Posts Tagged 'democrats'

A Fluke? Or A Movement?

In case you have been living under a rock, Sandra Fluke is the college student attending Georgetown University who testified before Congress that her birth control costs $3,000 a year and the only way she can get birth control is if Congress allows the President to force religious institutions (like Georgetown) to pay for it, which they then did.  Rush Limbaugh got himself into some trouble when he used a two naughty words to describe someone who wants others to pay for her to have sex.  Judging by family friendly ABC’s new show GCB (originally titled Good Christian Bitches), if only Rush had called Fluke an SP, he would have been ok.

The left wants us to see Fluke like this:

She is a very young, very poor college student who perhaps has acne or cysts on her ovaries that only birth control can fix.  However, Republicans are voting to make Georgetown revoke her rights to buy birth control because every sperm is precious.  In the end, perhaps she wrote a letter to her senator and her senator actually read it, but somehow Fluke came in contact with Democrats in Washington DC who found her story so compelling that they tried to have her testify before Congress, but Republicans hate women and wanted only men testifying so they said no.

In actual fact, Sandra Fluke is a 30 year old law student who can afford $50,000 a year for law school, but can’t seem to find her way into Target or Wal Mart where birth control is $9 a month.  She wants to force her Catholic college and all Americans to pay so that she can have as much consequence-free sex as she can fit between classes.  She also is not random.  Fluke has been an activist promoting the idea of forcing others to pay for birth control and morning after abortion pills.  In fact, she was the president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.  It’s amazing to me that no one blinks at the fact that this seemingly random student somehow ended up as the star witness for the Democrats, even though Pelosi’s office can’t seem to confirm or deny if the two had ever talked previously.  In fact, Democrats pulled their official witness in order to put Fluke in front of the cameras with her false sob story.  The last minute switcheroo violated policy which is the real reason she wasn’t allowed to testify by those mean old women-hating Republicans.

By the way, which is more offensive?  Rush using naughty words to describe her?  Or Obama giving Christian hospitals, colleges, orphanages, churches and other religious institutions the choice of either providing contraception AND morning after abortion pills or shutting their doors?  Even more offensive is Obama’s hardline on religious institutions while he simultaneously cuts military health benefits.

This brings us to the scary question.  What was Fluke doing at a Jesuit-run Catholic university in the first place?  Doesn’t she know the Catholic church’s teachings on contraception?  Actually, she does and that is why she went there.  Fluke reviewed the Georgetown student insurance policies and enrolled in order to change them.  As a liberal activist, she infiltrated Georgetown in order to use the hand of government to overturn their first amendment rights and force her personal, secular ideologies on them.

This line of attack should scare any religious institution.  It’s one thing when liberals are attacking religion from the outside, like ABC’s new anti-Christian show.  I wouldn’t infringe on people’s freedom of speech and I can control my own remote (imagine that).  But this idea that liberal activists are going to be infiltrating religious institutions in order to impose their secular beliefs on the rest of us should be far more alarming than any naughty words used by an entertainer. Should Christian schools start screening students to make sure they are not liberal plants?

I went to a Christian college for two years.  They taught creation.  They would never pay for morning after pill abortions and actually had rules against pre-marriage intercourse.  They had rules against drugs, homosexuality, drinking, and even foul language.  But it was ok.  We knew that when we went there.  I made a personal choice to go there and live under those rules for two years.  That is something people can do in a free society.  This freedom is the core target of the Fluke-style infiltration assault on Christianity.

This is pretty serious stuff.  The Left has a lot to answer for.  Was Fluke a plant?  If so, it is Fluke and Pelosi who should be apologizing to the country for this blatant fraud and attempt to steal our first amendment rights.


Don’t Blink

This Saturday morning, July 23rd, the Senate was originally scheduled to vote on Cut, Cap and Balance, the Republican plan to cut $111 billion out of this year’s deficit, trim $4 trillion over ten years, and present a balanced budget amendment to the states.  Instead, Harry Reid moved the vote up to Friday morning, calling it a waste of time and the worst piece of legislation to ever come to the Senate floor.  It failed to pass on strict partisan lines.

