Friday, July 24, 2009

The Ten Commandments According to Obama

I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE

III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE

IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE

V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE

VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE

VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE

IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE

X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. SOURCE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Sen. Orrin Hatch Exposes Democrats' Health Care Abortion Agenda

Protect America, Stop Obama's Defense Cuts

I just signed the Heritage Foundation’s 4% for Freedom petition, calling on President Obama and Congress to give the men and women in our military the equipment they need to complete their missions by maintaining a minimum defense budget equal to 4% of GDP.

I joined Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Congressman Eric Cantor and countless other Americans to pledge my support for our troops.

You can do it, too!

Click here to sign

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Card Check Video Briefing

Critical Card Check Video Briefing from National Right to Work on Vimeo.

“I owe those unions ... When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don’t mind feeling obligated.”-- President Barack Obama “The Audacity of Hope”

You’ve likely heard of the “card check” battle now going on in Congress. This is one of those once-in-a-generation battles Right to Work supporters have faced in the past.

Card check organizing eliminates the secret ballot for union organizing elections and replaces it with an abuse-ridden process in which the votes of workers are made public to union organizers.

The threat of passage of card check forced unionism legislation – fraudulently named the “Employee Free Choice Act” – is becoming greater by the day.

Why are the union bosses fighting so hard for card check?

Because associating with a union -- and Big Labor’s job killing, economy crushing agenda -- has never been less popular with American workers.

The union bosses know that American workers increasingly reject union “representation” when they have a choice.

The union bosses desperately want new members. They need a massive influx of new dues revenue to pay for their financially troubled pension funds and for their ever-more-costly and ambitious political activities.

But they can’t get these workers into their ranks anymore through the less-abusive secret ballot election.

The union bosses’ only option is a dramatic expansion of their coercive power. They must force employees into union ranks.

You should also know card check legislation is only one step in the union bosses’ plan to fully exploit their new political clout. Big Labor is also pushing to...

  • ... force companies to fire workers who worked during a strike – something companies have not been compelled do for 70 years.
  • ... blacklist employers and employees from all federal contracts unless they unionize or agree to allow card check unionization drives.
  • ... raise taxes on companies that insist on defending employees’ access to a secret ballot election.
  • ... force police and firefighters across the nation to be unionized -- opening the door for strikes that hold vital public services hostage.
  • ... promote the establishment of “mini-unions,” small cells of workers who don't represent a majority but who could force an employer to bargain with them over pay and benefits.
  • ... repeal Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, thereby eliminating all 22 state Right to Work laws that make union affiliation voluntary – the cornerstone of workplace freedom in America.

Monday, July 13, 2009

Thine Eyes- A Witness to the March for Life

Thine Eyes - A witness to the March for Life from thineeyesthemovie on Vimeo.

The film title is taken from Psalm 139: 16

Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book were all written the days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.

This documentary film provides a firsthand view of the spirit of the March for Life and its participants.

The film specifically does four things:

1. Provides accurate and artistic coverage of the 36th annual March for life to be shared with the world via DVD, Christian television networks and on YouTube. A sub-point to be made here is that mainstream media presence and coverage is tracked in this film.

2. Includes a fund raising appeal component on behalf of the prolife movement in general. Viewers must know that the prolife movement raises roughly $50 million annually while our opponents raise billions. This film inspires prolife people to give time, talent and treasure to the prolife cause.

3. Raises awareness about the March for Life and the prolife position, with a specific target – young people – with a message that is strictly based on the “conception to natural death” position.

4. Provides a visual resource to prolife organizations, schools, churches and any person or organization that wishes to make use of this resource.

Friday, July 10, 2009

A Sad Story....

A true story, abortion advocates don't want you to hear about:

Christi's Choice

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

PETA: Upset President Obama Would Hurt a Fly, But Abortion Another Story

Ask yourself this question:

Which life is to be respected & valued more-- A housefly or a human baby???


According to Peta's twisted logic - A fly's life is worth more than a human's life (which by the way is of no concern to them).

This was from LifeNews.Com, and it truly made me sick....
On June 16 during an interview on CNBC President Obama swatted at and killed a fly. The matter was treated with good humor by most. I, for one, wanted to say “Nice shot Mr. President.” However, the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) felt differently and publicly chastised the President for his apparent cruelty to the insect.

“We support compassion for the even the smallest animals," says Bruce Friedrich, VP for Policy at PETA. “We support giving insects the benefit of the doubt." Friedrich says PETA supports "brushing flies away rather than killing them" Later PETA sent to Obama a fly catching device that traps flies and then allows for their safe release back into nature.

Upon hearing of the compassion PETA has for the smallest of creatures I wondered what position they took on abortion. After all, if this organization believes in the protection of the lives of flies surely they would be adamantly opposed to the killing of the unborn. Hence, I immediately did a search on the Internet to find an answer to my question. I found out that PETA’s compassion for unborn human babies falls far short of its compassion for flies.

