing what it is saying. I’ll let you in on something, it ain’t sayin’ anything good. This makes you look weak and unable to take a stand for fear it might alienate the all-knowing Republican Party. You wouldn’t want to risk upsetting them since you want to be their presidential candidate in the next election. I’ll tell you now, my vote is one vote you can’t count on.
Comments (3)
Pure 1984 Style: Health Care Bill called Affordable Health Care for America Act. Seriously. No, please, stop laughing.
This might not be the most ethical Congress ever, as had been promised by the oh-so-trustworthy Pelosi, but it is definitely running way ahead of the pack as the most absurd. Unveiled today, they’re reconciled health care bill, which is a mere 1,990 pages:
The battle over health care reform reached another milestone Thursday as top House Democrats unveiled sweeping legislation that includes a highly controversial public health insurance option.
The nearly 2,000 page bill — a combination of three different versions passed by House committees — would cost $894 billion over 10 years and extend insurance coverage to 36 million uncovered Americans, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
A source emailed me:
The bill is 1,990 pages long and contains a separate 13-page bill to repeal the sustainable growth rate caps on Medicare spending. The Bill will cost more than $200 billion and is not paid for, which will break Obama’s promise to Congress during his speech.
The bill contains the word “shall” 3,425 times. Though Steny Hoyer just said the bill was open and transparent, they prevented the American people from attending their publicity rally by checking IDs and keeping people out.
There are so many issues to address that I wouldn’t know where to begin. The CNN article reassures they they’re going to give members a whole 72 hours before forcing a vote. Who thinks any member will read the whole bill? No one? Well then, I guess we’re all smarter than they think.
And, they haven’t worked out that pesky abortion issue, yet. They are confident it will be settled before it comes to a vote. I’m confident it will be settled, too. Unfortunately, that means my money, all of our money, will be financing the slaughter of millions of children for years to come. For that little provision alone, I hope that there is a hell and I hope that all of the people who vote for this bill burn in it.
Don’t forget, this isn’t anywhere near over, either. This is just the House version of the bill. We still have to put that together with the Senate’s and see what hideous baby Congress produces. I wish I had the time to read this whole bill, but I have a thesis to write and less than two weeks to write it. Not that I need to read it to know that it’s going to be bad for America.
Please, feel free to read the bill. Every American should try to read what they can because we all know that they are hoping we don’t.
Comments (1)
UNICEF: Killing off the children it claims to protect before they’re even born.
Halloween is upon us and we all know what that means, kids looking for candy and the UN looking for money:
Each year around this time I remind my readers that those ubiquitous orange UNICEF boxes their kids bring home from school are not nearly as innocuous as they seem. UNICEF undoubtedly does some good work. But there is a dark side to their mission. Abortion. UNICEF continues to fund programs that encourage more abortions, especially in Latin America and Africa.
In 2007 I noted that UNICEF has de-emphasized their focus on children and moved into the women’s rights and radical feminism arenas:
Leading the list of UNICEF’s Millennium Development Goals is “access to safe abortion”, which is synonymous with legal abortion. The 2007 report has 5 chapters. They are devoted to women’s equality in the areas of households, employment, politics, and government. The final chapter is an outline of the process needed to achieve “gender equality”. Nowhere in the 160 pages of this report is any mention of the 6 major causes of the more than 10 million child deaths worldwide. Problems like pneumonia, diarrhea, malaria, neonatal sepsis, pre-term delivery and asphyxia at birth are given the merest of passing mentions. Instead, women’s “rights” to reproductive freedom and gender equality are the primary focus of the report.
Please take the time to read the whole thing. You’ll be shocked at UNICEF’s duplicity.
I already dislike the UN and think they’re a worthless body out to destroy America. So, I normally don’t much care what they do. But, when an organization collects money that is supposedly going to help children and in reality is using that money to promote policies that will actually take a child’s life before it has a chance to take its first breath, that brings it to a whole new level of disgust for me. And, it’s counterproductive for them. If they kill all of the children before they’re even born, who will they pretend to be raising money for, next?
Or, maybe promoting abortions does pay off for them. I wonder, do they get a percentage of the money made of the abortion and the sale of the aborted baby’s body parts after? Either way, I’m sure the majority of people putting a penny in those little orange boxes have no clue that they are supporting the killing of the unborn. The sad part is, I remember carrying one of those boxes around when I was a kid.
Comments (0)October 27, 2009
Lieberman comes through with an assist
Looks like Joe Lieberman, not the conservative the press will try to paint him to be, is against the “public option” because he thinks it is asking for trouble:
Independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Tuesday he would join a Republican filibuster to block the final vote on any health care bill that has a government-run public health insurance option.
Lieberman’s vote is crucial to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s hopes of passing a health care bill that includes the controversial public option. Reid announced Monday he would send to the full Senate a health care bill that has a public option but also allows states to opt out of that provision.