Senator Schumer called the bill “Cut, Cap and Kill” because he insisted that the bill would kill Medicare.  Debbie Wasserman-Schultz declared in the House of Representatives that the bill would kill seniors and that it was the Paul Ryan plan on steroids.   The only problem is that in three different places Cut, Cap and Balance specifically exempted Medicare and Social Security from cuts and caps.  Had Republicans known, some of them might have been a little bit more up in arms about the bill.  It was actually a very good compromise.  It cut and cap wasteful spending on liberal social programs and government bureaucracy, not hot buttons like military, Social Security and Medicare.

Perhaps that is a more reasonable explanation of why Harry Reid went back on his promise to allow debate on Cut, Cap and Balance and instead moved the vote up.  Perhaps someone in the Senate actually read the bill and told Reid what was in it.  And then, as if scripted, suddenly news outlets started declaring a deal between Boehner and Obama that was so close Reid needed to get this bill off the floor and stop “wasting time” on it.  The only problem is there was no such deal.  Somebody was lying to provide the sense of urgency needed to cut off debate on Cut, Cap and Balance before it got out that Democrats were lying about it killing Medicare.

This has become the name of the game in budget talks.  Neither side is willing to give in because both sides know that 2012 elections hang in the balance.  The difference is that Republicans have actually gone so far as to write a good compromise bill.  Democrats can’t vote yes on it, not because it “kills Medicare” or kills seniors.  They can’t vote on it because passing Cut, Cap and Balance would destroy Democrat re-election hopes for 2012.  It would be a huge Republican victory because Republicans came up with it.

On the other hand, Democrats can’t write a plan of their own.  They haven’t submitted a budget in over 800 days, and they can’t submit one now or that will also destroy their chances of getting re-elected in 2012.  Democrats can’t write a bill that says “We want to raise taxes so that we don’t have to cut spending as much” and still win in 2012 because the vast majority of the country doesn’t want Democrats to raise taxes so that they can spend more.  They are spending enough already, and we are taxed enough already.  On the other hand, Democrats can’t write a plan saying “Ok, no higher taxes, just cuts” or they will lose their class warfare base.  The liberal base of the Democrat party does not want a bill that doesn’t raise taxes on the “rich”.  It’s not about raising revenue, it’s about punishing upper classes more.

Republicans submitted a plan and it was a good plan.  Obama has signaled that he is willing to let the country default on its debt rather than compromise with Republicans.  Democrats have proven that they are the party of no on a budget deal.  If Republicans end up caving in order to save our credit rating, I hope Americans get the right message.  It doesn’t mean Republicans are wimps and we need to get rid of them.  It means they can only do so much with just a majority in the House.  We need to give them the Senate and the Presidency in 2012 if we expect anything to get accomplished.

Unemployment: The New Welfare

The media has proven it still wields incredible power.  Senator Bunning has become the newest villain in the world of politics.  While Rangel is taking corporate paid trips to the Bahamas, Pelosi is standing up for him, and Obama is ramming his partisan healthcare takeover through congress, the media is looking for a distraction.  On the other hand, Senator Bunning has been attacked in every way possible by the media simply for expecting Democrats to play by their own rules. wrote an article about how Bunning has always been abrasive and difficult to deal with.  The Networks attacked Bunning for single-handedly laying off thousands of federal workers and “denying benefits” to America’s unemployed.  ABC even tried to track him down to ask him why he is trying to hurt America’s most desperate.

So what is Bunning actually doing to make him slightly more evil than Satan?  Bunning has blocked an unfunded bill in the Senate that would add $10 billion to the deficit to extend unemployment and funnel more money to road construction.  No, this isn’t part of the trillion dollar deficit stimulus.  This is more road spending above and beyond that.

As far as unemployment benefits, typically they are supposed to last for six months.  Already they have been extended to nine months.  This current, unfunded bill would make unemployment payments last up to a year.  At what point do we stop calling it unemployment and start calling it welfare?

But Bunning’s objection is not to increasing road spending even beyond the trillion dollar debt stimulus.  His objection is not to lengthening unemployment benefits.  Republicans understand that under the current economic policies unemployment is not going to get better any time soon.    Bunning’s objection to the Democrat $10 billion debt bill is that it violates the law that Democrats passed called Pay-go.