In regards to abortion, PETA’s official statement reads:

PETA does not have a position on the abortion issue, because our focus as an organization is the alleviation of the suffering inflicted on nonhuman animals. There are people on both sides of the abortion issue in the animal rights movement, just as there are people on both sides of animal rights issues in the pro-life movement. And just as the pro-life movement has no official position on animal rights, neither does the animal rights movement have an official position on abortion.

Now let me understand this clearly. To PETA the life of a fly deserves to be respected and must be treated with dignity, but the life of an unborn child subject to abortion is apparently of no concern. One can be a member of PETA and support the killing of the unborn as long as that person supports the right to life of a fly......

read the entire article here

Beyond The Dark Valley

With the upcoming Senate hearings involving the newest Supreme Court nominee, no doubt the issue of abortion will be in the news again. Those who argue for the pro-choice position don't want to talk about the pain of abortion that millions of women have experienced.

This is a powerful 30 minute video called "Beyond the Dark Valley of Abortion," produced by the Justice Foundation, which explores the way to find hope and healing for those, perhaps you or someone you know, who have suffered physically, emotionally or spiritually because of abortion. The video is available to watch free here. (

Operation Outcry, a ministry of the Justice Foundation, is asking women to share their abortion experience at their website because the United States Supreme Court is asking for evidence that abortion harms women.

AFA and Operation Outcry are collecting testimonies to help in Court decisions. This is critically important! If you or someone you know desires to share a short testimony, it can be done confidentially at You can choose to use your full name, first name or just your initials. This will help further document the personal pain and trauma caused by abortion to judges who can make a difference. Click here to fill out a declaration form.

The Big Lie is 'No One Gets Hurt.'

The Second Lie is 'This is not a life, only a mass of tissue.' We know from sonograms, it is a Baby, not a blob of tissue. Abortion kills babies, and hurts women, men, and families.

This video has a beautiful message, there is help, hope, and healing.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Face the Truth

Across the country, babies—and their parents—are being saved from abortion by Face the Truth—a bold and effective pro-life initiative that exposes the truth about abortion. Abortion is Ugly! It is murder! It is killing innocent children! and the American people need to see it. It is graphic, disturbing, and disgusting; but it is what is really happening and YES, We Need to do something to STOP abortion!! I have showed my children these pictures so they can see how awful, ugly, and evil legalize abortion is. They need to know what is right and wrong, and know the truth. The lie is abortion doesn't kill an innocent human being and these pictures show that abortion most certainly kills an innocent human being. There is another way, there is help and support for crisis pregnancies and this message needs to be shared.

For more info see:

Monday, July 6, 2009

Health care reform explained

"Why do we need President Obama's big-bang health-care reform at all? What's the real agenda here? If it's really to cover the truly uninsured, a much cheaper, targeted, small-ball approach would do the trick. But on the other hand, maybe the real goal is a larger, ultra-liberal plan aimed at a government takeover of the U.S. health system. ... According to the U.S. Census Bureau, we don't have 47 million folks who are truly uninsured. When you take out college kids plus those earning $75,000 or more who choose not to sign up for a health-care plan, roughly 20 million people are removed from the list of uninsured. After that, you can remove the 10 million who are not U.S. citizens and the 11 million who are eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid but for some reason have not signed up for those programs. So that leaves only 10 million to 15 million people among the long-term uninsured. Yes, they need help. And yes, they should get it. But not with mandatory universal coverage, or new government-backed insurance plans, or massive tax increases. And certainly not with the Canadian-European-style nationalization that has always been the true goal of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats. Instead, we can give the truly uninsured vouchers or debit cards that will allow for choice and coverage, and even health savings accounts for retirement wealth. ... Knocking down profits and telling people what to do because government planners know best, right? Wrong. Absolutely wrong." --economist Lawrence Kudlow

(Photo & Quote below From the Patriot Post)
One of Obama's key claims is that "you can keep your plan if you want to." What he means is that the government won't specifically mandate that anyone lose coverage, but the effect of his policies would be to cause many individuals to lose their benefits. America's Health Insurance Plans, the nation's largest trade group for health insurers, warned of "devastating consequences" from a government plan. In a letter to Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), the lead author of the health care bill, the group said that a public health insurance option "would dismantle employer-based coverage, significantly increase costs for those who remain in private coverage, and add additional liabilities to the federal budget." This is painfully obvious to us, but the power brokers in DC aren't interested in a market-based approach.

In fact, though Democrats claim that the government would compete on a "level playing field" with private insurers, Obama says his plan "is an important tool to discipline insurance companies." As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute says, "The government can subsidize its plan with tax revenue from other taxpayers. The government can enact regulations that favor its plan over other private insurers."

Indeed, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) quipped, "Having the government compete against the private sector is kind of like my seven-year-old daughter's lemonade stand competing against McDonalds."

Straight talk about universal healthcare -Giving you complete coverage on all the dangers of universal healthcare coverage, by William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

The Dems are doing their best to put a positive, humanitarian spin on the idea of universal health care, or what I call "socialized medicine", but the long-term ramifications would be devastating.

