Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Pathetic and Partisan

Isn’t it amazing how General Petraeus was vilified under George Bush but now he is the best choice to replace McChrystal.

Why do you suppose the change of heart? Obama was clueless in his partisan speech in 2007 and remains the same today. YouTube - Barack Obama Questions Petraeus in September 2007
The replacement of McChrystal was necessary as he broke some cardinal military rules and standards that show poor judgment. But the replacement with Petraeus (excellent choice) just shows how partisan the democrats really were under George Bush.

The Democrats had no desire to win the war in Iraq if it meant giving credit to the Bush administration or acknowledging the validity of the war.

Obama is a pathetic president and a pathetic administration.

In this recent editorial, Fouad Ajami: Petraeus, Obama and the War in Afghanistan -, one of the last statements is; “Nor can his mission end in success if our country isn't in this fight for real.”

Obama and the democrats have never been in the fight “for real” and we will lose more soldiers because of Obama.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Todd Young's Speech

The following is the speech that Todd Young gave last night

The Young Event

The Todd Young event last night at Covered Bridge was a great event. The turnout was very good with an estimated attendance of around 150. The comments were all very positive.

Everyone in attendance are very enthusiastic about ridding our district of the Baron Hill philosophy and his support of the Democrat’s failing policies and agenda.

The difficulty in every election cycle is keeping up the momentum through November. I’m hopeful that we can accomplish this task.

New polling numbers from a nationally recognized polling firm, Public Opinion Strategies, show that Young is leading Baron Hill by 5 points, 41%-36%, among those voters who are most likely to vote!

Please continue to support Young with your time, your voice, and your money.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Todd Young Event Tonight

Come join us at Covered Bridge tonight to meet Todd Young. It is time to "get off the bench" and participate in what could be the most important election in our lifetime.

We can no longer allow this liberal congress to bankrupt our country. It is time to take back the congress.

Friday, June 25, 2010

November Spelling Test

Spelling lesson in preparation for November

* The last four letters in "American" = I Can

* The last four letters in "Republican" = I Can

* The last four letters in "Democrats" = Rats

End of Lesson.

The official test is in November and November will be set aside as rodent extermination month!

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Obama's World

Here is a reprint of a blog posting by Alan Caruba from his blog Warning Signs:

Warning Signs: Obama's Make-Believe Life

I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he’s led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.

In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? “Dreams of My Father” was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The “Audacity of Hope” followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a “communist with a small ‘c’” was the real author.

His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley’s formidable political machine at his disposal.

He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?

He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed “cool” in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.

And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska. It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984’s Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.

The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

Now, nearly a full year into his first term, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.

Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to “wish away” some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain.

The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign “world tour” were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.

Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party’s hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.

Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an “obstreperous” Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against “jumping to conclusions” about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted “Allahu Akbar.” The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber “an isolated extremist” only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.

He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America. He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.

The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.

Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual’s life.

When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man has spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden.

We laugh at the ventriloquist’s dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States of America?

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

The Financial Ponzi Scheme

This report certainly questions whether our financial picture in the USA is anywhere near as good as they would like us to believe.

The creative financing that has been repeatedly used by our chosen leaders has many unanswered questions.

This report can be found here:

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Obama's refusal to call terrorist what they are

Well; Joe Lieberman doesn't always see things clearly but he certainly sees this one for what it is.

The underlying question is why Obama refuses to name the terrorist. What is his underlying motive and where is his underlying loyalty

Joseph I. Lieberman: Who's the Enemy in the War on Terror? -

Who's the Enemy in the War on Terror?

The U.S. is at war with violent Islamist extremism, and the Obama administration does moderate Muslims no favor by refusing to recognize this.


In the new National Security Strategy released by the White House last month, the Obama administration rightly reaffirms that America remains a nation at war. Unfortunately, it refuses to identify our enemy in this war as what it is: violent Islamist extremism.

This is more than semantics. As military strategists since Sun Tzu have appreciated, the first rule in war is to know your enemy so you can defeat it. The 2006 National Security Strategy did this: It correctly identified our enemy as "the transnational terrorists [who] exploit the proud religion of Islam to serve a violent political vision." The Obama administration removed those accurate and important words.

One argument administration officials use to defend their avoidance of terms like "violent Islamist extremism" is that they are imprecise and lump together a diverse set of organizations with different goals, motivations, and capabilities. Yet the administration's preferred alternative term—"violent extremism"—is much more vulnerable to such criticism.

