“We dont get our freedoms from democrats
We dont get our freedoms from republicans
We dont get our freedoms from presidents
We are empowered and our rights are endowed
by our creator, which is above”

…………….

Video of the Reverend C.L. Bryant from Louisiana delivering what many, myself included, to be the most powerful speech of the day. Simply put, the guy was amazing. If you don’t get goosebumps while watching this video, you don’t have blood running through your veins.

.

…..

-Cnation

This is what happens when leftists protest. Note the bandannas over the faces, note the violent signs, note the stone throwing, broken shop windows, and ultimately, the arrests.

How dare Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the not-even-bothering-to-disguise-it-anymore socialists/Marxists in congress,  the DNC, the major media attempt to draw a comparison between overwhelmingly peaceful TEA party protesters and these animals.

Glenn Reynolds has more

Stories here and here.

When Vegetarians Attack

Protester throwing rock at a cop car. An empty, unattended cop car. Now that's bravery...

This probably won't be the nicest thing I've ever written, but these pussies wouldn't know tough if it jumped out and bit them on the ass.

Window broken out of a Boston Chicken

Anarchist searches desperately for his character, comes up empty.

Loser.

…..

-Cnation

White House Endorses Closing Illegal Alien Health Care Loophole, Outrages Open Borders Lobby

Last week, Finance Committee Chairman, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) released a thumbnail sketch of the Senate health care bill.  While this document is merely a detailed outline, and the specifics have yet to be finalized, the Baucus outline does reference eligibility verification to prevent illegal aliens from accessing benefits, including the Senate bill’s tax credits to help pay for health insurance.  (See Chairman’s Mark).

Just three days after Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) response to President Obama’s address before Congress, the Obama Administration indicated “that verification of immigration status would be required for anyone seeking to purchase coverage” under their health care reform proposal. (The New York Times, September 11, 2009).  Five days later, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) released a sketch of his proposal.  The position taken by President Obama and Senator Baucus last week with respect to taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens is not materially different than the public position they took from May to July.  (See CBSNews, July 21, 2009; Topix, July 27, 2009; Houston Chronicle, May 21, 2009).  Accordingly, the public statements made by the President and Senator Baucus beginning in May and again last week, that illegal aliens will not receive benefits, have remained consistent.  Despite this consistency, the Baucus document, coupled with the Obama Administration’s announcement prompted outcry from open-borders lobbyists late last week.

The Baucus’ outline prompted well known anti-enforcement, open borders advocates to criticize the plan because of its inclusion of an immigration status verification requirement.  Frank Sharry, Executive Director of the pro-amnesty group America’s Voice, stated: “Quite frankly, it seems now that the politics of health care reform is to dump on immigrants even if it means bad policy.” Luis Cortés, chief executive officer of Esperanza USA, argued that the inclusion of the verification requirement indicated “that the U.S. Congress is losing its moral barometer.” (Congress Daily, September 16, 2009).  Furthermore, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has scheduled a “national call on the state of health care reform” to discuss what people “can do to ensure that health care reform is inclusive of all communities and that the President and Congress do not throw Latinos and immigrants under the bus.” (NCLR).

These recent outbursts by the open-borders lobby has prompted true immigration reformers to wonder why — if the provisions of the House bill, including Section 246 which said “Nothing in this bill…shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States,” was effective — were America’s Voice and LaRaza so quiet about this issue in May and when the House bill was introduced in July?  (See FAIR’s House Health Care Bill Analysis).  The answer, of course, is obvious.  The silence from the open-borders lobby proves how truly ineffective Section 246 would have been.  The fact that these groups are so vocal today proves that the President’s statements and the Senate outline represent a giant leap forward towards the inclusion of meaningful eligibility verification to prevent illegal aliens from accessing health benefits.  While true immigration reformers still have a long way to go to realize meaningful eligibility verification, there is no doubt that the voices of the American people are finally being heard on this issue.  (To understand how FAIR and the American people made their voices heard, see FAIR’s Legislative Update, August 17, 2009 and August 24, 2009).