According to the rules that Democrats passed, Congress has to either cut spending or raise taxes in order to pay for new spending.  It’s kind of like the rest of America.  We all have to budget.  If we want to buy that new TV, we have to stop eating out every night.   But as I have always said with Democrat pay-go rules, they will either waive the rules or use them to increase taxes.  Democrat pay-go rules have nothing to do with cutting the deficit or reigning in spending.  They have everything to do with political hypocrisy.  Bunning has stopped this bill to highlight this as Democrats seek to waive pay-go rules once more to pass more debt spending.  Will it work?

As of writing this, Bunning has already caved and a vote will go forward on this bill.  Instead of taking a stand with Bunning and highlighting the Democrat hypocrisy, Republicans chose to distance themselves from him and validate the media attacks.  Apparently many Republicans would still rather spend our grandkids’ money than take a political blackeye from the media.  After all this time, they are still almost as out of touch with America as the Left.

Even In Nevada, Sometimes The House Deals You All Aces

Harry Reid is probably pretty proud of himself tonight.  And if Republicans behave as usual, he has good reason to be.  After working and dealing with Republicans to come up with a bi-partisan jobs bill filled with tax cuts and unrelated pork programs, Reid has thrown the bill in the trash and drafted a new copy with just the tax cuts and infrastructure spending.  The cost of his new bill is less then half of the old one.  As AP put it, he has all but dared the Republicans to vote against the new bill.

This isn’t a bad move for Reid.  If Republicans vote for it, he is already in a position to call the bill a victory for himself and the Obama administration.  He can put “Taming the Republicans in a Tea Party Era” on his resume.  If the Republicans vote against it, Reid can claim he offered them a bill with tax cuts, no pork and infrastructure spending, but Republicans were so partisan that they wouldn’t go for it.  Nevermind that Reid was the one who scrapped the bi-partisan deal they had already arrived at.

Here is why the Republicans should play the hand he dealt them.  The first inclination is going to be to attack Reid for throwing away their bi-partisan agreement.  But what Reid stripped out of the bill was unrelated items and pork spending that we can’t afford anyway.  He also stripped out popular Bush tax cuts and the Patriot Act which Republicans need to highlight separately instead of allowing Dems to sneak them in to other bills.  What Reid has given them is not a perfect bill, but it is far better than whatever the socialist Democrat’s plan B might be.  In other words, if Republicans reject this, the next bill will be more like the failed Stimulus bill.  Many Republicans were calling for a payroll tax holiday over the Stimulus bill originally.

My advice to Republicans is to highlight that Democrats are now seeking tax cuts to stimulate the economy, an idea typically owned by the Right.  Then they need to take the bill back to Harry Reid with a list of Stimulus pork that they can cut to pay for it.  After all, aren’t we in the era of Paygo?  If the Republicans play their hand right, we can see who is really bluffing.  I’ll tell you right now, Pelosi and her House have already folded on Reid’s game.

Late to the Game

Since the healthcare debate began, Democrats have been praying for strong opposition from the big insurance companies.  They even imagined that all the TEA Party protesters were being paid under the table by the insurance lobby.  When a million TEA Partiers showed up in DC, someone must have done the math and realized some of them were actually there of their own free will.

When making your doctor the enemy didn’t work, Democrats knew they had to come up with someone they could get you mad about in order to get you to support their reform.  If only the insurance companies would make a stand.  Bush was gone, and Republicans don’t have the votes to stop them.  That is why it was so ridiculous when Rep. Alan Grayson stood up and told us all that the Republican healthcare plan was “don’t get sick.  And if you do get sick, die quickly”.  Grayson defended his comments by accusing Republicans of creating a holocaust where people get sick and die because Obama can’t heal them.  Considering Democrats are the ones holding up the health reform bill, it really would have been quite hilarious if it wasn’t so offensive.

Finally, the night before the Senate Finance Committee vote, the Insurance industry decided to get in the game.  A new report commissioned by the insurance industry is showing that under Obama’s plan, your insurance rates could skyrocket.  And according to the CBO, 25 million people would still be left without insurance.  But this is nothing new.  I’ve been saying this for a long time now.  The Baucus bill is designed to increase insurance rates through higher taxes on healthcare providers and insurance companies.  The only reason the insurance companies haven’t spoken out until now is because until now Democrats supported severe fines and possible imprisonment for not buying insurance.