To state the obvious, there are many forms of "violent extremism" with which America is not "at war." The strategies and capabilities needed to counter the specific threat of violent Islamist extremism are very different from those needed to deal with white supremacist extremists in the U.S. or genocidal militias in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet at no point does the 2010 National Security Strategy explain or defend its repeated use of the nebulous euphemism "violent extremism," which also has appeared in other strategy documents over the last year.

The administration has also stated at times—including in its new National Security Strategy— that our enemy in this war can be identified as "al Qaeda," "al Qaeda and its affiliates," or as "al Qaeda-inspired terrorists." While that's a better characterization, it still suffers from a number of serious shortcomings.

First, it is not fully accurate. Defining the enemy by reference to al Qaeda implies that this war is primarily about destroying an organization, rather than defeating a broader political ideology. This war will not end when al Qaeda has been vanquished—though that, of course, is a critical goal—but only when the ideology of violent Islamist extremism that inspires and predates it is decisively rejected. That ideology motivates many other groups and individuals.

For example, the ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism, Daniel Benjamin, recently warned about the growing danger to the U.S. posed by the Pakistan-based Islamist extremist group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was responsible for the devastating 2008 attack in Mumbai, India. As Amb. Benjamin put it, "Al Qaeda is not the only group with global ambitions that we have to worry about."

Finally, characterizing this war as being against a specific organization risks distracting our government from important policy questions about how to combat the ideological dimensions of the war that is taking place within Islam. It also may send a message to moderate Muslims that they can and should remain on the sidelines of this fight, while governments use conventional means to defeat al Qaeda.

Some in the Obama administration have suggested that—even if all of these objections were true—calling our enemy "violent Islamist extremists" is not wise because doing so bolsters our enemy's propaganda claim that the West is at war with Islam. The logic of this argument is completely unsound. Muslims in fact understand better than anyone else the enormous difference between their faith and the terrorist political ideology that has exploited it.

There is no question that violent Islamist extremists seek to provoke a "clash of civilizations," and that we must discredit this hateful lie. We must encourage and empower the non-violent Muslim majority to raise their voices to condemn the Islamist extremist ideology as a desecration of Islam, responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent Muslims and people of other faiths. How can we expect those Muslims to have the courage to stand and do that if we are unwilling to define and describe the enemy as dramatically different from them?

We must recognize the nature of the fight we are in, not paper it over. The United States is definitely not at war with Islam. But a group of self-identified, extremist Muslims has definitely declared war on us, a war which they explicitly justify by reference to their religion. Muslims across the world see the ideological nature of this struggle. I believe it is disrespectful to suggest they cannot understand these distinctions and act on them.

As a former Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, warned a half-century ago: "No people in history have ever survived who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies."

This remains the case today.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Reason for Fathers

On the back of Father's Day, here was a very nice post on the importance of Dad's in the home as well as the reason for marriage

Fathers Who Are Husbands Spare Children from Poverty

A wedding ring on Dad's finger is more than a symbol of his commitment to Mom. It also proves to be the ultimate anti-poverty weapon for their children. Now that's something to celebrate and encourage this Father's Day. It's fitting on Sunday to honor all the fathers who strive to keep that commitment, even when they grow weary.

"The principal cause of child poverty in the U.S. is the absence of married fathers in the home," Robert Rector, senior research fellow in domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, writes in a new paper. "Marriage is a powerful weapon in fighting poverty. Being married has the same effect in reducing poverty as adding five to six years to a parent’s education level.

"In the paper, accompanied by 12 new charts on marriage and poverty, Rector illustrates the severe social costs of record-high births outside marriage – and of homes without fathers.

The escalating rate of births to unmarried women – four of every 10 babies overall, but more than half the Hispanic births and a staggering seven of every 10 births for blacks – is driving the collapse of marriage in America, especially in lower-income neighborhoods.

As Rector writes:
Marriage matters. But mentioning the bond between marriage and lower poverty violates the protocols of political correctness. Thus, the main cause of child poverty remains hidden from public view. Since the decline of marriage is the principal cause of child poverty and welfare dependence in the U.S. …it would seem reasonable for government to take steps to strengthen marriage.

About two of every three poor children live in single-parent households. Yet if poor single moms married the fathers of their children, nearly two out of three would be lifted out of poverty.