It is also worth noting that the anti-enforcement lobby’s opposition to any immigration status verification in a health care reform proposal is completely out-of-touch with the views of the average American and clearly outside the mainstream of public opinion. According to Rasmussen Reports, an overwhelming 83% of U.S. voters “say that people should be required to prove they are a citizen of the United States before receiving government health care subsidies.” (Rasmussen Reports, September 7, 2009). This may be because Americans understand the exorbitant health care-related costs that illegal aliens impose on American taxpayers.  For example, a media report revealed earlier this month that taxpayers in California “contribute more than $1 billion annually to cover the health care costs of illegal residents.” (The Contra Cost Times, September 11, 2009).

Senate Health Reform Plan Released This Week

Last week, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, released a detailed outline of his committee’s health care bill.  (See Chairman’s Mark).  Baucus’ document is a “conceptual” draft and does not yet contain sufficient detail for FAIR to determine the specific details of the eligibility verification provisions in the outline and to determine whether they would prove effective to actually prevent illegal aliens from accessing benefits under the bill.

While the details still have to be completed, FAIR is initially encouraged that verification is part of the plan in the Senate.  (See page 21 of the Chairman’s Mark).  This represents a significant improvement over the House bill (H.R. 3200) which lacked eligibility verification altogether.  These initial details were also sufficient to prompt Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), an ardent amnesty supporter and member of the Senate Finance Committee, to threaten to kill the bill when it is considered by the Finance Committee.  (See The Hill, September 18, 2009).

According to The Hill, Menendez “is putting Democrats in a bind by seeking to let illegal immigrants benefit from the healthcare overhaul.” (Id.). While Democrats enjoy a 13-10 advantage on the Committee, the fact that Menendez’ fellow Democrat committee member, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), has said he will oppose the bill, means that Senator Menendez has become the swing vote for the committee to be able to vote out a bill. Accordingly, Menendez is now putting himself at odds with President Obama and 83 percent of the American people who support eligibility verification.

As details become available concerning the bill’s language, FAIR will keep true immigration reformers up to date.

2009 Hold Their Feet to the Fire a Resounding Success

Last week, September 15 and 16, FAIR held its annual Hold Their Feet to the Fire event in Washington, D.C. 45 of America’s finest radio talk show hosts broadcast their shows live from radio row, reaching listeners in all 48 of the contiguous states. In addition, the event brought hundreds of activists from across the country to the nation’s capital to lobby Congress in support of true immigration reform.

Dozens of Members of the U.S. Congress participated in Hold Their Feet to the Fire, including: Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL); Ben Nelson (D-NE); Charles Grassley (R-IA); and Jim Bunning (R-KY). In addition, Members of the House of Representatives who attended included: Representatives Joe Wilson (R-SC);  Parker Griffith (D-AL); Lamar Smith (R-TX); Tom Price (R-GA); Brian Bilbray (R-CA); Jack Kingston (R-GA); Steve King (R-IA); Geoff Davis (R-KY); Louie Gohmert (R-TX); Bob Goodlatte (R-VA); Walter Jones (R-NC); Ted Poe (R-TX); Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA); Hal Rogers (R-KY); Paul Ryan (R-WI); John Carter (R-TX); Kevin Brady (R-TX); Ed Royce (R-CA); Marsha Blackburn (R-TN); Roy Blunt (R-MO); Nathan Deal (R-GA); Jason Chaffetz (R-UT); and Henry Brown (R-SC). (If any Members of Congress were inadvertently omitted from this list, we apologize.)

New Report Shows Schools Increasingly Hiring Foreign Teachers Over Americans

A report released last week by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) entitled “Importing Educators: Causes and Consequences of International Teacher Recruitment” has revealed that “some American school districts have turned increasingly to overseas recruiting to find teachers” to fill teaching vacancies. The findings in the new report raise questions regarding proper levels of legal immigration and, in particular, the H-1B visa program. (AFT Report; The New York Times, September 15, 2009).

According to the report, nearly 20,000 teachers were working in the United States on temporary visas in 2007, and that number is increasing steadily. The report contains a case study of the Baltimore Public School District and notes that the city had hired 108 teachers from the Philippines in 2005. Just two years later, more than 600 Filipino teachers are now working in Baltimore classrooms, comprising more than 10% of the district’s teaching workforce. The report went on to assert that Baltimore school officials were leaning so heavily on these foreign teachers to fill job vacancies in their district that they were recruiting less aggressively in the United States: “Rather than attending job fairs throughout the Mid-Atlantic, trying to persuade reluctant American teachers to accept positions in troubled inner-city schools, HR officials can meet all their hiring needs in one trip. At a single career fair in Manila, they can interview hundreds of pre-screened applicants, each of whom is eager to pay for the opportunity to work in Baltimore city schools.” (Id.).

