Regarding Unemployment

Yesterday, I mentioned how President Obama’s economic narrative is struggling, due to the nature of the American economy. Quite frankly, both the economy and the President's narrative stink.

From the Associated Press

But the unemployment rate - it may be the most recognizable economic indicator - has held steady at 9.7 percent for the past three months, and 15 million Americans remain out of work. By the White House's own estimates, as well as those of many independent economists, that rate isn't expected to fluctuate more than a few tenths of a percent through the end of 2010.

The reality is that James Carville was correct: It’s the economy, stupid. And this fundamental truth worries Democrats across this country, as they currently maintain complete control of the federal government.

In George H.W. Bush’s only term in office, he experienced soaring popularity due to the incredibly successful Persian Gulf War. He oversaw the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, a symbol of the divisive 20th century. He oversaw the crumbling of the Soviet Union, the fall of communism, and the end of the Cold War, an eighty-year old conflict. Very few Presidents oversee such grand successes in foreign policy, with the exception of the vomiting incident , which certainly traumatized the Prime Minister of Japan.

Despite his successes abroad, Bush was not able to win reelection. When the recession began during the lead-up to the election of 1992, things began to unravel for the President. Governor Bill Clinton was able to capitalize on the economic struggles of the nation, becoming the 42nd President of the United States.

As for 2010, President Obama is not presently in danger, as he is not up for reelection. Furthermore, his approval rating is hanging around 48-49% (a very generous number considering the current unemployment rate). He still maintains a good amount of personal popularity (not approval, mind you).

It's his Democratic Party that in trouble, though. 2010 looks to be a tough year for Democrats in swing districts around the country.

Now, normally, a sitting President would be able to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to create a winning narrative for his party. However, we can now see that the wishful story that the President wishes to create will probably not magically emerge in the next 150 days. Instead, pesky “facts” about the stimulus coupled with an unemployment rate hovering over 9.5% will most likely make the President’s economic policies seem ineffective.

However, if the President is only concerned with his own political situation, he has another 2.5 years for economic recovery. In fact, the economic situation in 2011 and 2012 will determine whether or not Barack Obama will live in the White House for four or eight years. I tend to be an optimist, so I’m hoping for a much lower unemployment rate in 2013, and a new President as well.

How's That Stimulus Doing?

A few months back, I wrote about how the White House “graded” the $787,000,000,000.00 stimulus package that passed through Congress with almost no Republican support. Not surprisingly, the Obama administration gave itself an “A” on its legislation.

However, Americans in 2010 are rather skeptical (as they should be), so it’s important to look to groups outside of government to determine how well the government is doing...in this case, how the stimulus package is doing.

From CNN Money

In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years

NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms. About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act, which the White House's Council of Economic Advisers says is on track to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.

The Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress would have you believe that this piece of legislation completely turned around the economy, and prevented a second Great Depression. After all, it makes a great narrative.

President Obama, full of hope, came into office to undo all of the excesses of the Bush Administration, and undo the economic strife that didn’t exist until Democrats controlled the Congress for one year.

Taking decisive action, he created the stimulus plan, to jump start the American economy and prevent the unemployment rate from rising about 8%. Although the unemployment rate, mainly due to President Bush’s failed leadership, is hovering around 10%, the Obama administration is pleased to give itself top grades when it comes to dealing with the troubled economy.

While this is a lovely narrative created by the White House, it’s not necessarily true. And the NABE study demonstrates that perhaps the President's beloved Recovery Act, (which has actually cost over $800 billion) has not been as effective as the President’s economic team would have you believe.

The Supreme Court and Senator Harkin

Tom Harkin (D-IA)

“I think we need to push someone who would be on the liberal side, on the progressive side, just as Roberts and Alito are on that side,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), referring to Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who were both confirmed in George W. Bush’s administration. “Why do conservatives always get the conservatives, but we don’t get to get liberals? What the hell is that all about?”

What is that all about, Senator Harkin?

His idea is simple. Republican presidents never have their conservative nominees filibustered, Democratic presidents always have their liberal nominees filibustered.

His statement is absolutely true, unless you wish to use facts and history to support your claim.

In a very well written article that cleverly uses both facts and historical truths, David Frum states that when it come to judicial nominations, the Democrats are the party of no.