And contrary to the mainstream media line, teen pregnancy is a small part of the picture: In 2008, the most recent year for which data is available, babies born to girls under 18 accounted for 130,000, or 7.5 percent, of the total 1.72 million out-of-wedlock births.

It's not as simple as young men "manning up" and becoming the lawfully wedded husbands of their girlfriends, live-in or otherwise. These unmarried mothers tend to be in their 20s, without much income or education. They come to depend on public assistance; many learn how to work the welfare system.

Research shows that a child raised in a home where Dad is married to Mom is much less likely to live in poverty, get arrested as a juvenile, be suspended or expelled from school, be treated for emotional or behavioral problems, or drop out before completing high school. Taxpayers foot the bill for more than $300 billion a year in means-tested government spending on low-income single moms – and, in relatively rare cases, single dads.

One budding national leader, himself a young husband and father, nailed the poverty portion of the tragedy of absent fathers when he cited similar statistics five years ago and wrote:In light of these facts, policies that strengthen marriage for those who choose it and that discourage unintended births outside of marriage are sensible goals to pursue.

Those words come from husband, father and then-Senator Barack Obama's 2006 best-seller "The Audacity of Hope." He was correct then, and he should implement marriage-strengthening policies today.

To reinvigorate marriage in lower-income neighborhoods, Rector suggests, government could start by providing facts on the role of healthy marriages in reducing poverty and improving the well-being of children. Why not teach skills for selecting a wife or husband?

Why not explain the importance of developing a stable marital relationship before bringing children into the world?

Nothing could be further from government practice. In social service agencies, welfare offices, schools and popular culture across America, what Rector calls "a deafening silence" reigns on the topic of marriage. The welfare system actively penalizes low-income couples who do get married. He adds:For most on the Left, marriage is, at best, an antiquated institution, a red-state superstition. From this viewpoint, the real task is to expand government subsidies as a post-marriage society is built.

Rather than adopt policies to reverse the 50-year spike in births outside marriage, though, President Obama in his 2011 budget "would eliminate the one program dedicated to encouraging healthy marriage," notes Jennifer A. Marshall, Heritage’s director of domestic policy studies.

Marshall writes: In its place would be a program promoting a notion of 'fatherhood' that doesn't involve the father being married or in the home. The facts speak for themselves. It's time more policymakers noticed what the facts are saying.

Something to think about, Mr. President. Happy Father's Day.

Friday, June 18, 2010

The Cracked Pot

An elderly Chinese woman had two large pots, each hung on the ends of a pole which she carried across her neck.

One of the pots had a crack in it while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water.

At the end of the long walks from the stream to the house, the cracked pot arrived only half full.

For a full two years this went on daily, with the woman bringing home only one and a half pots of water.

Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its accomplishments.

But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own imperfection, and miserable that it could only do half of what it had been made to do.

After two years of what it perceived to be bitter failure, it spoke to the woman one day by the stream.

'I am ashamed of myself, because this crack in my side causes water to leak out all the way back to your house.'

The old woman smiled, 'Did you notice that there are flowers on your side of the path, but not on the other pot's side?'

'That's because I have always known about your flaw, so I planted flower seeds on your side of the path, and every day while we walk back, you water them.'

For two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate the table.

Without you being just the way you are, there would not be this beauty to grace the house.'

Each of us has our own unique flaw. But it's the cracks and flaws we each have that make our lives together so very interesting and rewarding.

You've just got to take each person for what they are and look for the good in them.

So, to all of my cracked pot friends, have a great day and remember to smell the flowers on your side of the path!

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Irrational Spending

And finally, the "Morning Bell's" take on spending

The Obama Spending Nightmare Continues

This morning White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and budget director Peter Orszag will release a memo directing all federal agency heads "to develop plans" to cut at least 5 percent from their budgets by "identifying programs that do little to advance their missions or President Obama's agenda." This spasm of fiscal responsibility can mean only one thing: the Obama administration is about to go on another wild spending binge. And sure enough Politico reports that while Blue Dogs in the House managed to whittle what was a $200 billion "jobs" bill down to $146 billion last month, the Senate is now larding it back up again with a $24 billion Medicaid bailout and a $23 billion teachers union bailout.