They would have you believe that conservatives who are against universal healthcare take this stance because they are mean-spirited and compassionless. Naturally, this isn't the case. And it's hardly how I feel.

I am against universal healthcare because I believe it will create one of the most intrusive government bureaucracies since the Internal Revenue Service, and it will impinge heavily on the individual freedoms of all American citizens.

Obama is attempting to achieve universal healthcare coverage by relying primarily on private insurance.

That's right - he is looking to solve our nation's health care problems by giving control of the system to the insurance companies. Wow.

One of the key misconceptions among Obama supporters is that a universal healthcare system would make healthcare more affordable. What delusional planet is he from? Under socialized medicine, the healthcare system may be perceived as being more fair, but it certainly won't be any cheaper.

A better way to describe the program would be to call it "universal heath insurance." The idea is that by compelling everyone in the nation to participate in the insurance market, you'd cut down on what's known as the "free rider" syndrome. As the term suggests, this would be people getting a "free ride" from the healthcare system by deciding not to get their own health insurance because they've been assured that in the case of an emergency or personal health catastrophe, inexpensive care will be guaranteed to them by the government. The theory is that mandated participation would help to drive down insurance costs.

But any mandate requires an enforcement component. My fear is that a government branch with the kind of power to actually identify and penalize those seeking to avoid the insurance mandates of universal healthcare would be vast and all-powerful. The new healthcare arm of the government would likely have the same kind of power (and loathsome reputation) as the IRS.

I'm all about personal freedom and the rights of individuals. Universal healthcare is not only impractical, but costly - and not just for your pocketbook. It's handing over yet another right to the government, and allowing the government to decide and rule your fate.

I'm not compassionless-I'm just sensible. And universal healthcare as it's being proposed still doesn't make much sense to me.

The disaster of the Massachusetts universal healthcare system should give you a preview of what life under a universal healthcare scheme could be like...

The universal healthcare dam springs a leak

A program of mandated health insurance is already in effect in Massachusetts. Under that system, subsidized insurance is made available to individuals earning up to $30,636 annually, and families of four earning up to $61,956 per year. The state government has begun to impose stiff fines on residents who fail to purchase health insurance - and the penalties can amount to as much as $912 a year!

And this place is already known as "Tax-achusetts!"

Even though this system is in its infancy, it already has many vocal opponents. Devon Herrick, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis calls the Massachusetts universal coverage plan "overregulated and largely unworkable." Herrick explains that the least expensive health plan available through the program costs $196 a month, while the state fine for being uninsured is about half that cost -- $98 a month!

After just two years, Massachusetts' universal coverage program is running at a staggering $147 million deficit, and the four insurance carriers who provide the state- subsidized insurance estimated that costs will go up by 14 percent this year.

Even more shocking is the manner in which Massachusetts state officials have decided to deal with the out-of-control costs of their broken system: they've ordered the insurance companies to cut payments to doctors and hospitals, reduce choices for payments, and possibly increase how much patients will have to pay.

I only hope that Americans get a good, long look at the disaster that universal healthcare has wrought on the economy and people of Massachusetts before a similar catastrophe is unleashed on the whole country. The train wreck in New England is headed our way if the democrats get their way.

America: you have been warned.

More Information by Amanda Reinecker from the Heritage Foundation:

"The goal of health care reform is to ensure that everyone has affordable, adequate coverage for basic health care in America, and to do this without digging us deeper into the deficit hole," Heritage Vice President Stuart Butler writes on the New York Times website.

But before any reform is undertaken, we must keep a few key facts in mind. First, taxpayers already fund about 50 cents of every dollar spent on healthcare. Second, taxpayers will end up paying even more if we get government more involved in every part of the health system.

To achieve real reform while avoiding this centralized, bureaucratic micromanagement and increased government spending, Butler recommends health care reformers focus on two priorities:

  1. Fix how health care is taxed. We need to ensure Americans can get tax relief whether they buy insurance through their employer or on the individual market. This reform will allow millions of working families to better afford coverage.
  1. Create markets for insurance. "Create state-based insurance exchanges so that families can pick from a range of plans that meet basic conditions -- with the most immediate focus on families that are not offered coverage by their employers."

Butler cautions against big-government approaches to health care reform. These reforms assume that "if only the government were to organize every part of the health system somehow it would all work well. That kind of central planning doesn't work for national economies and it won't work for the health sector in America, which is as large as most national economies."

President Obama's proposal to create a "public option," a government-run health insurance plan, would be one such big-government offering. During a press conference this week, he acknowledged concerns "that if any public plan is simply being subsidized by taxpayers endlessly, that over time they can't compete with the government just printing money." But acknowledging concerns isn't the same as addressing them.

Heritage's has become a popular resource for fueling the debate -- many experts and concerned citizens are going there instead of the official White House site on health care -- and equipping individuals and legislators with the facts on the costly consequences of big-government health care.

As the debates heat up, Heritage experts like Nina Owcharenko are reminding members of Congress they have a choice. "Either they can support efforts that expand Washington's control of the health care system, or they can allow the states to develop solutions that will transfer direct control of health care dollars and personal health care decisions back to individuals and families. The choice should not be that hard."