Here's Frum's thesis:

When you look at the last 5 presidents, only two have had a perfect record of Supreme court nominations, with little controversy. They are Presidents Clinton and Obama.

Here are the first choices of Presidents Clinton and Obama

Sonia Sotomayor - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation.
Stephen Breyer - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation.

Here are the first choices of Presidents Reagan, HW Bush, and W Bush.

Harriet Miers - Withdraws after heavy criticism over her credentials/experience. Replaced by Samuel Alito. Unsuccessful filibuster...with then Senator Obama joining in.
John Roberts - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation
Clarence Thomas - Perhaps the most heated confirmation ever. Barely approved.
David Souter - Stealth liberal justice. Smooth confirmation.
Robert Bork - Harsh contempt for this man. Utter rejection by Senate Democrats.

When you look at history, there is a double standard...but the complete opposite of what Senator Harkin would have you believe. Democrats are free to filibuster conservative nominees, while Republicans are more respectful of liberal nominees.

That major difference can be seen in 1987 and 1993. Robert Bork was very conservative...no doubt about that. However, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former counsel for the very liberal ACLU, was very liberal...no doubt about that. However, the way that the Republicans treated Ginsburg was ridiculously more respectful than the way the Democrats treated Bork.

So...how should the GOP treat President Obama's next nominee, Senator Harkin? With class, dignity, and respect? or should she be treated the way that Democrats have treated GOP nominees in the past?

I imagine she will be treated with much respect, much like Sonia Sotomayor was. You stay classy, GOP.

A Big Weekend

Shouldn't a bill that is "the most important in a generation" be easier to get through Congress?

Take Medicare:

The bill went through more than five hundred amendments before being passed by majority vote in both the House (307-116) and Senate (70-24).

Note that this monstrous program was not passed 216-215 in the House, and 51-49 in the Senate. The Medicare bill in 1965 was clearly popular among a majority, no, a super-majority of Congressmen and Senators at the time.

Right now, Nancy Pelosi is scratching and clawing with all of her might to get to the magic number of 216 to pass this bill in the House. Even then, she's using methods that are not exactly what we learned in Civics class.

Shouldn't that tell us something about the quality of this bill?

If you haven't, please call Congressman Latham and let him know how you feel about this health care vote.

Revisionist Health Care History

This is wrong.

Pelosi voiced confidence that Democrats will prevail over what she said was Republican obstructionism and win passage of landmark legislation that Obama will sign into law.

"What has happened in the last year, in the past year, in the United States Senate is a total obstruction by the Republican senators," Pelosi said.

Do not let Nancy Pelosi rewrite history. She claims Republican obstructionism. It is a lie. Listen to her again.

"What has happened in the last year, in the past year, in the United States Senate is a total obstruction by the Republican senators," Pelosi said.

I'm terribly sorry, Speaker Pelosi, but you are not telling the truth. Here's what you should have said:

"What has happened in the last year, in the past year, in the United States Senate has nothing to do with the Republican Party. You might ask, 'How is this possible? Democrats are always railing about obstructionist Republicans!'

Well...it is possible, because my party has been able to do whatever it wants in the Senate because the GOP did not even have 41 senators to stop cloture votes. My blaming of Republicans for "obstructing" the last year is bull. Politically, we Democrats could do whatever we wanted, because the GOP literally could not stop us from doing...whatever we wanted."

Nancy, (since members of Congress are on a first name basis, thank you President Obama) the next time you speak to the press, give them the above quote. It will make you seem more intelligent, more honest, and it will give the American people an even better indicator of how most of the past year with absolute Democratic control went.

Not very well.

Lessons in Quality Governance

From Jake Tapper, ABC:

The plan to pass the bill includes having the House of Representatives pass the Democratic Senate health care reform legislation as well as a second bill containing various “fixes.”

Here's an update on Health Care Reform in Congress, brought to you by the Democratic Party.

Step 1: Have ridiculous control over the federal government (The White House, Senate, House)
Step 2: Create a bad bill in the House
Step 3: Argue for a while
Step 4: Create a bad bill in the Senate
Step 5: Argue for a while
Step 6: Anger the American public by pretending they're not intelligent enough to understand.
Step 7: Tread water for a couple months

Finally, Step 8: Pass a bad bill (that you KNOW is bad), knowing full well that you'll have to pass another bill that fixes the first. Is it any wonder that people think Washington is broken?