This spend-now/cut-later act has become a staple for the Obama administration. In February 2009, after signing the largest single-year increase in domestic federal spending since World War II, President Obama held a "fiscal responsibility" summit designed to "send a signal that we are serious" about putting the nation on sounder financial footing. Then in June 2009, the day after promising faster deficit spending to stimulate the economy, Obama called on Congress to pass "pay-as-you-go" legislation (PAYGO), a rule Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has violated by a mere $1 trillion since she took power in 2006. And then after President Obama signed his trillion-dollar health spending plan, he convened his toothless National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

The American people have caught on to Obama's fiscal responsibility farce. According to Gallup, federal government debt is now tied with terrorism as the most worrisome issue to Americans. In particular, independents identify federal government debt as their top concern, a full six points ahead of terror. And the latest Pew poll shows that for the first time ever, more Americans now believe that the president's economic policies have made economic conditions worse than made them better. And Bloomberg reported this week that President Obama's policies are poised to increase the U.S. debt to a level that exceeds the value of the nation’s annual economic output, a step toward what some called a "debt super cycle."

While the recession is chiefly responsible for collapsing federal revenues, it is runaway government spending that is the main driver of our nation's long-term fiscal crisis. And not all of that spending can be pinned on President Obama. Since 2000 spending on anti-poverty programs surged by 89%, spending on K-12 education exploded 219%, and Medicare spending grew 81% (largely driven by President George Bush's Medicare drug bill). But considering his short tenure in office, President Obama has contributed more than his fair share. Heritage fellow Brian Riedl details:

Washington will spend $30,543 per household in 2010—$5,000 per household more than just two years ago. While some of this spending is a temporary result of the recession, President Obama’s latest budget would replace this temporary spending with permanent new programs. Consequently, by 2020—a time of assumed peace and prosperity—Washington would still spend nearly $36,000 per household, compared to $25,000 per household before this recession (adjusted for inflation).

There is a way out of this deficit nightmare: stop spending. If the federal government managed to return to the per-household spending level of the Reagan administration, the budget would be balanced by 2012 without any tax hikes. Too ambitious? Just returning to the per-household spending levels that existed before the current recession would balance the budget by 2019. There is a way to stop this spending nightmare. We just need the will.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Stimulus Failure

More from the "Morning Bell"

Why Obama's Stimulus Failed

Last Friday's Department of Labor jobs report, which showed private sector job creation fell by 190,000 between April and May of this year, jolted markets worldwide including the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which fell 3.2% Friday to its lowest level since early February. In total the U.S. economy has now lost a net of 2.2 million jobs since President Barack Obama signed his stimulus bill, and his administration is now 7.2 million jobs short of what he promised his $862 billion stimulus would help create by 2010. This morning on MSNBC, former Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL) pressed prominent Keynesian economist and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University Jeffrey Sachs on whether it was too early to declare President Obama's stimulus a failure. Scarborough had to ask the question twice, but Sachs finally relented: "Obama’s stimulus failed."

For objective observers the failure of President Obama's $862 billion stimulus has become increasingly difficult to deny. But not for the White House. Last week, Vice President Joe Biden told Charlie Rose on PBS that the stimulus was "an absolute success." Betraying a common perception about unemployment, Biden told Rose: "[W]e lost 8 million brand new jobs ... since ... 8 million brand new jobs since we hit the skids. On top of the 6% that were already unemployed. It took us several years to get there, it is going to take several years to get back to that number." That is not quite true. In fact, the American economy has shed 55.4 million jobs since the recession began in the First Quarter of 2008. But at the same time the economy has only added 46.5 million jobs. Putting the two together produces the net approximate 8 million jobs lost that Biden referenced.

But isn't net jobs all that really matters? Why should anyone care exactly how many jobs were lost and created since all that really matters is the net number of Americans who are no longer employed? Here's why: despite an unemployment high of just 6.4%, more jobs were lost in the first seven quarters of the 2001 recession than were lost in the first seven quarters of this recession. How is that possible? How could job losses have been worse in 2001 but unemployment so much higher now? Weak job creation. The latest Bureau of Labor and Statistics data show that employers have created 8.6 million fewer new jobs this time around than they did almost a decade ago. Heritage Senior Labor Policy Analyst James Sherk estimates that lower job creation accounts for 65 percent of the recession’s decreased employment.

Our nation's unemployment rate is hovering near 10% not because of record job losses, as Biden suggests, but because of record job non-creation. Private sector employers have gone on strike. Contrary to what the President's economic wizards and New York Times columnists believe, massive government deficit spending does not stimulate job creation. President Obama does not have a secret vault of money he can just throw at the American people. The resources the government spends come from the economy. When the government increases spending, it crowds out the resources that business owners could have invested in their enterprises. Private investment falls sharply when government spending rises. According to Sherk, annual private fixed nonresidential investment has fallen by $327 billion since the recession started— a 19 percent drop. Less private investment means less hiring.