Lieberman said he would support a vote to launch debate on the health care bill but would oppose a motion to end debate if the public option remains in the legislation. Democrats would need 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to close debate on the bill, and the Democratic caucus has 60 members, including Lieberman.
“I can’t see a way in which I can vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated and run insurance company,” the Connecticut senator said. “It’s just asking for trouble.”
Sometimes a story is so good it doesn’t need comment. This is one of those times. Although, I don’t think Joe is a conservative, by any means, he seems to be a little bit more intelligent than the rest of them.
He’s only an independent because his party abandoned him for anti-war candidate Ned Lamont a couple of years back.
One thing is for sure, he has a backbone and stands up for what he believes in (even if I think all of the liberal crap he believes in is wrong). That’s something to be admired.
Comments (0)October 26, 2009
Newt Gingrich: The epitome of what is wrong with the Republican Party.
No wonder the public still has a disfavorable view of the Republican Party:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken considerable heat from conservative activists for endorsing Republican Dede Scozzafava over Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in next month’s special congressional election in New York.
But Gingrich is defending his approach to re-building the Republican Party. It begins, he said, by accommodating those who might disagree with you.
“Both parties have to recognize, you can create a center-right majority in America, which we did with Reagan in ‘80 and we did it again with the ‘Contract with America’ in ‘94,” Gingrich said in an interview with CNN Radio. “You can’t have a purely right-wing majority; you can’t have a purely left-wing majority.”
The former speaker claimed that Democrats are doing their part to help the GOP by promoting a liberal ideology. “Today, the Democrats are moving toward a secular-socialist model that is guaranteed minority in America,” he said.
And he was cautiously optimistic about the 2010 midterm elections.
“Next year, I think we could win [governorships in] Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin, the Senate seat in Illinois. In Ohio, we could win both the governorship and the Senate seat,” Gingrich said. He also predicted losses for three prominent Democratic incumbents: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
Along with the New York special election, Republicans are also watching two key gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey. Gingrich predicated the GOP will win in Virginia “by a big margin,” but was less optimistic about the party’s chances in the Garden State.
“I think we have a good chance to win New Jersey, if people conclude that voting for the third-party candidate just re-elects [incumbent Gov. Jon] Corzine,” he said.
I have never been a fan of Newt Gingrich. I couldn’t have cared less about politics in ‘94 and, therefore, wasn’t impressed with the Class of ‘94 and I never seemed to get into the whole Gingrich thing after that. Once I saw him sitting on a couch with Pelosi lecturing us about global warming, whatever interest I had in the guy was gone. I see him as little better than John McCain. He’s just another Republican relying on the liberal media and the likes of Meghan McCain for direction on where to take the Republican Party. Too bad that direction is the wrong direction.
He invokes Ronald Reagan as if Reagan ever encouraged his party to become more liberal in order to attract voters. That’s not how it was. Reagan just actually explained conservatism in a way that translated across party lines. He didn’t moderate his views; he moderated their understanding of his views. Every time I hear a Republican use Reagan as evidence we need to moderate ourselves more to the left it makes me a little sick. John McCain is, possibly, the most liberal Republican the party every put forward and he lost. Everytime Republicans compromise on their platform in order to “broaden their appeal,” all they do is lose all of their appeal.
I don’t call myself a Republican because there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats, anymore. All politicians are just out to secure and retain power. They’re all looking to spend our money, it’s just on different things. Ultimately, it’s in order to secure our votes in the next election. Gingrich is just trying to rebuild his power base. Because of what he did 15 years ago, people still respect him and his opinion. Well, I don’t. I think his “big tent” approach to rebuilding the Republican Party is wrong. I think endorsing a lost-cause liberal like Dede Scozzafava is wrong. And, I think trying to scare people into voting for her by threatening a Democrat win if they vote third party is wrong.
Except for the party faithful, the rest of us don’t care if Republicans lose or Democrats lose. The majority of Americans identify as independent, because we know both parties are corrupt. Like I said before, it’s all about securing and retaining power. Gingrich has been working his way back in to regain power for years. And, now he’s making the colossal mistake of thinking that the way to do that is by endorsing liberal Republican candidates and alienating the grass roots. Well, good luck with that, buddy. Let me know how it works out. You think you can run in 2012 for the presidency? Well, you can run. And, you might even win the Republican nomination, but you won’t win the conservative vote, the liberal vote, or the independent vote and so you won’t win the election.
We don’t need to accommodate those who disagree with us. We need to amplify those disagreements and explain why our opponents are wrong. That is the quickest strategy for defeat that I think I have ever heard. You’re supposed to be smarter than that, Newt. You have taken a generally dislike of you and turned into complete disgust. In the words of Ice Cube, “You better check yo self before you wreck yo self!”
Comments (1)