I should head over to Home Depot, buy a refrigerator that doesn't cool, tell my wife that I finally bought a fridge, brag to my friends about my awesome new appliance, wait a little bit, and then go back to Home Depot a few weeks later to buy the necessary part to fix my fridge. I hook it up, and it finally cools, but it has no door.

Whether you're buying a broken appliance or creating broken legislation...it's a bad plan for moving forward.

Do I need to mention that during the last year, the Democrats could do whatever they wanted in Congress without fearing Republican opposition?

A Concerning Executive Order

I'm sure most conservatives (and hopefully most Americans) would agree that the United States Constitution and American Sovereignty are two of the greatest gifts that we have as Americans.

The Constitution affords more rights and protections than any other document in history. The entire document, which includes the 210 year old The Bill of Rights, is rightfully cherished in this country.

American Sovereignty allows Americans to enjoy these rights in peace, without worrying about the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, China, the International Criminal Court, Interpol, and the International Court of Justice, who, for the most part, have little jurisdiction in the United States of America.

There are some who say that we should be bound under the rules, regulations, and laws of several international organizations, however, I would disagree with these folks.

And here's why:

These organizations do not have to respect all the laws of the United States of America. They are not subject to our representative government. They do not answer directly to the American people. I, as an American citizen, have no means to hold them accountable. Most importantly, they are NOT subject to the United States Constitution.

As such, I disagree with any attempt to put the American government or its citizenry under the realm of control of any entity that does not fall under the jurisdiction of our most important document: The United States Constitution.

Therefore, I am concerned about this:

President Obama issued an executive order. Didn't hear about it? It was done quietly. I give the administration credit that it is actually on the White House website, but I ponder: Why isn't the administration shouting this new executive order from the rooftops? After all, if it's good for the American people, then you should share with us WHY it's good for the American people.

Here's an analysis of what the executive order means:

Admittedly, my area of expertise does not lie in International Law, but one thing seems certain. At the beginning of this month, American citizens could use the Freedom of Information Act to determine what Interpol is up to, similar to an American citizen using the FOIA to determine what the FBI is up to. However, after this executive order, Interpol is now immune from FOIA requests, which should be disconcerting to all Americans, both conservative AND liberal, who value transparency and openness in government and law enforcement.

Perhaps President Obama should explain to us why this executive order was necessary.

Blizzard Musings

While we are in the midst of the worst blizzard in recent memory, I thought I might throw out some links for a day filled with snow and billowing wind.

1. Chet Culver's not doing so well. The Iowa poll in late November placed him at a significant disadvantage for the gubernatorial election in eleven months. Here's a few highlights:

- Culver has been governor for the past three years, but only 34% of Iowans think the state is headed in the right direction.
- Culver would lose to Terry Branstad 57% to 33% (24 points...yikes)
- Culver would lose to Bob VanderPlaats 45% to 37% (8 points...more modest)
- Although Culver would defeat Chris Rants and Christian Fong by 7-8 points, it's most likely due to lack of name recognition for Rants and Fong.
- Chet Culver's approval rating is only 40%.

These numbers are not a recipe for victory for the incumbent.

On the Republican side, we'll see who actually faces Culver in the general election. Fong has already dropped out, but he might receive the nod for Lt. Governor if Branstad wins the primary. Fong is pro-life, and I highly doubt Branstad would choose a pro-abortion running mate again.


2. The U.S. has racked up more debt for the first two fiscal months of 2010, then ever before. So much for blaming the debt on George W. Bush and the Republicans. This debt baby fully belongs to the Democrats now...although, as I discussed earlier, the Democrats have been in charge of the budget since the 2006 mid-term elections, so really, any fiscal crisis lies squarely in their hands (admittedly with help from President Bush)

3. Speaking of the stimulus, recent headlines have revolved around several wasteful stimulus spending projects, most notably the nearly $1 million spent for monitoring ant behavior. Also, the firm of one of Hillary Clinton's top advisers received $6 million from the stimulus monies, which brings questions of conflicts of interest. Is it any wonder that most Americans don't trust Washington D.C.?

4. On a lighter note, President Obama has been immortalized with his first statue in Indonesia.

I do support the idea that a child can do anything he puts his mind to. I do not support Barack Obama as Jesus Christ.

Stay warm, folks.