And then there is the rest of the Obama agenda that has created, and is creating, significant economic uncertainty: Obamacare, EPA carbon regulations, financial regulations and impending tax hikes. Renouncing these policies, and canceling the rest of the stimulus, would do more to spur private sector job creation than anything this White House has done so far.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

What Jobs

For the next couple of days, we'll repost some of the recent "Morning Bell" articles as they are very pertinent showing the incompetence of this Adminstration.

The Jobless Obama Recovery

This Wednesday in Pittsburgh, President Barack Obama defended his administration's economic policies telling the audience at Carnegie Mellon University: "Now, I've never believed that government has all the answers. Government cannot and should not replace businesses as the true engine of growth and job creation." But that is exactly what the President's big government policies are doing. Last week, USA Today reported that in the first quarter of 2010, thanks to President Obama's failed $862 economic stimulus, paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history while government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high.

And now the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor and Statistics released its monthly jobs report today showing that the economy added 431,000 jobs in May. But don't let that number fool you. Of those 431,000 jobs, 411,000 jobs were temporary government Census jobs. In fact, private sector job growth actually fell in May, from 231,000 new private sector jobs in April to just 41,000 new private sector jobs in May. Combining the private and public sectors--the nation's unemployment rate fell to 9.7% as 286,000 workers left the labor force. In total the U.S. economy has now lost a net of 2.2 million jobs since President Barack Obama signed his stimulus bill and his administration is now 7.2 million jobs short of what he promised the American economy would support by 2010.

While there is little doubt our resilient economy is finally recovering, it is also becoming increasingly clear that this administration's policies are making it difficult for private sector firms to produce robust job growth. Obamacare not only raises taxes by $503 billion through 2019, but it also burdens small businesses with new 1099 IRS paperwork every time they do more than $600 in business with another entity, and it imposes an employer mandate which makes it harder for small businesses to hire new workers. Then there is Obama's budget which raises taxes on the small businesses that earn 72% of all small business income, raises capital gains taxes to 20%, and raises taxes on dividends to 39.6%. And don't forgot the recently passed tax bill in the House which manages to add billions in debt while adding on a job-killing tax on American corporations that compete overseas and a job-killing tax on innovation-creating venture capital partnerships.

But the Obama administration does not plan on stopping there. Desperate to shift the focus from their lack of leadership, President Obama used the Deepwater Horizon oil spill Wednesday to renew his call for further regulation of the energy industry. Since the Kerry-Lieberman cap and tax bill called for now verboten increased oil development, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is signaling he wants pursue a renewable-energy-only path like Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACELA) which would mandate that electricity sellers produce a growing percentage of their power from renewable energy sources every two years. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has crunched the numbers and found that at an RES would: 1) Raise electricity prices by 36 percent for households and 60 percent for industry; 2) Cut national income (GDP) by $5.2 trillion between 2012 and 2035; 3) Cut national income by $2,400 per year for a family of four; 4) Reduce employment by more than 1,000,000 jobs; and 5) Add more than $10,000 to a family of four’s share of the national debt by 2035.

The Census jobs obtained by 411,000 Americans last month are temporary jobs. That means by the end of this year, those 411,000 Americans will be through with temporary government work and will be looking for real work in the private sector. But the private sector will not be able to adsorb them. Not when the Obama administration is forcing them to pay higher taxes, higher health care costs, and higher energy costs. Our economy will continue to bounce back from the recession. But thanks to Obama we can expect near double-digit unemployment rates for a long time to come.

Monday, June 14, 2010

Sowell on Race Relations

Thomas Sowell has it right again in this op-ed. Thomas Sowell- Race and Resentment

Race relations have not improved since Obama became president and many would argue they have worsened.

In this piece, Sowell writes “While Obama's winning the majority of the votes in overwhelmingly white states suggests that many Americans are ready to move beyond race, it is painfully clear that others are not.”

The “others” he is generally referring to are not what the media nor would the Liberals like you to believe.

Friday, June 11, 2010

2012 Won't come soon enough

One sunny day in January, 2013 an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench.

He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Obama."

The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Obama is no longer president and no longer resides here."

The old man said, "Okay", and walked away.

The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Obama."

The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Obama is no longer president and no longer resides here."