Until now, the Baucus plan has been a gift for insurance companies.  Everyone is forced to buy your product, high risk clients can be pushed off onto a taxpayer paid public option or co-op, and you share the tax burden to pay for it all with medical providers, patients, the wealthy, and people of all classes who don’t buy your product.  You can raise your rates as high as you want because people have to buy it.  You don’t have competition because there is too much regulation for new start up companies to get a foothold and people who can afford it aren’t going to settle for low quality government brand insurance.

At the beginning of this month Olympia Snowe and Chuck Schumer pled with the Senate Finance Committee to not force poor families to pay fines for not buying insurance.  The result is that as the bill stands the penalties have dropped from $1,900 to $200 starting in 2017 going up to $800 by 2019.  This means that when insurance rates double from the higher taxes and higher regulation it is going to be much easier for people to simply pay the fine than to shell out the cash for whatever the Obamacare healthcare credits don’t cover.  In addition, 2 million more people will be exempt from the mandate to buy insurance.

Without these penalties, the insurance lobbyists finally have an actual reason to oppose this bill.

If not for Ted, do it for the Lord

I posted not too long ago about different talking points being used to promote Democrat-style universal healthcare.  There is another one to be aware of.

When the debate first started, Democrats said that healthcare is a right, therefore it should be free.  Of course, a quick study of the Constitution reveals that not only is free healthcare not a right, but the federal government is not even allowed to implement universal healthcare.  Sure, every American has the right to work and earn the means necessary to buy healthcare, just like we all have the right to pursue happiness.  Nowhere does the Constitution say we have the federally-guaranteed right to achieve happiness.  We do that on our own.

We now have the newest talking point.  From the same party that made up the story about Bush saying God told him to invade Iraq, and then complained about Bush saying that for the next five years, we now have learned that we have a moral obligation to implement universal healthcare.  What would Jesus do?  He would make sure that we all have healthcare, apparently including free abortion coverage.  After all, Jesus wouldn’t force that poor mother to carry that baby.

CBS News has counted and already Obama has invoked God more than Bush did.  David Harsanyi wrote about the Democrats’ attempt at a moral majority, citing Obama’s invocation of the Ten Commandments:  “I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness”

And all Obama’s people said?  Amen.

If you attended the Kennedy funeral, apparently you have now become party to their mission from God.  Talk about politicizing someone’s death.

Invoking God is certainly not a new thing.  Our founding fathers did it all the time.  Both sides on the civil war made lengthy speeches about why they were the people doing God’s will.  Obama might truly believe that God wants taxpayer funded abortions, a drop in medical quality for everyone, end of life counseling, rationing, and more government intrusion into our lives.  But one would think that Obama would seek to avoid the apparent hypocrisy of telling us what God’s will is for our government so soon after the much-hated Bush left office.

Remember what Democrats said about Bush?  “those of us who say God has no place in the Oval Office had better ring the alarm, as loud and long as we can. If he (Bush) truly believes that he hears the voice of God, there is no telling what God might say tomorrow. This is a man who can launch the world’s biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction-biological, chemical, and nuclear-at any moment.If Obama hears the voice of God when it comes to universal healthcare, would it be inconsistent to fear imminent nuclear, biological, or chemical warfare from this President like Democrats did from the last President?

Obviously Republicans wouldn’t take it that far, and Democrats wouldn’t when it’s one of their own.

If you are going to invoke God and tell us that universal healthcare is a moral obligation, then you must be consistent.  Here’s my question: if the federal government of the United States must sacrifice the Constitution in order to destroy the quality of our healthcare system and redistribute wealth until every man, woman and child can afford healthcare because it is a religious moral obligation from Yahweh, then shouldn’t we also make sure that abortion, homosexuality, talking back to your parents, eating shellfish, and mixing garments are prohibited under US law?

