Search:
Advanced Search



Connect
Posted: September 26, 2009 - 0 comment(s) [ Comment ] - 0 trackback(s) [ Trackback ]
Category: the Economy

Obama's Policies Would Redistribute Nearly $1 Trillion in Wealth Every Year
Thursday, September 24, 2009
By Karen Schuberg

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54468

 

alt
Logo for the White House Web site on health care reform, "Reality Check."
(CNSNews.com) - By 2012, nearly $1 trillion from the top 30 percent of American families will be redistributed among the bottom 70 percent if Obama’s proposals on taxes, health care, and climate change become law, according to the Tax Foundation.
 
“Even if none of Obama’s policies becomes law, the extent of income redistribution is remarkable,” Scott Hodge, president of the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, said. “The top-earning 40 percent of families will transfer $826 billion to the bottom 60 percent in 2012.”
 
Under the Obama plan, 70 percent of American families as a group -- those earning less than $109,460 -- will receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, Hodge said.
 
“The majority of people below the 70 percent mark will get more back than they pay in taxes,” Hodge told CNSNews.com.
 
This would leave the top 30 percent -- those making more than $109,460 -- paying more in taxes than they receive in federal spending, Hodge said.
 
According to the report, the lowest-income families will gain $10.44 in federal spending for every dollar they pay in taxes.
 
“Middle-income families (those earning $65,000 to $85,000 annually), who are the targeted beneficiaries of many Obama policies, will receive $1.15 in government spending benefits for every dollar they pay in taxes,” the report states.
 
“Under Obama’s policies, families making over $280,000 (the top 5 percent) will get back 56 cents of every dollar they pay in taxes while the highest earning families, those in the top 1 percent earning over about $700,000, will get back 33 cents in spending for every dollar they pay in taxes,” Hodge said.
 
Currently, families making $280,000 receive 61 cents on the dollar, while those earning over $700,000 receive about 40 cents for every tax dollar spent, Hodge said.
 
The report notes that “Obama’s policies (will) lead to tax increases for a curious mix of rich and poor families.”
 
Regressive cap-and-trade policies and increased tobacco taxes disproportionately impact families earning less than $23,700, and higher income tax rates will increase tax payments for families earning more than $280,000.

“On net, however, when spending is included, the lowest-income households gain more than $2,200 while the highest-income families lose more than $127,000,” the report states.
 
Hodge explained: “(These claims) are based on our redistribution model which looks at how much every family pays in taxes compared to what it gets in government benefits.  We look at that for families at every income level.  That adds up to a national accounting of how much is paid by each income group in taxes versus how much it gets in spending, and then you look at the overall amount of redistribution.  You compare the amount of people that get more back than they pay to the groups of people who pay more than they get.  And that difference is the amount of redistribution.”
 
The report is based on IRS data, Census Bureau data and information taken from the federal budget, Hodge added.



Connect



Connect
Posted: September 26, 2009 - 0 comment(s) [ Comment ] - 0 trackback(s) [ Trackback ]
Category: Natl Security

Administration Will Cut Border Patrol Deployed on U.S-Mexico Border
Thursday, September 24, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

 

alt
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer is seen from Mexico's side of the San Ysidro port of entry guarding vehicles involved in a shooting in Tijuana, Mexico, Sept. 22, 2009. Four people were injured in a gun battle involving an attempt to smuggle illegal immigrants from Mexico at the busiest border crossing in the U.S., authorities said. (AP Photo/Guillermo Arias)
(CNSNews.com) - Even though the Border Patrol now reports that almost 1,300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border is not under effective control, and the Department of Justice says that vast stretches of the border are “easily breached,” and the Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons “linked to terrorism” and 530 aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year, the administration is nonetheless now planning to decrease the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border.
 
Border Patrol Director of Media Relations Lloyd Easterling confirmed this week--as I first reported in my column yesterday--that his agency is planning for a net decrease of 384 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2010, which begins on October 1.
 
A Department of Homeland Security annual performance review updated by the Obama administration on May 7 said the Border Patrol “plans to move several hundred Agents from the Southwest Border to the Northern Border to meet the FY 2010 staffing requirements, with only a small increase in new agents for the Southwest Border in the same year.”
 
Easterling said on Tuesday that in fiscal 2009, 17,399 Border Patrol agents have been deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border. In fiscal year 2010, the Border Patrol plans to decrease that by 384 agents, leaving 17,015 deployed along the Mexican frontier. At the same time, the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Canada border will be increased by 414, from a fiscal 2009 total of 1,798 agents to a fiscal 2010 total of 2,212.
 