The AFT’s findings imply that international teacher recruitment is displacing American teachers. Amid the current economic recession, declining tax revenues have forced many state and local governments to lay off teachers. (The Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2009). Why, then, are school districts across the country increasingly recruiting foreign teachers to come to the United States to fill teaching vacancies? The AFT report suggests a possible answer: in one school district, foreign born teachers were “paid only $18,000 per teacher for their services, well below prevailing wage.” (AFT Report).

The AFT report also points out that many foreign teachers are being brought to the United States on H-1B visas. The H-1B visa program allows employers to bring foreign workers to the United States to work in specialty occupations that require “the theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized knowledge and a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent in the specific specialty.” (Department of Labor). However, some — most notably Bill Gates of Microsoft — have put forth the misconception that the H-1B program exists primarily to bring foreign workers to the United States to work in technology-related fields. Gates has then leveraged this misconception to lobby Congress to increase the H-1B visa cap so that companies such as Microsoft can have access to more cheap foreign labor. (See FAIR’s Legislative Update, March 24, 2008).

The United States elected 43 presidents before the current occupant graced the office with his presence. We fought, and won, two world wars, liberated millions of people worldwide from tyranny, and worked cooperatively with other sovereign nations to rebuild entire continents. Some might even say the character of our nation is well established considering we have been a democracy for just over 230 years now.

Recent Entries CBO: Obamacare Cuts Your Medicare Benefits The Math On Chinese Emissions Charter Students Outperform Their Traditional Public School Peers UN Loves Obama Because He Is Weak Read the Bill! What Bill?

Not President Barack Obama, who told the United Nations General Assembly yesterday, “For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.” 230 years versus just nine months. No wonder, the New York Times reports, were UN delegates not only applauding Obama, but snapping photos of their hero like tourists.

But the audacity of self-promotion was not the most troubling part of Obama’s speech. No, what most threatens America’s security is what Obama didn’t say. On March 27th of this year, while announcing his “New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan”, President Barack Obama said:

Al Qaeda and its allies — the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks — are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban — or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged — that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

But yesterday at the United Nations, the Taliban magically disappeared from this formulation. Instead, all we got was this: “We will permit no safe haven for al Qaeda to launch attacks from Afghanistan or any other nation. We will stand by our friends on the front lines, as we and many nations will do in pledging support for the Pakistani people tomorrow.” This was no slip of the tongue. On the morning talk shows this past Sunday, Obama openly questioned whether fighting the Taliban insurgency is necessary to stopping al-Qaeda.

We do not know what new intelligence the Obama administration has that leads it to believe that the Taliban is now irrelevant in the fight against al Qaeda. We do know this though: At a time when the President is desperate to keep his base unified for his domestic priorities, polls show that, for the first time since the war began, majorities of liberals and Democrats alike now solidly oppose the war and are calling for a reduction in troop levels. Council on Foreign Relations Fellow Stephen Biddle explains: “Surely a big piece of the declining poll numbers for support for Afghanistan is that the public does not yet see the connection between Afghanistan and al-Qaida today.”

But people in the region sure do. A recent public opinion poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that 69 percent of Pakistanis worry that extremists could take control of their country. The poll further indicated that 70 percent of Pakistanis now rate the Taliban unfavorably compared to only 33 percent a year ago. The Taliban/al-Qaeda threat spans the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan; thus, failure in one country will contribute to failure in the other—just as success in one country will breed success in the other.

According to media reports, President Obama is considering implementing a plan supported by Vice President Joe Biden to scale back the American military presence in Afghanistan and focus on targeting al-Qaeda cells primarily in western Pakistan. This strategy would be insufficient to curb the terrorist threat emanating from the region. Ceding territory to the Taliban in Afghanistan would embolden international terrorists in the region, including in nuclear-armed Pakistan.