The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.

The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President Obama."

The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Obama. I've told you already that Mr. Obama is no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"

The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow, Sir."

Thursday, June 10, 2010

EMR's not Cost Cutters

Well here is an article that is certainly no surprise to physicians. Report: Electronic Health Records May Not Be Good Cost-Cutter - by Rob Goszkowski

Any physician who has ever used an EMR (as I have for 15 years) knows with certainty that they do not cut costs. They increase overhead costs, decrease physician efficiencies, and contribute to growing dissatisfaction among doctors.

As hospitals move forward with Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE), more and more physicians are concerned about the time it will take to complete patient care related tasks. Physicians are spending more and more time with clerical duties and less and less time with the evaluation of patients.

Computerized medical records document a tremendous amount of data, but 90 percent or more is useless for the everyday patient care and decision making. Meaningful data has actually lessened as computerized data has increased. The attorneys and “big brother” data crunchers are the ones who utilize this useless data for tracking purposes and to hold things against physicians and healthcare workers.

Any good business advisor would tell you to hire people to do the clerical work so you can focus on patient care and treating more patients. But CPOE mandates that physicians do this clerical work and it is time consuming and inefficient for physicians.

The government mandates are short-sided and poorly planned with little input from the end-users.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Obama/Dems Coercian continues

The Democratic takeover of healthcare is only the beginning of things to come. The cash for clunkers basically coerced people to buy certain cars and now Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) is pushing through to committee his American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACELA). If it proceeds, it could move to the floor soon.

This plan is essentially the same crazy plan they were trying in LA with Mayor Villaraigosa's. His plan would cause energy rate hikes estimated by the Division of Water and Power (DWP) to raise rates by 37% in order to meet the renewable energy standards. The LA business community revolted and the plan had been soundly defeated.

But Senator Bingaman is creating this renewable electricity standard (RES) that mandates sellers of electricity to produce a growing percentage of their power from renewable energy sources every two years. This plan is just like the LA plan and will mean higher electricity prices for all Americans.Currently, about half of America’s electricity is generated from coal, 20 percent from natural gas and nuclear energy, and the rest is provided by renewable sources. Hydroelectric energy gives us about 6 percent and non-hydro renewables like wind, solar energy and biomass total only 3 percent even after decades of existing generous renewable subsidies.

If electricity created by wind and other renewables were cost competitive, consumers would use more of it without a federal law to force consumption. But renewable energy is not cost competitive, hence the need for government coercion to force the American people to buy it.

The number crunching from the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis found that at an RES would: 1) Raise electricity prices by 36 percent for households and 60 percent for industry; 2) Cut national income (GDP) by $5.2 trillion between 2012 and 2035; 3) Cut national income by $2,400 per year for a family of four; 4) Reduce employment by more than 1,000,000 jobs; and 5) Add more than $10,000 to a family of four’s share of the national debt by 2035.This is not good economic policy; but since when do facts matter to the progressives?

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Insurance does not equate to outcomes

The following was posted at The National Center for Policy Analysis. Health insurance does not equate to health outcomes based on the literature. There are just too many other variables that health insurance cannot control. Personal responsibility, choices and genetics play a huge role.


Is there strong empirical evidence that expanding health insurance significantly improves health outcomes? The answer, according to a scrupulous review of the literature by health economists Helen Levy and David Meltzer, is no.

Despite years of research, the question of whether health insurance has a substantial impact on health "remains largely unanswered at the level of detail needed to inform policy decisions," they wrote in a 2008 journal article. While it seems clear that insurance boosts the health of certain groups -- infants, children, AIDS patients -- and helps address various conditions in adults, such as high blood pressure, "for most of the population at risk of being uninsured (adults ages 19 to 50), we have limited reliable evidence on how health insurance affects health."

According to Levy and Meltzer:

The biggest reason is that insurance coverage and health status are usually dependent, at least in part, on common variables, such as income, education and lifestyle.

Also, health status itself can have a direct influence on coverage, since sick people sometimes lose their jobs or get dropped by their insurance companies.

Therefore, the fact that someone with insurance is healthier than someone without it may not be caused by the latter's lack of coverage.

The ObamaCare debate primarily concerns the effects of insurance on the adult population, rather than on the subgroups just mentioned, and stressed that the relevant studies fail to compare alternative policies for improving general health results. There is no evidence, says Michael Cannon, a scholar with the Cato Institute, that broadening insurance coverage saves more lives for every dollar spent than do other health interventions.