The Border Patrol is responsible for securing a total of 8,607 miles of border, including the U.S.-Mexico border, the U.S.-Canada border from Washington state to Maine, and sectors of coastline in the Gulf of Mexico, Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
 
Each year, the Border Patrol sets a goal for “border miles under effective control (including certain coastal sectors).” “Effective control,” as defined by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, means that when the Border Patrol detects an illegal border crosser in a particular area of the border the agency can be expected to succeed in apprehending that person.
 
In the May 7 update of its performance review, DHS said the Border Patrol’s goal for fiscal 2009 was to have 815 of the 8,607 miles of border for which the agency is responsible under “effective control.”  The review also said the Border Patrol’s goal for fiscal 2010 was to again have 815 miles of border under “effective control,” meaning DHS was not planning to secure a single additional mile of border in the coming year.
 
However, Acting Deputy Assistant Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Todd Owen told a House committee in July that the Border Patrol already had 894 miles of border under effective control as of May 31 of this year.  These 894 miles, Owen said, included 697 miles on the Mexican border, 32 miles on the Canadian border and 165 miles in the coastal sectors.
 
Easterling said this week that as of now the Border Patrol still has the same 894 miles of border under effective control that it had under effective control as of May 31. He also said the agency would not relinquish control of any of these miles in the coming year.  After the beginning of the new fiscal year, he said, the Border Patrol would reevaluate the situation and set a new goal for border miles under “effective control” for 2010 that would at least equal, and might exceed, the 894 miles currently under effective control.
 
“The intention is to take back the border incrementally, and make gains that we can keep,” Easterling said. “We do not intend, nor will we give back, miles that we have gained control over.”
 
Easterling said the Border Patrol would be able to maintain the current number of miles under effective control on the Mexico border with fewer agents deployed there thanks to “force multipliers,” including new fencing, roads and other infrastructure that has been built in recent years. He also cited the assistance the Border Patrol receives from local police and sheriffs departments and community watch groups.
 
But even if the Border Patrol is able to maintain or marginally improve on the current level of security on the U.S.-Mexico border, most of the border will remain effectively open to smuggling both contraband and persons.
 
The entire U.S.-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long, according to the International Boundary and Water Commission. While 697 of those miles are now under “effective control,” according to the Border Patrol, 1,257 miles are not under “effective control.”
 
Reports from other government agencies paint a vivid picture of the massive drug and alien smuggling that takes place in these uncontrolled expanses and the national security problem created by unsecured border lands.
 
Each year, the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center produces “drug market analyses” for each of 32 regions of the country that the NDIC describes as “high intensity drug trafficking areas.” Five of these areas sit along the U.S.-Mexico border. These include the California border region, Arizona, New Mexico, West Texas and South Texas. The latest reports, released in March and April of this year, use candid language in portraying the U.S.-Mexican frontier as wide open to drug smuggling and even vulnerable to penetration by potential terrorists.
 
The California-Mexico border, the NDIC said, was “easily breached” on both foot and in vehicles.
 
“The vast border area presents innumerable remote crossing points that traffickers exploit to smuggle illicit drugs, primarily marijuana, into the country from Mexico,” said NDIC. “These areas are easily breached by traffickers on foot, in private vehicles, or in all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) as they smuggle drugs between POEs [ports of entry], particularly the mountainous areas in eastern San Diego County and the desert and sand dune areas in Imperial County.”
 
Arizona’s border was judged to be open not only to drug smugglers but also aliens with “extensive criminal records” and from “special interest countries,” which are defined as “countries that could export individuals who could bring harm to the United States through terrorism.”
 
“Some criminal organizations smuggle aliens and gang members into the United States,” said NDIC’s report on Arizona. “These particular individuals typically have extensive criminal records and pose a threat, not only to the Arizona HIDTA [high intensity drug trafficking area] region but also to communities throughout the United States. Alien smuggling organizations reportedly also smuggle aliens from countries other than Mexico, including special-interest countries.”
 
“Special-interest countries are those designated by the intelligence community as countries that could export individuals who could bring harm to the United States through terrorism,” said the NDIC report.
 
The NDIC described the Arizona-Mexico border as “largely underprotected” in the areas between official ports of entry.
 