More information on Obama's Health Care Plan from: The National Tax Limitation Committee.

Obama describes his health care scheme with the usual pie-in-the-sky rhetoric, claiming - with fingers crossed behind his back - that his approach will heal the sick, miraculously reduce costs, and resurrect a moribund health system.

Obama has already told you that if you want to keep your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor and if you want to keep your present health plan, you'll be able to keep your present health plan.

Specifically, Obama said:

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away."

But Obama can't keep that promise and he knows it.

Jim Lindgren writing for the Internet blog the Volokh Conspiracy:

"But if the Obama plan is enacted, a substantial portion of employers will cut their health subsidies - raising their employees' share of contributions to the company plan - in order to drive some of the employees into the government exchange and the public option. Other employers may drop their plans altogether - after all, workers could buy their own coverage in the government exchange - or simply fund part of their workers' participation in the exchange. These changes, which would be the direct results of the implementation of the Obama plan, would make it virtually impossible for Obama to keep these promises...."

But will keeping your doctor or your health care provider really matter when government bureaucrats start calling the shots and telling your doctor and provider exactly what they can and cannot do... what they are allowed to treat... what they're allowed to pay.

Make no mistake, Obama's takeover of health care will be nothing more than a raw power grab, more cutting than his takeover of the banks and the automobile industry. Its goal will not be to improve health care but, to reward political allies - and punish people like you.

Let's examine the real repercussions of health care rationing?

Think of it this way, to Obama (and other Statists), people represent health costs. The fewer people, the lower the costs.

Are we saying that Obama will target the elderly, the handicapped and the unborn to reduce costs?

Consider Obama's own words remarks as reprinted in the Washington Times and make that call yourself.

"Part of what I think government can do effectively is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options."

Obama also said:

"The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill...."

Regarding those in the last phases of life, Obama specifically says:

"There is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels."

Obama's top health advisers have emphasized that America should value the lives of young, healthy people more than those of old, sick individuals.

One such adviser is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Obama's chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel.

Kevin Williamson of National Review Online describes Dr. Emanuel's views:

"He wrote in The Lancet in 2008: 'Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination.' We all were young once, the argument goes, and so denying the elderly and weak in order to care for the young and fit is just."

Just what do you think Obama's talking about here? Trust me, these are scary times and if you're over the age of 55, be very scared. If you're chronically ill with diabetes or high blood pressure or multiple sclerosis - or dying with heart disease or cancer - your future doesn't look very bright.

Would Obama empower the federal government and bureaucratic pencil-pushers to decide exactly when your presence on earth is no longer feasible, viable or sustainable?

Obama claims that his health plan won't involve rationing or reduced care. But that's ridiculous, because all government-run health systems suffer from those drawbacks.

For a real-world, practical example, we only need look at the Canadian system.

Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian-trained physician who practices in the United States, describes his own revelation about Canada's medical horror show:

"On [my way to medical school class]... I cut through a hospital emergency room and came upon dozens of people on stretchers - waiting, moaning, begging for treatment. Some elderly patients had waited up to five days in corridors before being admitted to beds. They smelled of urine and sweat. As I navigated past the bodies, I began to question everything I thought I knew about health care - not only in Canada, but also in the United States. ... I had begun a journey into the heart of one of the great policy disasters of modern times."

Is the situation really any better in Europe - should we, for instance, emulate the French?

Consider a French journalist's words at the Heritage Foundation:

"The majority of France's state-owned hospitals are managed in a way that is reminiscent of the old U.S.S.R. ... In the average French public hospital, it is not uncommon for every window to be open, even in winter, because the heating system in the building cannot be regulated. With the only options being no heat or unbearably high heat, everyone opts for the latter. Predictably, this is not very cheap."

What about Germany? The British medical journal Lancet states:

"The German health care system is facing bankruptcy on an unprecedented scale."

In Great Britain, one current cost-saving measure is the denial of essential medications to women in advanced stages of certain cancers.

And yet, on June 15, Barack Obama told the American Medical Association (AMA) that other developed countries - he meant nations like Canada, Germany, France, and Britain - pay much less per capita for health care than Americans.

Tell us something we don't know... you also get exactly what you pay for.

So why does Obama want to bring millions of people into the system literally overnight? What happens when there are suddenly many more patients than there are practitioners to care for them?

Will the health care system start to follow the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) model... where you take-a-number.... and wait... and then wait some more?

And if you're really sick, what are the chances that you might die in line, waiting for treatment that simply does not come in time?

Dr. Gratzer tells us what's going on in Canada:

"I trained in emergency rooms that were chronically, chaotically, dangerously overcrowded... all across Canada. I met a middle-aged man with sleep problems who was booked for an appointment with a specialist three years later; a man with pain... who was referred to a pain clinic with a two-year wait list; a woman with breast cancer who was asked to wait for four months before starting the life-saving radiation therapy."

When you consider the evils of health care rationing, consider the following.