Saturday Morning Musings

**Fred Barnes has an interesting article on why Obama, who ran on changing Washington, isn't actually changing Washington.
---
**President Obama is getting ready to announce a troop surge in Afghanistan. However, he's going to have to convince his anti-war base that it's the appropriate decision. The key line from this article:

“It was an excellent campaign line for Obama to say, ‘We took our eye off Afghanistan and fought the wrong war in Iraq,’” said Marvin Weinbaum, a former State Department South Asia specialist now affiliated with the Middle East Institute. “The implications of what he was saying I don’t think registered on people…..They didn’t see it.”

“I don’t think there was a consciousness in the electorate that, if we elect Obama, we’re sending 50,000 troops to Afghanistan,” said Kurt Volker of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. “It wasn’t hidden, but it wasn’t evident to voters who were focused on other issues."

It's a good read. Certainly, the President is in a tough spot, considering his rhetoric during the primary against Hillary and the general election against McCain. We'll see what he says on Tuesday night to placate his anti-war base.
---
**As for the economy, the markets were shaken yesterday by Dubai's announcement that it could not continue to make its debt payments. As it turns out, while Dubai was building up its very impressive skyline and city, they were also deficit spending. A lot. As such, there's a little trouble in paradise.
---
**The Justice Department decided this week that ACORN should receive taxpayer money for . ACORN, which has been receiving federal money for more than a decade, was made infamous for the undercover video depicting ACORN employees encouraging federal lawbreaking.
---
**As for this next one...it's not good. Barack Obama is the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the world. He must be protected. Period. This is unacceptable. Normally, the Secret Service is top notch, but this mistake, which allowed two seemingly amiable people very close to the President, is unacceptable. Especially since the Indian Prime Minister was present as well.
---
**Finally, central Iowans struggling to afford travel this holiday season have reason to rejoice. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) Des Moines is one of only 7 large cities in this country whose plane ticket prices have DROPPED over the last 15 years. Average cost of plane tickets from Des Moines International Airport have dropped an average of 4%. Largest decrease? Denver. Largest increases? Hawaii and Alaska.

How’s the stimulus doing?

According to the Obama administration, the stimulus reviews are in, and this plan receives an A+ (with a few minor issues).

Politico:

“White House officials announced Friday that they had counted exactly how many jobs were created or saved by recent stimulus spending: 640,329.

So how many were saved and how many created? They don’t know.

In a briefing with reporters, officials acknowledged they can’t tell the difference between jobs “saved,” and jobs “created” by the $787 billion stimulus package.

They said they also can’t tell the difference between private sector jobs and government jobs.

And they said that they had found and corrected significant errors in the data submitted in 57,000 separate reports to the federal government by Recovery Act funding recipients.”

It seems as though they don’t know a lot. But 640,329 sure sounds like a great number. And if it’s an accurate number, then that truly is good for the American people! Plus, it’s good for the Democrats, politically. They know 650,000 jobs gained sounds much better than the ten million jobs that have actually been lost since the Democrats took over in 2007. We tend to forget this key point, which is what Democrats desire. They want the public to believe that Republicans were in charge of everything budgetary in the country in 2007 and 2008. Unfortunately, it’s a lie.

2007, 2008, and 2009 – The Democrats controlled Congress, controlled the budget, controlled the purse strings, controlled legislation, and controlled the Capitol. By the end of 2007, their first year in charge of dominating Congress, the recession was beginning, and jobs were being lost.

See, the Democrats would LOVE to blame George W. Bush for this recession. In fact, it’s their favorite pastime. However, President Bush was not a dictator who controlled lawmaking (although many Democrats would have you believe that he was). He did not control the purse strings in this country. The Democrats did.

And the last 34 months of Democratic governance have NOT been very pleasant. Just ask the 10.2% of those who are unemployed.

So, here’s the recap:

January 1995 - Republicans take over Congress, the budget, and the country’s pocketbook.
Unemployment is 6.2%
November of 1997, nearly 3 years later, the Republicans are still in charge of Congress.
Unemployment is down to 4.3%

January 2007 - Democrats take over Congress, the budget, and the country’s pocketbook.
Unemployment is 5%
November 2009, nearly 3 years later, the Democrats are still in charge of Congress.
Unemployment has doubled to over 10%.