“Large amounts of illicit drugs are smuggled into the area from Mexico, and bulk cash is transported from the area into Mexico,” said NDIC. “These trafficking activities are facilitated by several factors unique to the region, including the continuing economic and population growth in Arizona’s two primary drug markets (Phoenix and Tucson), the highways that connect major metropolitan areas in Arizona with major illicit drug source areas in Mexico, and a remote, largely underprotected border area between Arizona’s ports of entry (POEs).
 
“Vast stretches of remote, sparsely populated border areas are located within the HIDTA region; these areas are especially conducive to large-scale drug smuggling,” said NDIC. “By the end of January 2009, 108 miles of the 262-mile shared border between Arizona and Mexico will have some type of fencing. However, few physical barriers exist in border areas between POEs, particularly in the West Desert area of the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Tucson Sector, to impede drug traffickers, chiefly Mexican DTOs, from smuggling illicit drug shipments into the United States from Mexico.”
 
Part of the New Mexico border was described as “an ideal smuggling corridor.”
 
“Southwestern New Mexico—specifically Hidalgo, Luna, and Dona Ana Counties—shares a 180-mile border with Mexico,” said NDIC. “More than half the length of this border is desolate public land that contains innumerable footpaths, roads, and trails. Additionally, many ranches are located along the border. These factors and minimal law enforcement coverage make the area an ideal smuggling corridor for drugs and other illicit goods and services— primarily alien smuggling into the United States and weapons and bulk cash smuggling into Mexico. Mexican DTOs smuggle multihundred-kilogram quantities of illicit drugs through this portion of the HIDTA region annually.”
 
Like the California border, the South Texas border is also “easily breached,” according to the NDIC.
 
“The combination of vast stretches of remote, sparsely populated land and extensive crossborder economic activity at designated ports of entry (POEs) creates an environment conducive to large-scale drug smuggling,” said NDIC. “Few physical barriers exist between POEs to impede drug traffickers, particularly Mexican DTOs, from smuggling illicit drug shipments into the United States from Mexico. Along many areas of the U.S.-Mexico border in South Texas, the Rio Grande River can be easily breached by smugglers on foot or in vehicles, enabling Mexican DTOs to smuggle multikilogram quantities of illicit drugs, primarily marijuana and cocaine, into the United States.”
 
In the West Texas sector, the NDIC again raised the possibility that terrorists could exploit the border to enter the country.
 
“Moreover, the region’s location along the U.S.-Mexico border poses national security and law enforcement issues for the region, such as alien smuggling, weapons transportation, and terrorist entry into the United States through and between ports of entry,” said NDIC.
 
While the U.S. government may be failing to exert effective control over most of the border, identical language in the NDIC reports for Arizona and West Texas said that drug trafficking organizations have set up “gatekeeper” operations that control smuggling into the U.S. and levy taxes on the smugglers they let through.
 
“Gatekeepers regulate the drug flow from Mexico across the U.S.-Mexico border into the United States by controlling drug smugglers’ access to areas along the border,” said the Arizona and West Texas NDIC reports. “Gatekeepers collect ‘taxes’ from smugglers on all illicit shipments that are moved through these areas, including drugs and illegal aliens. The taxes are generally paid to the DTO that controls the area; the DTO then launders the tax proceeds. Gatekeepers sometimes resort to extortion, intimidation, and acts of violence to collect taxes from smugglers. Gatekeepers also reportedly bribe corrupt Mexican police and military personnel in order to ensure that smuggling activities occur without interruption.”
 
“Gatekeepers generally operate at the behest of a Mexican drug trafficking organization (DTO) and enforce the will of the organization through bribery, intimidation, extortion, beatings, and murder,” said the reports.
 
A Government Accountability Office report released on August 31 pointed out that the Border Patrol’s top priority is to stop terrorists and weapons of mass destruction from entering the United States and revealed that three person’s “linked to terrorism” and hundreds of aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints in fiscal 2008. These checkpoints, which act as a final line of defense for the U.S. border, are typically set up on highways 25 to 100 miles north of the Mexican border.
 
“CBP reported that in fiscal year 2008, there were three individuals encountered by the Border Patrol at southwest border checkpoints who were identified as persons linked to terrorism,” said GAO.
 
“In addition, the Border Patrol reported that in fiscal year 2008 checkpoints encountered 530 aliens from special interest countries, which are countries the Department of State has determined to represent a potential terrorist threat to the United States,” said GAO. “While people from these countries may not have any ties to illegal or terrorist activities, Border Patrol agents detain aliens from special interest countries if they are in the United States illegally and Border Patrol agents report these encounters to the local Sector Intelligence Agent, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Joint Terrorism Task Force, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Investigations, and the CBP National Targeting Center.”
 