In their combined 16 years as President, neither Ronald Reagan nor George Bush ever felt the need to say they were not naive. For that matter, neither did President Clinton. But for some reason, President Obama feels the need to reassure the world in every foreign policy speech that he is no naïve. He did it again yesterday (”Now, I am not naïve”). How might Shakespeare put it today? “The President doth protest too much, methinks.”

QUICK HITS

Yesterday, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon hosted a climate summit in New York designed to improve the chances that the December U.N. Copenhagen Climate Conference would produce a substantive treaty that would cap and cut carbon emissions. The Copenhagen agreement would replace the Kyoto Protocol that was rejected by the United States Senate 95 – 0. But as the Washington Post reports, even President Barack Obama’s star power failed to move nations towards meaningful carbon reductions:

Recent Entries Passing a Shell of A Bill: Congress’ Secret Plan to Ram Through Health Care Reform Five Things About Homeland Security That Nobody Is Discussing: #4 Zelaya Rewards U.S. Support with Betrayal NEA Tells Artists: Serve the State Beijing’s Capabilities are the Concern

Initially, many climate activists had hoped this year would yield a pact in which nations would agree to cut their greenhouse gas emissions under the auspices of a legal international treaty. But recent announcements by China, Japan and other nations point to a different outcome of U.N. climate talks that will be held in December in Copenhagen: a political deal that would establish global federalism on climate policy, with each nation pledging to take steps domestically.

But climate “federalism” would be pointless. It is called ”global” warming for a reason. Just ask Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson who admitted to the Senate this July that “U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels.” This is 100% consistent with all the best science which shows that the carbon reductions under the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill will not affect global temperatures in any material way. For example a recent study of cap-and-trade by MIT concluded:

The different U.S. policies have relatively small effects on the CO2 concentration if other regions do not follow the U.S. lead…The Developed Only scenario cuts only about 0.5 °C of the warming from the reference, again illustrating the importance of developing country participation.

Yesterday China tried to upstage Obama by selling their plan to “tackle this challenge” including promises improve the energy intensity and … plant more trees. But as University of Colorado professor of environmental studies Roger Pielke points out, China’s energy intensity claims simply defy reason:

China’s energy intensity in 2008 is about the same as it was in 2001. Any claim that China’s energy intensity has improved by 20% over the past five years is incorrect. … energy intensity has improved by only about 7.4% since 2005, meaning that it has a long way to go to reach a 20% target by 2010. Can it happen? Sure. But to say that China is “well on its way” does not square with the data. It would be “ironic” indeed if China has figured out how to grow its economy at 9% per year while increasing energy use by only 3% and decarbonizing its economy at an even lower amount. If this were true, then China would have discovered the holy grail of emissions reductions and we can all forget about the challenges of climate policy.

Economic growth is China’s number one priority, not global temperatures, which as the New York Times points out “have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.” China isn’t the only one focused on providing jobs instead of appealing to the sensibilities of the enviro-left. The World Bank is spending billions to help poor countries build coal power plants. Marianne Fay, the bank’s chief economist for sustainable development, told The Times: “There are a lot of poor countries which have coal reserves and for them it’s the only option. The [bank’s] policy is to continue funding coal to the extent that there is no alternative and to push for the most efficient coal plants possible. Frankly, it would be immoral at this stage to say, ‘We want to have clean hands, therefore we are not going to touch coal’.”

Forcing people to sacrifice their jobs and economic opportunity to lower temperatures that are not rising is immoral. But that is exactly what the cap and trade legislation in Congress would do.

QUICK HITS

This is what happens when you elect the criminally stupid to public office.

Chris Cato at WSPA.com reports:

WSPA first reported the mandate on Wednesday after an anonymous citizen faxed a copy of the memo to our newsroom. [Wellford Mayor Sally] Peake was out of town and unavailable for comment. On Friday, reporter Chris Cato caught up with her in her office and questioned her about the origin of the policy. Peake says she issued the mandate because several officers have been injured during chases, driving up insurance costs for the town.

“The officers are costing us more money on insurance than most citizens here in the city of Wellford are even earning,“ says Peake.