We should thus be skeptical of claims that ObamaCare will dramatically reduce U.S. mortality rates, says Levy. Throughout the debate, Americans have repeatedly heard mind-boggling statistics about the number of people who die for want of health insurance.

One statistic is certain. Under Obamacare, health care costs and insurance premiums will be increasing at alarming rates. The healthcare takeover did virtually nothing to control costs!

Monday, June 7, 2010

More rules

Here is just one more of the new regulations that will be placed on offices by the Obamacare takeover. The government can withhold payment from us for months without penalty, but it certainly doesn’t work in the other direction even when there are ligitimate questions.

This is just the beginning of more and more regulations that will increase our overhead as we try to comply with the new rules.

Healthcare Reform: Law Imposes Requirement to Report and Return Medicare and Medicaid Overpayments within 60 Days

Friday, June 4, 2010

Recurrence of Disease

Information about Gonorrhea Lectim

The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of this old disease. The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim. It's pronounced "Gonna re-elect 'em," and it is a terrible obamanation.

The disease is contracted through dangerous and high risk behavior involving putting your cranium up your rectum. Many victims contracted it in 2008...but now most people, after having been infected for the past 1-2 years, are starting to realize how destructive this sickness is.

It's sad because Gonorrhea Lectim is easily cured with a new drug just coming on the market called Votemout. You take the first dose in 2010 and the second dose in 2012 and simply don't engage in such behavior again; otherwise, it could become permanent and eventually wipe out all life as we know it.

Several states are already on top of this, like Virginia and New Jersey, and apparently now Massachusetts , with many more seeing the writing on thewall.

You can help stamp out this disease!!!

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Gore Hypocrisy

The Gore hypocrisy and the global warming scam could not be highlighted more than by the purchase of their new home. This is now their 4th luxury home. This one has an ocean view. With the imminent threat of sea levels rising, you would think this is a bad investment.

Exclusive Photo Gallery: Check out the Carbon Footprint of Al Gore's New Ocean-View Mediterranean Villa

Why is this not on every news outlet around the country pointing out the obvious?

The recent volcano eruptions have spewed more CO2 containing gases into the air than all of civilization could produce in years.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

The "Tell"

Here is a very good summary about why the individual mandate in Obamacare will likely not stand up to a constitutional challenge. This was published in the Wall Street Journal.

Randy E. Barnett: The Insurance Mandate in Peril -

When all else fails; change the rules!

A"tell" in poker is a subtle but detectable change in a player's behavior or demeanor that reveals clues about the player's assessment of his hand. Something similar has happened with regard to the insurance mandate at the core of last month's health reform legislation. Congress justified its authority to enact the mandate on the grounds that it is a regulation of commerce. But as this justification came under heavy constitutional fire, the mandate's defenders changed the argument—now claiming constitutional authority under Congress's power to tax.

This switch in constitutional theories is a tell: Defenders of the bill lack confidence in their commerce power theory. The switch also comes too late. When the mandate's constitutionality comes up for review as part of the state attorneys general lawsuit, the Supreme Court will not consider the penalty enforcing the mandate to be a tax because, in the provision that actually defines and imposes the mandate and penalty, Congress did not call it a tax and did not treat it as a tax.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) includes what it calls an "individual responsibility requirement" that all persons buy health insurance from a private company. Congress justified this mandate under its power to regulate commerce among the several states: "The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section," the law says, ". . . is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2)." Paragraph (2) then begins: "The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased."

In this way, the statute speciously tries to convert inactivity into the "activity" of making a "decision." By this reasoning, your "decision" not to take a job, not to sell your house, or not to buy a Chevrolet is an "activity that is commercial and economic in nature" that can be mandated by Congress.

It is true that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause broadly enough to reach wholly intrastate economic "activity" that substantially affects interstate commerce. But the Court has never upheld a requirement that individuals who are doing nothing must engage in economic activity by entering into a contractual relationship with a private company. Such a claim of power is literally unprecedented.

Since this Commerce Clause language was first proposed in the Senate last December, Democratic legislators and law professors alike breezily dismissed any constitutional objections as preposterous. After the bill was enacted, critics branded lawsuits by state attorneys general challenging the insurance mandate as frivolous. Yet, unable to produce a single example of Congress using its commerce power this way, the defenders of the personal mandate began to shift grounds.

