Posts Tagged 'Republican'

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.

On Unemployment, Republicans are right and wrong

Get ready for the Sally Struthers commercials about to be produced by the DNC.  Republicans blocked an extension of unemployment benefits.

But what is being missed on a large scale is why Republicans blocked the extension.  Democrats have extended unemployment benefits four times and have not paid for any of the extensions.  In the most recent extension, they allowed people to find temporary work without losing benefits, all unpaid for.  With deficits over a trillion dollars, the Democrat argument has been that unemployment benefits create jobs.  I’m sure we can all come up with a time we were down on our luck and were hired by an unemployed person.  Right?

The Republican argument is simple.  Pay for the benefits, and they will vote to extend them.  In fact, since they are good Republicans, they don’t even want Democrats to cut other programs to pay for the benefits.  Simply take surpluses from Stimulus and TARP to pay for them.  Seems simple enough, but the Democrats appear to have local stimulus funded pork projects on their priority list above paying for unemployment benefits.  You won’t see that on their “Feed the Children of Detroit” tv special.

This one seems cut and dry.  But the Republicans are wrong too.  Saying you have a surplus in the stimulus program is like saying you have a surplus if you go shopping and don’t quite hit your credit limit.  The word “surplus” and “stimulus” (which was 100% in the red from day one) do not belong in the same sentence together.  Does it really matter which account we take the money from when every account is debt funded already?

Unemployment benefit extensions have become unregulated welfare.  No, unemployment benefits do not create jobs.  Businesses who are paid to create and produce goods and services that people want and need at prices they can afford create jobs.  But instead of throwing money at those job creators, we are raising taxes on them and telling them they can no longer conduct business.  A good example is Obama deciding we no longer need the energy independence that oil exploration and drilling would have provided.  That is thousands of jobs lost in his one decision.

Towards the beginning of Obama’s Presidency, he said that “There will be a time for profits, now is not that time”.  And that thinking is why Congress is looking for a fifth extension of unemployment benefits.

The True Waterloo: Abortion

Late Saturday night, House Democrats and one Republican passed HR 3962.  This more than 2,000 page bill included payoffs to many of the more conservative Democrats who were sitting on the fence, but still it only squeaked by.  Despite the bill’s passage, there was one major victory for conservatism in the bi-partisan Stupak-Pitts amendment that bans federal funding for abortion.  The amendment reflected a shift in social values in the US, highlighted by a Gallup poll earlier this year showing that the majority of Americans oppose abortion.  The amendment enjoyed the support of 69 Democrats.

Democrats may not have realized this, but the Stupak-Pitts amendment goes much further than HR 3962.  In fact, that one amendment is a knife in heart of the Democrat universal healthcare agenda.  Unwittingly, Democrats have helped make HR 3962 non-implementable.

Under HR 3962, health costs and health insurance premiums will go through the roof.  Democrats pay for universal healthcare by taxing healthcare universally.  They tax insurance companies, tax doctors, tax health product manufacturers, tax pharmaceuticals, and of course, tax you.  What do they do with all that tax money?  They give it back to us disproportionately so that we can all buy insurance.  Through this wealth redistribution, healthcare costs far more but the government subsidizes it.   Without the government subsidy, most Americans will not be able to afford these higher rates.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it so that not only can the government not offer abortion in it’s cheaper public option (which do not be mistaken, will put every other insurance company out of business), but government cannot subsidize abortion in other insurance plans.  At the much higher health costs under HR 3962, this will make abortion a luxury that only the rich will be able to afford.

Already Democrats are in full revolt against one another.  One side realizes that their radical attempts to use federal funds to pay for abortion will destroy their party’s power.  For some Democrats it is even a violation of conscience.  On the other hand, the more liberal wing of the party realizes that without catering to the radical factions in the party they will lose their base.

One thing is for sure, a final bill cannot have the Stupak-Pitts amendment in it.  When the government is paying for or subsidizing every approved health insurance plan, and the government is not allowed to pay for or subsidize abortion, then abortion has been effectively killed in the United States.  On the other hand, a Democrat style health takeover bill will not pass the Senate without an abortion amendment and barely passed the House with one.  Either the abortion amendment or the healthcare takeover has to go.


Two Paths: Yes, The Republicans Have A Bill

The Republican Party has put together an alternative to Pelosi/Obamacare, and it has been scored by the CBO.  You can get all the details here. As Democrats argue that Republicans are the “do nothing” party who is only out to oppose any and all reforms, I thought it might be nice to look at the Republican plan and dispel such a myth.