She says the city is paying out $20,000 annually in workers’ compensation claims, much of it due to the police force. In July, two officers wrecked their cruisers while chasing suspects and had to go to the hospital for minor treatment. The police chief says three officers have been injured during foot chases in the last two years.

Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright says the policy prevents police from upholding the law—a direct violation of their constitutional oath.

“If a bank robber or a drunk driver or a shoplifter or somebody with a warrant runs on foot, it’s our obligation to do what we can do to bring them to justice,“ says Wright.

But when we asked Peake about her order impeding an officer from stopping a crime in progress, she became defensive and irate. The conversation went as follows:

Reporter: “Are you telling your officers if they witness a crime – they witness someone commit a crime on someone else and they’re ten yards away – they can’t go stop that person?“
Peake: “Is that in there?“ (referring to policy)
Reporter: “It says no chases whatsoever.“
Peake: “Well, that’s what I said, no chases, didn’t I? I didn’t say nothing about a crime. If you see a crime, this that and the other -“
Reporter: “Well, that’s what a chase is – “
Peake: “Well, I told them no chase on foot, and (the police chief) know exactly what I mean, so you’re trying to twist what I -“
Reporter: “No, I’m not. You said no chases. No chases means no chases.“
Peake: (claps hands) “You got you a story, thank God! You are so sweet! You got you a story on a woman in Wellford! Hallelujah! I’m so proud of you, Mr. Cato!“

If I were a criminal, I would be on my way to Wellford, SC right this very minute.

If I were a Wellford resident, I would be doing two things:

• Making sure my firearms are loaded and ready
• Starting immediately, pursuing all legal means of removing this dangerously incompetent and and severely unstable woman from office.

A commenter on the WSPA article had the following to say about Peake:

Posted by ( medic21a ) on September 21, 2009 at 2:39 pm

I have noticed that the people who don’t live in Wellford are mistaken if they think we have not tried to have Sally removed from office. We have contacted the Governor (excuse me 2 Governors), the State Voters Commission, SLED (to investigate where all the fire depts Money went after she disbanded them and threw them and the Rescue Squad out of town hall) and the Attorney Generals Office (2 of them also). Not One of them did anything, it was like she couldn’t be touched (sounded really fishy to me). They even did an audit and still could not tell anyone where the money went. Sally would not let anyone have or even see the audit even though we tried to make a big stink using the “freedom of information act”.

Sally was voted out of office every time the election was run and then came out the box of absentee ballots, from the apartments and the nursing homes (most of the pts couldn’t tell you their name).

Before she was mayor,our Fire and Rescue volunteers had dinners, Bakery sales and yard sales,earning enough money to build a 2nd floor on our town hall. We did all the work with the help of our volunteer that was a contractor. So you all can see we have been going through this mess for quite a while. We are at our wits end. We want it all back like it used to be. We were all there in 1 building having family cookouts, cooking barbeque all night and the entire community was welcome. Channel 7 Problem Solver we have a problem for you!!!!!!! HELP!!!!!!!!!!

No doubt the Obama administration is considering a cabinet position for Peake.

Here are the videos. First is the edited televised version (2:11), second is the unedited raw version (7:06). They have to be seen to be believed.

Edited version:

Unedited version:

…..

-Cnation

Throughout his presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama promised the American people: “If you’re a family that’s making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes.” As President, Barack Obama reiterated that pledge, promising the American people in his September 9th health care press conference: “The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” But as ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos pointed out to the President this weekend, Obama will break his promise to the American people if he signs a health care bill that includes an individual or employer mandate.

Recent Entries Full CBO Scoring Crucial in Health Care Reform In the Green Room: Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) Americans Believe Government Does Too Much Already Trouble Ahead in Afghanistan Five Things About Homeland Security That Nobody Is Discussing

In an exchange that can only be described as “Clintonesque” Stephanopoulos was forced to read the definition of “tax” straight from Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, but even then Obama refused to acknowledge reality: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. … Nobody considers that a tax increase.” Really? Nobody?