Addressing the AMA, Obama implied that costs were rising because patients were getting unneeded care. In fact, the opposite is true.

A 2003 survey by the Rand Corporation found that only 11% of patients got treatments they didn't need - while a whopping 46% failed to receive needed care.

And strangely, there's tremendous irony in Obama's mindless drive toward a government-run system.

In Great Britain, France, Germany - and even Canada - there's a growing push to get people back into private insurance systems, taking the pressure off public facilities and doctors. It's a move toward - you guessed it - government cost savings.
More Information from Newt Gingrich:

President Obama said something at his White House healthcare event last week that offers a disturbing hint of our future under his vision of health reform. He suggested one way to save costs is not to spend on procedures that "evidence shows [are] not necessarily going to improve care" for the sick and the dying. "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," the President said. Maybe. But the question is, who decides?

A Bureaucrat's Concern Isn't You, It's the Government's Bottom Line

Who decides if those extra dollars will or will not be spent on your care or the care of someone you love? Under the plan advocated by President Obama and his allies, that someone will be a government bureaucrat. And even if that bureaucrat has the best of intentions, and even if he does his job well - especially if he does his job well - his main concern won't be you or your loved one. His only concern, if he's doing his job right, will be for the government's bottom line. It's his choice, not yours. Surgery costs too much. Make do with the painkiller.

Instead of Figuring Out What Can Be Done,
We're Debating the Government Option

What's most tragic about the health reform options being debated today is that it doesn't have to be this way. I have spent the past six years since founding the Center for Health Transformation [] studying our healthcare system, and finding out what works and what doesn't work. I've spoken to literally thousands of doctors, patients, hospital administrators and other health professionals. There is widespread agreement over steps we could take now to deliver more choices of greater quality at lower cost to every American. But instead of focusing on creating a bipartisan consensus, President Obama and his allies have introduced the Trojan Horse of a "public option" in health reform.

Think Government Will Create a Level Playing Field in Healthcare?
Look at the Auto Industry

Supporters of the public plan option say it would be just one choice among many; a government plan to "compete" with private health insurance plans. But if you think for a moment that the Democratic establishment in Washington is going to create a government healthcare plan that competes on a level playing field with private insurance, just take a look at what they did with the auto industry. They rigged the game. They gave their union allies 55 percent of Chrysler and cheated the retired teachers and police officers who had invested in the company. Then they gave $50 billion in the taxpayers' money to GM to prop it up. Meanwhile, the third of the once-Big Three, Ford, is left to fend for itself. Is that a level playing field?

The Public Option as a Strategy to Achieve Nationalized Healthcare

The main argument for a government option is that private insurance is too expensive. To expand coverage, Americans need an affordable alternative. But in order to offer an affordable alternative, the government has to dramatically underprice private plans. Of course, government, unlike a private company that must meet its budget in order to stay in business, can endlessly subsidize its plan. And the result? Depending on how great the government subsidy, the Lewin Group, a healthcare policy research firm, estimated that as many as 119 million currently insured Americans would drop private coverage and enroll in the government plan. The private insurance market would gradually disappear. And if you think this is an irrational fear, listen to Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a supporter of the public option. Rep. Schakowsky proudly says that private insurers "have every reason to be frightened" by a government plan, because it is a "strategy for getting [to a single-payer system], and I believe we will."

So Far, $22 Million Has Been Spent On TV Ads.
And What Do We Have To Show For It?

Americans are justifiably dissatisfied with our healthcare system. Healthcare is too expensive. Millions of Americans can't get health insurance. And too often what we can get doesn't promote better health and doesn't deliver the best possible care. So far, groups on both sides of this debate have spent $22 million on television commercials - more than was spent in the entire battle over Clinton healthcare reform in the 1990s. We're spending lots of money, but the focus on the government plan has kept us from finding agreement in areas where we can make a real difference for Americans.

Democrats and Republicans Can Agree On
Modernizing the System and Ending Healthcare Fraud

There is widespread agreement, for instance, that electronic medical records are the future. President Obama and I both share this view. They will be the primary method of record keeping in the future, and the faster we get to that future the more lives we will save, the more efficient our health system will be and the cheaper it will be. Another area in which Democrats and Republicans should easily be able to find common ground is in fighting healthcare fraud. And if you think this is just tinkering around the edges of healthcare reform, you're wrong. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a doctor, believes that fully one-third of all health spending is wasted on defensive medicine, red tape and outright fraud. In a system that will spend $2.5 trillion this year, that means that more than $800 billion will go to unnecessary, unproductive and fully preventable spending. For more information on how we can improve our healthcare by eliminating fraud, look for my book with Center For Health Transformation Vice President, Director of State Policy Jim Frogue entitled Stop Paying the Crooks: Solutions to End the Fraud That Threatens Your Healthcare due out later this summer.

Command-and-Control Doesn't Work. Competition and Choice Do.