On March 21, the same day the House approved the Senate version of the legislation, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation released a 157-page "technical explanation" of the bill. The word "commerce" appeared nowhere. Instead, the personal mandate is dubbed an "Excise Tax on Individuals Without Essential Health Benefits Coverage." But while the enacted bill does impose excise taxes on "high cost," employer-sponsored insurance plans and "indoor tanning services," the statute never describes the regulatory "penalty" it imposes for violating the mandate as an "excise tax." It is expressly called a "penalty."

This shift won't work. The Supreme Court will not allow staffers and lawyers to change the statutory cards that Congress already dealt when it adopted the Senate language.

In the 1920s, when Congress wanted to prohibit activity that was then deemed to be solely within the police power of states, it tried to penalize the activity using its tax power. In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (1922) the Supreme Court struck down such a penalty saying, "there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment."

Although the Court has never repudiated this principle, the Court now interprets the commerce power far more broadly. Thus Congress may regulate or prohibit intrastate economic activity directly without invoking its taxation power. Yet precisely because a mandate to engage in economic activity has never been upheld by the Court, the tax power is once again being used to escape constitutional limits on Congress's regulatory power.

Supporters of the mandate cite U.S. v. Kahriger (1953), where the Court upheld a punitive tax on gambling by saying that "[u]nless there are provisions extraneous to any tax need, courts are without authority to limit the exercise of the taxing power." Yet the Court in Kahriger also cited Bailey with approval. The key to understanding Kahriger is the proposition the Court there rejected: "it is said that Congress, under the pretense of exercising its power to tax has attempted to penalize illegal intrastate gambling through the regulatory features of the Act" (emphasis added).

In other words, the Court in Kahriger declined to look behind Congress's assertion that it was exercising its tax power to see whether a measure was really a regulatory penalty. As the Court said in Sonzinsky v. U.S. (1937), "[i]nquiry into the hidden motives which may move Congress to exercise a power constitutionally conferred upon it is beyond the competency of courts." But this principle cuts both ways. Neither will the Court look behind Congress's inadequate assertion of its commerce power to speculate as to whether a measure was "really" a tax. The Court will read the cards as Congress dealt them.

Congress simply did not enact the personal insurance mandate pursuant to its tax powers. To the contrary, the statute expressly says the mandate "regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature." It never mentions the tax power and none of its eight findings mention raising any revenue with the penalty.

Moreover, while inserting the mandate into the Internal Revenue Code, Congress then expressly severed the penalty from the normal enforcement mechanisms of the tax code. The failure to pay the penalty "shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure." Nor shall the IRS "file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section," or "levy on any such property with respect to such failure."

In short, the "penalty" is explicitly justified as a penalty to enforce a regulation of economic activity and not as a tax. There is no authority for the Court to recharacterize a regulation as a tax when doing so is contrary to the express and actual regulatory purpose of Congress.

So defenders of the mandate are making yet another unprecedented claim. Never before has the Court looked behind Congress's unconstitutional assertion of its commerce power to see if a measure could have been justified as a tax. For that matter, never before has a "tax" penalty been used to mandate, rather than discourage or prohibit, economic activity.

Are there now five justices willing to expand the commerce and tax powers of Congress where they have never gone before? Will the Court empower Congress to mandate any activity on the theory that a "decision" not to act somehow affects interstate commerce? Will the Court accept that Congress has the power to mandate any activity so long as it is included in the Internal Revenue Code and the IRS does the enforcing?

Yes, the smart money is always on the Court upholding an act of Congress. But given the hand Congress is now holding, I would not bet the farm.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Socialization of Obamacare

This following article is lengthy but it certainly is thought-provoking and on target for where Obamacare is taking us. One of the excerpts is as follows:

Scant attention is being paid to the fact that governmentalized medicine performs in one of two ways: it provides either too little or too much. It does not fulfill its function of caring for the sick if the care is restricted by bureaucratism and by high costs (contributions and deductibles) to the beneficiary. In that case, "too little" is given from the point of view of the needy who again might have to fall back on charity.

"Too much" is the real danger. Artificial cheapening of the medical services invites an excessive consumer demand, which the available means — doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. — can not satisfy. That, in turn, not only tends to reduce the quality of sickness care to the point where it ceases to be meaningful, but also creates a disequilibrium in the distribution of national resources.

The consequences are manifold; they add up to a significant unbalancing factor in the economic system.

This unbalancing of the economic system is what is most worrisome in the long run.