Has President Barack Obama met his White House’s National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers who wrote in 1989:

Essentially, mandated benefits are like public programs financed by benefit taxes… [If] the mandated benefit is worthless to employees, it is just like a tax from the point of view of both employers and employees

Or what about President Obama HHS nominee Dr. Sherry Glied who wrote in 2008:

The mandate is in many respects analogous to a tax. It requires people to make payments for something whether they want it or not. One important concern is that the government will provide insufficient funds for the subsidies intended to accompany the mandate. In that case, the mandate will act as a very regressive tax, penalizing uninsured people who genuinely cannot afford to buy coverage.

Or what about the Congressional Budget Office who wrote this year:

Under some proposals, firms would be required to make payments to the federal government if they chose not to offer health insurance to their employees, and individuals who did not comply with the requirement to obtain insurance would have to pay a penalty. Such payments would be equivalent to a tax or a fine, and the government’s receipts should be recorded in the budget as federal revenues.

But one need not consult dictionaries, the CBO, or health care experts to find people that call individual and employer mandates taxes. The very legislation Obama is trying to say is not a tax, calls itself a tax! Sen. Max Baucus’ (D-MT) health care bill calls the proposed fines an “excise tax”. The House bill calls the same penalties a “tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.” And the Associate Press reports: “If you put something in the Internal Revenue Code, and you tell the IRS to collect it, I think that’s a tax,” said Clint Stretch, head of the tax policy group for Deloitte, a major accounting firm. “If you don’t pay, the person who’s going to come and get it is going to be from the IRS.”

Obama’s allies are already retreating. The Washington Post reports: “Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus began reworking his health-care overhaul to ease the financial burden on middle-class Americans who would be required for the first time to have health insurance.” The Post continues: “All of his changes, though, would add billions to the cost of a bill whose chief accomplishment was its relative austerity.” Thus all of Baucus’ changes will only help break another Obama promise: “Here’s what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.” But don’t worry; Obama may come up with a new definition of “deficits” too.

QUICK HITS

Did anyone really think this wasn’t going to happen? What a shameful abuse of  legislative authority on the part of the Massachusetts state legislature.

From the AP via FOX:

Massachusetts Senate Approves Kennedy Successor Bill

BOSTON  —  The Massachusetts Senate has approved a bill allowing the governor to name an interim replacement for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

The bill goes back to both chambers for a final procedural vote on Wednesday before heading to Gov. Deval Patrick, who has said he would sign it.

Patrick’s aides say they expect him to act quickly to name an appointee. The replacement would serve until voters pick a permanent replacement Jan. 19.

Lawmakers have come under pressure from Washington to pass the bill so Democrats can regain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate to help pass President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

As for that ‘filibuster-proof majority’, it looks as though Harry Reid may be worried about how long he’ll retain it – if he ever regains it – since democratic senator and ex-klansman Robert Byrd is back in the hospital again.

Today, Reid once again threatened using budget reconciliation, aka the ‘Nuclear Option’, to ram socialized healthcare down the throats of a general public and an increasingly reluctant congress.

Also from FOX:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid threatened on Tuesday to use a procedural maneuver to steamroll opponents of health care reform, even as a Senate panel began delicate negotiations over a package that could have the best chance at passing.

The Nevada Democrat, who has issued similar threats before, spoke as the Senate Finance Committee began debate over Chairman Max Baucus’ reform plan. Reid threatened to use a budgetary tool called reconciliation — also known as the “nuclear option” — that would allow Democrats to pass key parts of the legislation with a simple majority, as opposed to the 60 votes needed to avoid a Republican filibuster.

Funny, just last year, Reid was quoted as saying of the nuclear option “I really do believe it will ruin our country”.

If both of these stories illustrate one thing above all else, it’s the sheer and brazen hypocrisy of the Democrat party in this country today.

…..

-Cnation

If pure, unadulterated bullshit wore a suit, tie, and a bad moustache, its name would be David Axelrod.

Watch Wolf Blitzer (yes, Wolf Blitzer) hammer Axelrod on the question of allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines in order to encourage increased competition, and thereby lower the cost of health insurance.

You’d think Axelrod would be prepared for this line of questioning. You would be wrong.

Axelrod stumble all over himself trying to come up with a coherent explanation as to why that can’t be allowed to happen, including the somewhat bizarre and wholly disingenuous line of reasoning that it would be too difficult to implement.

More difficult than this? Yeah, sure thing.

Axelrod is a snake. Don’t ever forget it.