I'm a conservative who believes that America desperately needs real change in our health system. But we will never get to that if we can't get beyond this endless debate over government-run healthcare. The fact is, command-and-control from Washington doesn't work. Competition, choice and individual control will produce the health system we want. To truly bring down costs and expand coverage we need to build a bipartisan agreement focused on four things:
  1. Improving individual health by incentivizing prevention, wellness and early health.

  2. Giving doctors and hospitals incentives to deliver high-quality care through fair and proper payments.

  3. Reforming public programs like Medicare and Medicaid to root out fraud, cut waste and reward quality.

  4. Empowering individuals with the information and financial resources they need to be better, more-informed consumers.
The Center for Health Transformation has developed an approach that will improve individual health, lower costs and deliver the best possible care. Tell your representative that any health reform bill must have these basic principles.
Obama Suggests Health Care Reform Will Mean Rationing for Some, But Admits He Would Pay Out-of-Pocket for His Own Family

During the 90-minute question-and-answer session, which hosts Diane Sawyer and Charlie Gibson said was attended by 164 people “on the front lines of health care in America,” epilepsy specialist Dr. Orrin Devinsky asked the president one of a few challenging questions. Devinsky asked: “If a national health plan was approved and your family participated, and, President Obama, if your wife or your daughter became seriously ill, and things were not going well, and the plan physicians told you they were doing everything that reasonably could be done, and you sought out opinions from some medical leaders and major centers, and they said there's another option that you should -- should pursue, but it was not covered in the plan, would you potentially sacrifice the health of your family for the greater good of insuring millions? Or would you do everything you possibly could as a father and husband to get the best health care and outcome for your family?”

Obama didn’t answer directly, saying that “(I)f it's my family member, my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.”

But the president questioned whether his now-deceased grandmother should have received her hip replacement while suffering a terminal illness.
Recounting the dilemma, Obama said, “(T)he question was, does she get hip replacement surgery even though she was fragile enough that they weren’t sure how long she would last (or) whether she could get through the surgery.”

“I think families all across America are going through decisions like that all the time,” Obama said.

This was not the first time the president had used his grandmother to illustrate his point on health care. In an April 2008 interview with The New York Times Magazine, Obama suggested much of the cost of health care in America comes from the elderly and those with chronic illness.
“That’s where you get into some very difficult moral issues,” Obama said – specifically considering whether “in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question.”

But in the April interview, Obama also admitted that his own grandmother would have gotten the procedure either way.
“I would have paid out-of-pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother,” he said.
Obama's health plan not good enough for his family: "[If] it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care." --Barack Obama **"Oopsie! So ObamaCare for thee, but not for me? Hope and change, baby!" --blogger Ed Morrissey

Chart of Title One of the Kennedy-Dodd Health Reform Bill from AHIP

Sunday, July 5, 2009

More on the Cap & Trade Tax

On the cost of energy, The Wall Street Journal writes, "The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment." Even billionaire Democrat donor Warren Buffet acknowledged that cap and tax is a "huge tax ... and a fairly regressive tax." And the Journal concludes, "Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality."

"The Heritage Foundation's senior policy analyst for energy and environment, Ben Lieberman, has produced a stellar paper on [the cap and trade bill]... Based on available evidence and analysis, Lieberman concludes 'that both the seriousness and imminence of anthropogenic global warming has been overstated.' But even if we assume the problem is as bad as the hysterics claim, the proposed bill 'would have a trivial impact on future concentrations of greenhouse gases. ...[It] would reduce the earth's future temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree C by 2100, an amount too small to even notice.' The bill would bind only the U.S., not other nations, many of which, like China, are 'polluting' at a record pace. Also note that many European nations that have already imposed similar emissions restrictions have seen their emissions rise. But what would the costs be for this quixotic legislative paean to earth goddess Gaia? Contrary to the flawed analyses being advanced by the bill's proponents, Heritage estimates that the direct costs would be an average of $829 per year for a household of four, totaling $20,000 between 2012 and 2035. But when considering the total cost as reflected in the cost of allocations and offsets, the average cost to that family unit would be $2,979 annually from 2012 to 2035. Adding insult and hypocrisy to injury, the bill would hurt the poor the worst because they would bear a disproportionate burden of the higher energy costs the bill would trigger. Now here's the kicker. The bill is also projected to harm the manufacturing sector and cause estimated 'net' job losses, averaging about 1.15 million between 2012 and 2030. The overall gross domestic product losses would average $393 billion per year from 2012 to 2035, and the cumulative loss in gross domestic product would be $9.4 trillion by 2035. The national debt for a family of four would increase by $115,000 by 2035. Enough already. Throw the bums out." --columnist David Limbaugh

The Waxman-Markey global warming bill is an "energy tax in disguise," Heritage Foundation energy expert Ben Lieberman told members of Congress this week.

In his testimony, Lieberman made clear that cap-and-tax works by "inflicting economic pain."

"The bottom line is that cap and trade works by raising the cost of energy high enough so that individuals and businesses are forced to use less of it," he reported.

Heritage experts have been working round the clock to inform the public of the true costs of cap-and-tax legislation.