These are the facts, and they are indisputable. This is why there is so much concern among Democrats today. They fear that independent voters might discover this data from the Department of Labor. But judging by recent polls, plus the recent gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, Independents might already be realizing the governance by the Democrats is not the best solution.

What do the Democrats really want?

This quote from Representative Martin Heinrich, a Democrat from New Mexico, says it all.

“This is an opportunity to do something as big as Social Security.”

I know what he means, but his words reverberate around my head, nonetheless.

“As big as Social Security.”
“As big as Social Security.”
“As big as Social Security.”

How is Social Security doing right now anyway? Why can’t we solve the problem with Social Security and Medicare first? Congress reminds me of the man with two or three unfinished projects around the house, who decides to start yet another project.

Let’s solve the current crisis first. We have a lot of work to do.

This week, the U.S. quietly passed a horrific economic milestone. The United States National Debt now stands at more than 12 trillion…excuse me…$12,000,000,000,000.00.

Here's where the current debt lies.

I encourage you to notice the bottom of the picture…particularly unfunded liabilities, which currently stand at over 100 trillion dollars. So what shall we do with so many unfunded liabilities?

Add another one!

Steak Fry - This Thursday!

The Dallas County GOP is going to hold its annual Steak Fry at Waukee High School this Thursday, November 12th, at 6pm.

We have several guest speakers lined up:
- RPI state chair Matt Strawn
- State Auditor David Vaudt
- WHO Radio host Jan Mickelson

We'll also be having a delightful pie auction. Let me be very clear about this. There are some folks in Dallas County who have a firm grasp on baking tasty desserts. I encourage you to come by and witness this firsthand, after you enjoy a steak dinner and a great lineup of speakers.

Tickets are $25. For more information, click here.

Hope to see you there!

House of Representatives - 2.5 days a week

This might be the problem.

It's no wonder...the Dems can't actually read the bill, or put it up online before voting on a bill. It's seems crazy...are we actually expecting Congress to work more than 2 1/2 days a week?

(Lack of) Transparency

In my last post, I was wondering if the Democrats would refuse to post a bill online before a vote. Now we know.

U.S. Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) today issued the following statement after Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee rejected his Transparency Amendment to the "America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009."

Senator Bunning’s amendment would have required that the legislative language and a final and complete cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) be made publicly available on the Finance Committee’s website for at least 72 hours before the Finance Committee could vote on final passage of the bill.

The Democrats on the Finance Committee refused to vote aye for this amendment, instead deciding to shoot it down, by a vote of 13-10. I guess the Democrats in Congress don’t want to live up to standard that President Obama set during his campaign.

How is that promise going, Mr. President?

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6TH, 2009 AT 3:39 PM

Update on Sunlight Before Signing

“Since a few questions have come in, we want to update you on the President's campaign commitment to introducing more sunlight into the lawmaking process by posting non-emergency legislation online for five days before signing it. This policy will be implemented in full soon; currently we are working through implementation procedures and some initial issues with the congressional calendar.

The President remains committed to bringing more transparency to government, and in this spirit the White House will continue to publish legislation expected to come to his desk online for public comment as it moves through Congress.”

Well, it's been exactly 8 months. Apparently, this particular promise isn't terribly important, especially when the President and his party are trying to get an unpopular "public option" bill through Congress. Hopefully, the President will whip his party into shape so that the American people can get the transparency that they deserve.

As for right now, it looks as though the Democrats are just going to ram this bill through Congress as fast as they can…a bill that less than 30% of Americans support. Great leadership.

Comfort, in case you're worried

Senator Tom Carper (Democrat-DE) has some words of reassurance for you. Actually, what he tells this reporter might enhance your concern, rather than assuage it.

From an interview with CNS. Feel free to watch the 4 minute video, if you choose to follow the link.

Here's the bottom line.

If you, a citizen, are concerned that:
- Members of Congress aren't actually reading legislation that impacts 1/6 of the largest economy this planet has ever seen
- The Legislative language might be very confusing, and intentionally difficult for a court or the American people to understand
- The Democrats might sneak in language to a piece of legislation that the American people don't want

...then you should be. Disaster is slowly developing in the halls of Congress. Why can't people understand that this is not normal behavior for a group of people who are supposed to be advancing solutions? What's their next great idea? Secret health care bills that Americans won't be able to view online before an actual vote?