“But wait,” you say. “Aren’t those mostly Old Testament laws?”  Yes. So is government-instituted charity.  I’m certainly not saying that God doesn’t want us to give to the poor or help each other out, but God certainly doesn’t instruct the government to do it for us.  In fact, every time Jesus talks about selling all and giving to the poor, He is speaking to individuals.  He never tells the government to take from those who have and give to those who don’t.

So don’t tell me that our government has a moral obligation to destroy the best healthcare system in the world and fund abortion with my taxes.  If you want to win the argument and convince me that our federal government has an obligation to take my money and buy my health insurance for me, you had better show me where it says that in the Constitution.

TEA Party April 15th, 2009

Originally posted April 15, 2009

Today, as you all know, is April 15th. Many of you dread this day because it is crunch time to wrap up your returns and wait in line at the post office in hopes that you can be processed before they close, ironically despite the fact that your taxes pay for the post office.

For me, April 15th is heaven. After three and a half months working from sun up to sun down and on the weekends, filing hundreds of corporate returns and personal returns, and putting my life on hold, April 15th is the end of tax season. In fact, we usually don’t do many new returns on the 15th and already have our extensions filed. So today, I decided to play hooky, pick up my wife, and attend the TEA Party at the Jacksonville Landing.

I decided before going that I wasn’t going to mention to anyone what I do for a living, in case anyone asked. Mobs have been known to do very bad things to even the most innocent among them when riled up enough. But this crowd was what you would expect from a Conservative and Libertarian crowd. The most oddly dressed were wearing 1776 uniforms, not pink drag. They boo-ed our tax and spend congress and cheered mention of our founding fathers and our constitution. And when one of the speakers enjoyed her freedom of religion and closed her speech in prayer to Christ, it felt as though we had regained something that had been long lost in years of political correctness and timidity. No one unplugged the microphone.

The crowd of about 2,000 was loving it. Signs ranged from anti-tax, anti-socialism, and anti-Obama to pro-constitution and pro-individual freedom. There was no specific theme. had a table set up as did Children wore shirts saying “I’m too young to be in debt”, and in fact one of the children had a chance to give a speech where he let us know that by the time he is our age his portion of the national debt will be $50,000.

The president of a local bank that refused TARP funds gave the first speech. I was actually shocked. I have been to political rallies before. At the McCain rally I was glad we had a candidate running against Obama, but I wished it was someone else. Even at the Romney rally, I was loving what he said but he sounded like a politician. These people weren’t politicians. The president of this local bank spoke out against the excesses of our government and their errant plans without fear or temperance. It was very refreshing. I don’t think he was worried about offending anyone.

The next speech was from a local radio host who has a show on money and personal finances. He spoke about cap and trade and pulled no punches. When he called Global Warming a hoax, the crowd went wild.

These TEA parties represent what was once mainstream and has now become a sub-culture. Many of the people there were Conservative Constitutionalists like myself. One sign read “Right wing extremists uphold the Constitution”. Another sign read, regarding unconstitutional spending, “Bush started it, Obama continues it, we can stop it”. There were home-school kids, soccer moms, bikers for Jesus, businessmen, black, white, Asian and Hispanic. One woman in the crowd behind me asked if Representative Corrine Brown was here to answer to us, but I am not sure if the Landing actually made it into Brown’s district.

CNN.Com was quick to point out that many Liberals don’t think these protests will amount to anything, an unidentified protester in a February TEA party said something about waterboarding Obama, and a month ago 62% of Americans approved of Obama’s tax policy according to a CNN poll. That isn’t what I saw today. What I saw today was Americans like me who believed that we are taxed too much, that taxes are too complex, that our government spends way too much, that taxes on employers are too high, that cap and trade will destroy our economy, that bailouts were a mistake, and that economic growth and prosperity are the responsibility of individual Americans, not the government.

I really enjoyed the whole thing. It’s nice to find out that I am not alone. I just wish that all of us had an option. It’s time we had a candidate who wouldn’t be afraid to not only show up at one of these rallies, but to give a speech as boldly as the business owner whose negative publicity affects his livelihood, the radio host who wasn’t afraid to call Global Warming a hoax, and the student who prayed to her God knowing that she has her public high school to return to tomorrow. Until then I guess we will continue our partisan game-playing while our politicians try to sell us on their dreams of re-election.

Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share