According to recent Heritage economic analyses, the costs of the proposed global warming bill will kick in when it takes effect in 2012. By 2035, a family of four's energy costs will increase dramatically.

· 90 percent increase in electricity costs

· 58 percent increase in gasoline costs

· 55 percent increase in natural gas costs

Lieberman points out that these are only "low-ball estimates" and that the burden of these increased costs will disproportionately affect the poor.

In addition, there is no concrete evidence that such carbon regulations will have a noticeable impact on the earth's temperature. As Heritage experts David Kreutzer, Karen Campbell and Nicolas Loris point out, cap-and-tax legislation will only bring "higher taxes and economic devastation in return for ... nothing."

"This climate bill has nothing to do with saving the planet or the polar bears. The problems that this legislation claims to address do not exist. Regulating our behavior and limiting our freedom will not have any effect on the climate. It is a pure power and money grab..." --radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh

» Watch the video "Cap and Trade: Will It Save the Earth?" to debunk liberal myths and get the facts from Heritage experts.

More Information on Cap-and Trade, From: The Center for Individual Freedom.
Only the United States Senate stands in the way of what the Wall Street Journal calls "the biggest tax in American history." That's because the Pelosi-led House of Representatives just strong-armed the so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (also known as "Cap-and-Trade") through the House of Representatives.

According to the Heritage Foundation, this massive "national energy tax" could cost the average family "nearly 3,000 per household per year."

House Minority Leader John Boehner points out that it will "put millions of Americans out of work" as American jobs are shipped overseas or lost outright.

Even President Obama admitted that under "Cap-and-Trade" legislation, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

But that's not all. Apparently, few if any Members of the House of Representatives even bothered to read this massive "national energy tax" before voting on it. Does this sound familiar?

According to Pioneer Press:
"Last week, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (the 'Cap and Trade Energy Bill'), or H.R. 2454, was 946 pages long. Over the weekend, it ballooned to 1,201 pages with no explanation for how or why." Then, to add insult to injury, on the day of the vote, the Pelosi-led Congress added another 255 pages to the bill (which no one had read to begin with) at 3:00 AM (EST) and limited debate to three hours before passing this massive "national energy tax" at 7:16 PM (EST). And when Boehner tried to read some of the provisions of this bill aloud on the floor of the House, liberals in Congress tried to shut him down. "Democrats tried to shut me down as I read parts of Speaker Pelosi's national energy tax (also known as 'cap and trade') out loud on the House floor. For more than an hour I cited provisions that will destroy American jobs, raise prices for gasoline and electricity, and devastate middle-class families and small businesses," said Minority Leader Boehner.

Just What Is Cap-And-Trade?

Essentially, "Cap-and-Trade" is being deceptively peddled as a system to encourage businesses to engage in "environmentally responsible activities."
But in actuality, it has little to do with the environment and instead is a means to deprive you of your income, control your behavior and repress your liberties.

Remember when President Obama said:
"We can't drive our SUVs, and eat whatever we want, and keep our homes at 72 [degrees] all the time, whether we live in the desert or the tundra, and keep consuming 25% of the world's resources with just 4% of the world's population... That's not going to happen." Little did we know that he was deadly serious when he made that radical statement on the campaign trail last year?

Under "Cap-and-Trade," the government would issue "pollution credits." Once allocated (as the government sees fit) those who use less than their government-imposed allocation can sell them to those who have exceeded their government allocation.

Peter Ferrara, the director of budget and entitlement policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation, writing for The American Spectator explains "Cap-and-Trade" this way:
"Under this policy, every business involving CO2 emissions will have to buy permits from the government for the amount of such emissions, which will be sold in open auctions, where the permit price will be bid up. But the government will limit the number of these permits, and consequently the maximum amount of CO2 emissions allowed. Indeed, over time the government will clamp down on the amount of CO2 emissions allowed by the permits, with the emissions to be reduced by 80 percent by 2050." And how will "Cap-and-Trade" policies change your standard of living for the worse: Ferrara explains: "These increased costs are effectively a new tax on the American people, even though Obama promised in his campaign that there would be no tax increase for the bottom 95 percent of income earners."

Of course, in the strictest sense, "Cap-and-Trade" is not solely a "tax." It's something much worse. When the government taxes you, it openly confiscates your income and that income goes directly into government coffers to fund some actual or perceived need. Under "Cap-and-Trade," no one in the government reaches directly into your pocket... nothing new is withheld from your paycheck... no new lines appear on your 1040 Form that you send to the IRS. Instead, the government, which is already taking de facto control of the banking and automotive industry, will have yet another tool in its arsenal to effectively take control of every other company or sector of industry that produces CO2... and that's just about everybody. And when you complain that your standard of living has gone down, you can be certain that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and liberals in Congress will simply point the finger at "greedy industry" when they know full well that they were the ones that gave this monster life. In short, "Cap-and-Trade" has nothing to do with the environment, it is nothing more than a mechanism that the government can now use to force others to pick your pocket, and diminish your standard of living in this already queasy economy. Fewer Jobs And A Lower Standard Of Living....