The GAO also said one illegal alien detained in West Texas had come from Iran.
 
“For example,” said GAO, “according to a Border Patrol official in the El Paso sector, a checkpoint stopped a vehicle and questioned its three Iranian occupants, determining that one of those occupants was in the United States illegally. The individual was detained and turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for further questioning.”
 
There has been much discussion in the past week about whether President Barack Obama will heed the advice of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, to increase the U.S. troop deployment there.  The administration, however, has already decided to decrease by 384 the Border Patrol agents deployed on our own southern frontier



Connect



Connect
Posted: September 21, 2009 - 0 comment(s) [ Comment ] - 0 trackback(s) [ Trackback ]

Hot Air -- get your fill alt



 

Obama “would be happy to look at” newspaper bailout bill

posted at 10:55 am on September 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

With the American people sick to death of corporate bailouts, one might think that the White House would avoid sounding the least bit interested in another plan to save an industry from itself.  Apparently the Obama administration has not yet realized this, as Barack Obama himself sounded quite interested in Senator Ben Cardin’s (D-MD) plan to rescue the newspaper industry from its self-inflicted wounds.  Instead of encouraging the broadsheets to develop a new business plan, Cardin would turn them into charity cases — and non-profits for the purposes of tax relief:

The president said he is “happy to look at” bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.

“I haven’t seen detailed proposals yet, but I’ll be happy to look at them,” Obama told the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade in an interview.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) has introduced S. 673, the so-called “Newspaper Revitalization Act,” that would give outlets tax deals if they were to restructure as 501(c)(3) corporations. That bill has so far attracted one cosponsor, Cardin’s Maryland colleague Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D).

Obama then offered this rationale:

“I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding,” he said.

Not to be flip, but … so?  Since when has it been the business of government to shape public speech?  I seem to recall something in the Constitution that explicitly made that none of the federal government’s business.

Besides, newspapers are as guilty of those charges as blogs, and in many cases rather egregiously so.  For instance, just in the last few days, the Washington Post decided to put the ACORN story “in context” not by reporting on the people in ACORN, their actions on videotape, and the organization’s attempts to evade responsibility, but by reporting that one of the two reporters on the case has a father who is a Christian minister.  They also tried to pass off a quasi-quote as a smear of racism, which Scott Johnson at the blog Power Line highlights:

More nefariously, the Post implies that Giles and O’Keefe worked with racist motivations:

Though O’Keefe described himself as a progressive radical, not a conservative, he said he targeted ACORN for the same reasons that the political right does: its massive voter registration drives that turn out poor African Americans and Latinos against Republicans.

“Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization,” he said. “No one was holding this organization accountable. No one in the media is putting pressure on them. We wanted to do a stunt and see what we could find.”

If O’Keefe had said something incendiary about a racial motivation for undertaking his investigation of ACORN, one can be sure that the Post reporters would have quoted it instead of simply larding the context with an imputation of racism. The Post certainly provides no supporting quote.

It appears to me that Post reporters Darryl Fears and Carol D. Leonnig are alone responsible for introducing race to the discussion. Associated Press reporters Sharon Theimer and Pete Yost pick up where the Post left off in this story:

James O’Keefe, one of the two filmmakers, said he went after ACORN because it registers minorities likely to vote against Republicans: “Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization,” O’Keefe told The Washington Post. “No one was holding this organization accountable.”

But did O’Keefe say any such thing? The Washington Post reporters imply the existence of a statement that is nowhere quoted. The AP takes the cue and puts the words in O’Keefe’s mouth. It’s quite a racket they’ve got going here, and someone really should call them on it.

The entire raison d’etre of the newspaper industry, according to their own leading lights, is to shine a light on the halls of power and enforce transparency.  If they’re getting a big tax break from the government by becoming “non-profit” (many of them are already non-profit in practice, which is their problem), doesn’t take impact their ability to report in an objective manner?  For that matter, what would prevent blogs from organizing as 501(c)(3) entities themselves?

The government has no place in the newspaper industry.  It had no place in the insurance or automaking industries either, but this is much more dangerous.  The only unique value newspapers have is in their independence from the government.  Once they become beholden to Congress and the federal bureaucracy, they may as well change their names to Government Times.