The Only Poll That Really Matters

and no one is even talking about it!

Polling companies, including the Rasmussen poll below, have been focusing on the following question.

Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan?

* Favor 46%
* Oppose 37%

While this appears to be a fair question, seemingly innocuous, it is a flawed question, because it deprives those polled of the reality of the situation.

The CORRECT polling question is below. Fortunately, Rasmussen has been kind enough to ask this question.

Suppose that the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Workers would then be covered by the government option. Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers?

* Favor 29%
* Oppose 58%

From the Rasmussen article

"The second question asked about the creation of a public option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Given that possibility, support for the public option falls to 29%, and opposition rises to 58%.

Even if it encourages employers to drop private health insurance for their workers, 51% of Democrats still support the public option. Eighty-two percent (82%) of Republicans and 61% of voters not affiliated with either party are opposed.

The president has said that no one would be forced to change their insurance coverage if his plan is implemented. However, many analysts have concluded that some employers would drop their private health insurance coverage if the plan is passed, forcing millions of workers to change their coverage."

As I discussed in an earlier post, the public option plan has only one goal. Getting rid of private insurance altogether to replace it with a single-payer system. Don't lie, President Obama. Don't lie, Democrats. We know it's what you actually want. You are tip-toeing around the issue because you don't want us Americans to know what you're REALLY doing.

How do I know that Americans don't want what you want? Let me recopy from above!

Suppose that the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Workers would then be covered by the government option. Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers?

* Favor 29%
* Oppose 58%

29%. If you've ever thought that the Democrats are being driven to left by the most radical in their party, look no further. Here's your evidence. The Democrats are being driven to the left by 20-something percent of the American people.

This is just stupid

Dumb

The Empire State Building is going to light itself up, celebrating the communist takeover of China.

What exactly are we celebrating? Are we celebrating the lack of freedom in China? Perhaps the mandatory lifetime, government-sponsored room and board for political dissidents? What about Mao's apathetic attitude (best case scenario) towards the death of more than ten million of Chinese peasants in the 1950s and 60s? Shall we celebrate these ideas too?

This is stupid. However, I guess we don't have a choice, since China now owns a good portion of the United States. Darn.

Health Care and Abortion

From the New York Times

Democratic Congressional leaders say the latest House and Senate health care bills preserve the spirit of the current ban on federal abortion financing by requiring insurers to segregate their public subsidies into separate accounts from individual premiums and co-payments. Insurers could use money only from private sources to pay for abortions.

But opponents say that is not good enough, because only a line on an insurers’ accounting ledger would divide the federal money from the payments for abortions. The subsidies would still help people afford health coverage that included abortion.

While Congress continues to debate the health care bills that are being juggled as we speak, let’s briefly talk about how the health care bill might affect the issue of abortion.

Cutting through the crap, here’s the specific policy difference between pro-life politicians and pro-choice politicians today.

If you are pro-life, you want ZERO dollars going towards abortions. You want ZERO taxpayer monies going towards the termination of unborn children. It’s a very passionate desire, indeed.

If you pro-choice, you want lots of dollars going towards abortions. You want the government to pay for abortions. In fact, you desperately want to ensure that the public option will be able to circumvent the Hyde Amendment so that federal subsidies will go towards abortions. This too, is a very passionate desire.

However, here’s a message for all of you pro-choice folks out there. If you get your way, you KNOW that my taxpayer dollars will likely be used to fund abortions in our nation. Just don’t lie to me, and say that the "spirit" of the Hyde Amendment is still in the health care bill.

No. If you truly care about the Hyde Amendment (which you don't), put the explicit language in the bill. Of course, I know you won't.

Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals

Check out the recent Gallup Polling.

"Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.

At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years."

"Hope and Change" is working out real well for conservatives coming out of the woodwork. Conservatives are normally rather busy living out their lives and don't take the time to get overly involved in politics.

But when President Obama fires the CEO of GM, gives unions more influence over the company, and attempts to take over the entire Health Care industry of the nation to socialize it, things change. And this poll proves it...Enough is Enough.

President approval -8

How is "Hope and Change" working out for everyone? Dear Democrats and mainstream media: Go ahead and keep calling us town hall meeting attendees un-American.

I suppose it's stupid to think that we can say anything that's not a praise for the all mighty President.

However, not all Americans are enamored by the President.



"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 29% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8."