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, summed up how "Cap-and-Trade" will change your life for the worse when speaking at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference:
"[L]et me get this straight, we are not going to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year, unless you use electricity. And we are not going to raise taxes on anyone under $250,000 per year, unless you buy gasoline... [or] unless you buy heating oil... [or] unless you use natural gas... And I thought to myself how dumb do they think we are that they can pretend that an energy tax is not an energy tax and...that every retired American who uses electricity is not going to pay it, and every person in New Hampshire who uses heating oil is not going to pay it, and every person who drives a car isn't going to pay it. I just want to report to Attorney General Holder and President Obama that this is a nation of people courageous enough... to insist that we not be governed by people who won't tell us the truth."

Here's what Boehner says about recent "Cap-and-Trade" proposals that are on the table:
"Families and small businesses are struggling to get by, but the Democrats... would raise taxes on every American who drives a car, flips on a light switch, or buys a product manufactured in the United States. In fact it would cost every family as much as $3,100 a year in additional energy costs through their 'cap-and-trade' energy tax, and will drive millions of good-paying American jobs overseas."

And the Republican Study Committee echoes those sentiments:
"At a time when families across the country are struggling to make ends meet, the President and his Democrat friends want to take over $3,000 in new taxes from every American family in order to appease extreme political cronies. This is not a solution. It is a recipe for economic disaster."

Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation says:
"By limiting the supply of fossil fuels... cap and trade means more expensive gasoline and electricity as well as net job losses in energy-dependent sectors. Senator Lieberman himself concedes costs into the hundreds of billions of dollars. And as the Congressional Budget Office has noted, such energy cost increases act as a regressive tax on the poor."

In other words, as far as Obama's promise to cut taxes for 95% of American wage-earners, forget it. It was nothing more than sleight-of-hand.
But "Cap-and-Trade" is not just a shell game when it comes to your pocketbook. It has the same effect when it comes to jobs. Remember all those jobs Obama promised to create? Ferrara puts that illusion in perspective: "A thorough study on the effects of cap and trade conducted by a leading economics firm, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), concluded that cap and trade would result in job losses of between 1.2 million and 1.8 million by 2020, and 3 to 4 million by 2030. This is roughly the amount of jobs Obama claims will be produced by his economic stimulus package. Slower growth results in a loss of GDP for the American people of nearly $700 billion per year by 2030, which translates into lost household income of $4,000 to $6,750 per year by then."

Make no mistake; "Cap-and-Trade" is not just a confiscatory income killer... it's a job-killer as well.
And, just where do you think all those jobs are going to go? They're going to go to China and India, countries that have no intention of crippling their emerging economies with ridiculous "Cap-and-Trade" schemes. Fraud And Abuse... Rewarding Political Cronies On Your Dime.

Ask yourself the following question. If government controls the supply of allowable CO2 emissions, how long do you think it will take for elected officials to use "Cap-and-Trade" as a tool to reward cronies and punish political enemies?
David Frum of the American Enterprise Institute is one of several commentators who see in this legislation a left-wing plot to reward political friends and punish political foes. "In the name of environmental protection, Democrats are readying just such a transfer on a scale that would have impressed the Pharaohs. Tens of billions of dollars, possibly hundreds of billions, will be shifted from American consumers of electricity to shareholders of favored utility companies in primarily blue states. Under the leadership of uber-liberal Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Democrats are determined to make their plan so complicated that taxpayers will not notice the flocks of dollars migrating from the middle of the country to the coasts."

Of course, such a dynamic has another implication. "Cap-and-Trade" will be a rich man's game. In fact, one extremely wealthy liberal is already playing the "Cap-and-Trade" game.
That rich liberal is Al Gore, and he lives in a 20-room house with eight bathrooms. His house - which looks like Tara in Gone With the Wind - burns carbon like you wouldn't believe. Nashville Electric Service records show that Gore Hall consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year. To be specific: the Department of Energy says the average American consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours per year. In 2006, Gore consumed some 221,000 kilowatts hours. That's more than 20 times the national average. Of course, in his Academy Award-winning film, Mr. Global Warming told Americans to cut down on their consumption of electricity. So when some folks found him in that enormous house, they thought they detected hypocrisy. Not so, said Gore, "I'm carbon neutral." "Carbon neutral?" Oh yes. At home, Tipper and Al and the kids can burn as many kilowatts and produce as much carbon dioxide as they please - just so long as they buy carbon offsets. And what are carbon offsets? They are "verifiable reductions in CO2" that somebody else is willing to sell. If a company has some extra carbon emissions lying around, it can sell them to Al Gore so he can cool every square inch of that monster house in the summer and heat it from basement to attic in the winter - just as carbon neutral as he can be. And which company sold Gore those carbon offsets? It was a company in Great Britain. And guess who owns a huge chunk of that company? You guessed it... Al Gore.

As blogger Dan Riehl put it: Gore has built a "green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms." Do America a favor. Let's defeat this liberal "Cap-and-Trade" scheme right here and right now.

(cartoons from the Patriot Post & Patriot Update)