This bill that the Republicans put together doesn’t have a shot at passing.  The “do nothing” Democrats already have their bill.  They don’t have enough votes in their own party to pass it yet, but they are working overtime to put together enough bribe money from your tax dollars to get those votes.  If you are wondering what I mean by that, see any of my earlier posts about pork and earmarks.  See especially, Obama’s Stimulus plan.

However, even though it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell, here is a quick breakdown of what might have been, and what possibly could be after 2010:


Pelosi/Obamacare is set to run us about $1.3 trillion according to the CBO.  The Republican plan?  $61 billion.


Pelosi/Obamacare is 2,032 pages sofar.  The only reason anyone knows this is because someone looked at the page number on the last page, not because someone has actually read the bill all the way through and counted.  The Republican bill?  219 pages.

Lower Health Insurance Costs:

According to the CBO, not in the Democrat plan.  Through higher taxes on insurers and health providers, the Dem plan will actually increase the cost of insurance premiums.  Then the government will take your own money and give it back to you in the form of controlling subsidies to make you buy insurance.

On the other hand, the Republican bill, according to the CBO, should cut family premiums by up to $5,000 per family and small business premiums by up to 10%.

How about fiscal responsibility?:

Yeah, remember?  That thing everyone wants but no party can seem to achieve?  Pelosi and Obama keep talking about how their plan will cut the deficit.  But that is only because they took $210 billion out of the bill and made it a separate unfunded bill.  By the way, that is about three times the total cost of the Republican bill.  The Democrat bill also increases taxes on Americans, in a recession, by about $750 billion dollars.

According to the CBO, the Republican bill reduces the deficit by $68 billion, cuts government healthcare costs over the long term, and cuts costs immediately without raising taxes.

Will Obamacare make unemployment worse?:

Since 2007 when Democrats took over, unemployment has increased by 5.3% to the current rate of 10.2%.  Will Pelosi/Obamacare help?  Not according to the CBO.  According to the CBO, the Democrat health plan by itself will cause 5.5 million jobs to be lost over the next ten years.  They do this by forcing businesses to buy health insurance or face a new 8% tax based on payroll.  How do you, as a business owner who can’t afford a company policy, avoid this tax?  Simple, cut payrolls.

Republicans on the other hand have no employer mandate and instead allow businesses to pool resources and negotiate lower cost plans from health insurance companies.

Rationing and Death Panels:

Ok, so “death panels” is a drastic and perhaps overly dramatic term.  How about government mandated waiting lists if there are insufficient funds to pay for healthcare costs?  How about a Health Advisory Board to determine what treatments and benefits the government will cover?  How about a Comparison Effectiveness Research Commission that determines which treatments your doctor can use based on what the government thinks is effective and what the government is willing to pay for?  How about a Health Choices Commissioner who gets to decide which doctors and hospitals can participate in government or private plans?  That along with end of life counseling is certainly enough to make the case that the Democrat bill contains rationing.

States’ Rights:

Constitutionally speaking, the Democrat bill is a monster.  While still not allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, the Democrat plan forces states to pay an extra $34 billion, according to the CBO, in unfunded Medicaid costs.  Once again, the entire Republican bill is $61 billion.

Abortion Funding:

Last and most important, the Democrat bill mandates that I pay for abortion with my tax dollars.  The government-run public option will be mandated to cover elective abortions.  The Democrat plan requires that at least one insurance plan in every market cover abortions.  And people who enroll in the government-run plan will be paying for abortions directly through their premiums.

The Republican plan prohibits federal funding for elective abortion and does not mandate abortion coverage.

I don’t suppose it will take Democrats a whole year to finally pass their health insurance bill.  But if it does, maybe we can change the game in 2010 and give the Republican option a shot.

Outrage: Why the Left Deserves Condemnation from the Homosexual Community

The homosexual community used to argue that it should be no one’s business what people do in their own bedroom.  If HBO and the far left have their way, it will be everyone’s business.  They are out to destroy the careers of prominent politicians based solely on their rumored sexual orientation.

In the last couple days, the film Outrage, by Kirby Dick (yes, that’s his name),  hit the small screen on HBO.  Dick’s film is a “documentary” (not that that word actually means anything anymore) about all the public politicians who are hiding their homosexuality.  Whether offering solid evidence, rumors, or pure conspiracy theory, Dick targets any politician who might be trying to protect their privacy by not coming out of the closet.