Props to Blitzer, who knew he had it in him?

…..

-Cnation

h/t Michelle Malkin

Prior to his September 9th, health care “make or break” press conference, the Wall Street Journal estimated that President Barack Obama had by that time already given 27 speeches entirely devoted to health care and he had mentioned the issue prominently in another 92. While the September 9th presser bumped approval of Obamacare all the way up to 51% in Rasmussen’s tracking poll by September 13th, today that number is down to 43% with a record high of 56% disapproving.

Recent Entries Video: Fiscal Wake Up Tour Dear Obama: Rein In Holder Video: The Empirical Evidence Against Big Government Reconciliation 101: A “Nuclear” Abuse of Power Obama’s Weekend Media Adventure

Undaunted the White House again plastered President Obama on as many friendly media outlets as possible this weekend. Yesterday he appeared on five Sunday news shows (every major network excluding FOX News, but including Univision), and tonight Obama will appear on David Letterman. The result of this latest media blitz? Nothing.

Politico reports: “In the interviews taped Friday – the first time a sitting president has done five Sunday shows back-to-back – Obama broke little new ground in how he tried to sell his own program, which has sharply divided his own party and left many in the public confused and deeply skeptical.” Asked by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos if he “lost control” of the health care debate, President Obama replied: “Well, not so much lost control, but where I’ve said to myself, somehow I’m not breaking through.”

Mr. President, if you didn’t break through the first 32 times, maybe it is not the message that is the problem. Maybe the problem is that the American people do not understand what your health care plan will mean for them, and they just don’t like it.

While President Obama has been careful not to formally endorse any of the health care bills in Congress, he not only specified a final price tag, $900 billion, that is closest to Sen. Max Baucus’ (D-MT) health plan, but he went on to defend the individual mandate and excise taxes in the Baucus bill on two of the Sunday shows. While the Baucus bill is not nearly as bad as parts of the Kennedy-Dodd bill or the House bills, it still constitutes an unprecedented expansion in the size and role of government, raises taxes, and bankrupts states:

Individual Mandates: Starting in 2013, almost everyone who does not have coverage would be required to purchase health insurance at a minimum level to be specified in the bill. Any individual who fails to buy health insurance will be forced to pay a tax by the Internal Revenue Service. Depending on your income and family status the new tax would be as low as $750 per person and as high as $3,800 per family. Worse, in order to enforce these provisions, the Baucus bill would require individuals, health insurers, employers, and government health agencies to report detailed health insurance information on all Americans to the IRS, adding significant administrative costs and reducing privacy protections.

Employer Mandates: Employers with more than 50 employees that do not offer health coverage would have to pay a tax for each employee whose family income is low enough to qualify for a premium credit. By requiring employers to pay taxes based on employees’ family income, not just their pay, companies would have to be informed of their employees’ family income from other sources. Worse, since the credits are based on family income rather than individual income, employers would be discouraged from hiring sole family income earners. This is a job killing employment tax plain and simple.

Unfunded Mandates: All adults with incomes at 133 percent of poverty ($14,440 for single person) would be eligible for Medicaid under the bill. The current and very broken Medicaid program is unsustainable for states and poorly serves the needy and the indigent who depend upon it. Under the Baucus bill, there is no real relief for states in the cost of the current program. States will still face a steep budget cliff in December 2010 when the federal matching formula for Medicaid payment expires. Adding additional costs through expansion of eligibility and benefits is adding people to a sinking boat.

Middle Class Tax Hike: During the 2008 presidential campaign and at the inception of the current national health care reform debate, the President promised that with the enactment of his agenda, the typical American family would see an annual $2,500 reduction in health care premium costs. But, beginning in 2013, the Baucus bill would impose a new federal excise tax on high cost health insurance plans. The tax would be applied to health plans valued at $8,000 for single policies and $21,000 for family policies. Because not all workers in such plans are high income, many will likely be on the receiving end of a middle class income tax increase, which contradicts President Obama’s promise that “if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.”

A new Gallup poll shows that 57% of Americans say the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to businesses and individuals. Another 51% say the federal government today has too much power. The American people are clearly signaling that they want less, not more, government influence in the health care system. The White House should stop talking to the American people and start listening.

QUICK HITS