Apparently, if you are gay you have no right to personal privacy.  Among those who Dick attempts to drag out of the closet is Florida’s Republican governor Charlie Crist, who is recently married.  Apparently if you fit one or two of the physical stereotypes, that also means you are gay and deserve to be dragged out of the closet.  Crist has reiterated that he is not gay, but that does not stop the bigots on the left.

The outrage is not that there are members of the government who are closet homosexuals or fit some bigot’s conspiracy theory, but won’t come out and fight for the radical left’s agenda.  The outrage is that the left is willing to abuse homosexuals and non-homosexuals to satisfy their political agenda.  How many gay politicians have had their careers ruined by these conspiracy theorists?  Larry Craig is either straight, or gay and very concerned for his own family and career.  Instead of respecting his rights to privacy, the left has dragged him into the public square and turned him into a mockery.  Was it for his own good or for the good of the homosexual community?  No.  It was for the good of the left who knew that Larry Craig’s scandal would help win them elections.

Crist is a strong Republican who is running for the Senate next fall.  Right now the Democrats don’t have a shot at defeating him.  All that could change if the left succeeds in getting voters to believe that he is a closet homosexual who is too scared to come out of the closet.  Every homosexual who is interested in protecting their own rights should ask themselves, does making these accusations help the homosexual community?  Or does it just help the Democrats win elections?  Does attacking a straight man and labeling him because of the way he talks or moves help homosexuals?  Or does it ruin the career of an individual based solely on the left masterfully playing on people’s prejudices?

Kirby Dick’s pretenses of trying to get Republicans to vote for homosexual marriage by ruining their lives and careers is nothing more than sickening deception.  The left deserves the strongest condemnation from both homosexuals and heterosexuals for these cheap political ploys.

With Republicans Like These, Who Needs Democrats?

Last year, Senator Isakson of Georgia sponsored a bill that gave us the $8,000 first time home buyer credit.  Isakson is a Republican.  It was a year when even the best conservatives turned into redistributive socialists.  They joined the leftist majority and borrowed from China in order to redistribute money to Wall Street and its benefactors.  They robbed from the rich and gave to the rich.  Now he wants to extend the bill, nearly double the credit, and open it up to investors as well.  Does he not realize that we are about to do the same thing to Democrats that we did to Republicans in 2006; kick the bums out for spending too much?

In 2008, home values were dropping like crazy.  That’s great news for people without a whole lot of money who need to buy a house.  That’s terrible news for people who build houses.  But the fact is, we had way too many houses on the market.  There was no demand for houses.  The bubble had burst and there was no way around it.  The housing market had become an inefficient use of resources.

In the real world, that is when the over abundance of housing contractors find a new job, as do excess realtors, until the number of houses on the market no longer exceeds the number of families looking to buy a house.  Yeah, it sucks.  Yes, it is also temporary and eventually results in a more efficient growing economy with expanded wealth and opportunity.  But in 2008, Bush, Paulson and the Democrat Congress invented a new term: too big to fail.

Instead, Congress decided to re-inflate the bubble.  Instead of allowing the market to drop the price of houses by $8,000 on its own, which would automatically create demand among the new homebuyer market, Congress decided to borrow money and give Americans $8,000 to buy a new home.  This kept prices inflated, created artificial demand, and kept the bubble inflated.  Until, that is, December 2009 when the program ends.  At that point, Congress must either allow the bubble to burst again, or they must borrow and tax even more so that they can continue to kick the economic can down the road.

We saw the exact same thing with Cash for Clunkers.  Ford even hired a bunch of new people and increased production.  What’s going to happen when the artificial Cash for Clunkers demand ends?  We will soon find out.

What is depressing our economy right now is the anticipation of the next dip.  This dip will be a result of the end of Cash for Clunkers and the first time home buyer credit, TARP repayment, government sales of bailout stock (Citigroup, GM), Cap and Trade that Obama has now admitted will cost every American family $1,700, and the socialization of the healthcare industry.

Is there hope?  Sure.  We can drill for our own oil, creating a whole new economic segment of growth and employing millions while increasing economic demand in other areas.  We can start to pay down debt instead of increasing it so that 10 years from now half our federal budget isn’t going to pay for interest to China.  We can enact free market healthcare reforms that create competition, create tort reform, and cover people in an efficient, constitutional way.  We can cancel plans to tax every American through Cap and Trade and $350 billion in new taxes for Obamacare.  But you won’t get any of this with the current crowd.  Our best shot for economic recovery is the 2010 election.

And then along comes Isakson and the McCain Republicans.  Perhaps, when they stand next to us and before us at the TEA party rallies they are too busy scoring easy political points to actually listen to what we are saying.

Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share