Connect



Connect
Posted: September 20, 2009 - 0 comment(s) [ Comment ] - 0 trackback(s) [ Trackback ]
Category: the Economy

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml

 

September 15, 2009 9:03 PM

Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year

alt
(AP)
The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."

The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

These disclosures will probably not aid the political prospects of the Democrats' cap and trade bill. The House of Representatives approved it by a remarkably narrow margin in June -- the bill would have failed if only six House members had switched their votes to "no" -- and it faces significant opposition in the Senate.

One reason the bill faces an uncertain future is concern about its cost. House Republican Leader John Boehner has estimated the additional tax bill would be at $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family. Democrats have pointed to estimates from MIT's John Reilly, who put the cost at $800 a year per family, and noted that tax credits to low income households could offset part of the bite. The Heritage Foundation says that, by 2035, "the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year."

One difference is that while Heritage's numbers are talking about 26 years in the future, the Treasury Department's figures don't have a time limit.

"Heritage is saying publicly what the administration is saying to itself privately," says Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who filed the FOIA request. "It's nice to see they're not spinning each other behind closed doors."

"They're not telling you the cost -- they're not telling you the benefit," says Horner, who wrote the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. "If they don't tell you the cost, and they don't tell you the benefit, what are they telling you? They're just talking about global salvation."

The FOIA'd document written by Judson Jaffe, who joined the Treasury Department's Office of Environment and Energy in January 2009, says: "Given the administration's proposal to auction all emission allowances, a cap-and-trade program could generate federal receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually." (Obviously, any final cap-and-trade system may be different from what Obama had proposed, and could yield higher or lower taxes.)

Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 or 8 percent increase a year.

One odd point: The document written by Jaffee includes this line: "It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX." The Treasury Department redacted the rest of the sentence with a thick black line.

The Freedom of Information Act, of course, contains no this-might-embarrass-the-president exemption (nor, for that matter, should federal agencies be in the business of possibly suppressing dissenting climate change voices). You'd hope the presidential administration that boasts of being the "most open and transparent in history" would be more forthcoming than this.

Update 9/16/2009: The Environmental Defense Fund has responded to the documents' release with a statement saying, in part:
Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it's not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers. It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.

The bill passed by the House sends the value of pollution permits to consumers, and it contains robust cost-containment provisions. Every credible and independent economic analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (such as those done by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency) says the costs will be small and affordable -- and that the U.S. economy will grow with a cap on carbon.

 




Connect



Connect
Posted: September 16, 2009 - 1 comment(s) [ Comment ] - 0 trackback(s) [ Trackback ]
Category: Healthcare

http://www.sodahead.com/other/hr3200-will-require-illegal-immigrants-to-be-covered/blog-150657/

This a post from Sodahead.com

HR3200 will require ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to be covered.

In the immortal words of Gomer Pile, "Surprise, surprise!"

You've probably seen liberals tossing around a clip from HR3200 Sec. 246 that states the following:

---
SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
---

According to lawyer and judge, Andrew Napolitano, what the liberals and Dems fail to tell you is that the United States is bound by the U.S. Constitution to provide medical care to citizens and non-citizens alike should the Federal Government of the United States mandate and manage health care. According to the U.S. Constitution, if one class of people are to receive benefits under Federal law, then all classes of people, REGARDLESS OF CITIZENSHIP, are required to receive fair and equitable treatment. This goes for health care and anything else. (Ref. the debate on Gitmo detainees and why liberals feel they "deserve" the same rights in the U.S. as citizens should they be detained on U.S. soil ~ same thing.)

__________________________________
See the vid (big-time Hat Tip to Ripped):


__________________________________

The U.S. Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to discriminate on the basis of citizenship, and Obama ~ being a Constitutional Lawyer ~ KNOWS THIS.

Further identifying SEC. 246 as a smokescreen is the fact that it is, in itself, unconstitutional and therefore MUST be removed or reworded ***IF*** it is to mean that "no illegals can receive health care", but that's not what SEC. 246 actually says!

Rather, it simply states that no illegals can receive "credits" to BUY health insurance. Nothing more. Well, if illegals can't receive "credit" to "buy" health insurance, then I guess they'll just get their medical care for free courtesy of us taxpayers.

Adding insult to injury, another section of HR3200 that is rarely, if ever, cited by liberals is this:

---
SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE

(a) In General.–Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.
---

So, liberals. I guess the "wing nuts" aren't engaging in the act of spreading "malicious rumors" after all. Perhaps Sen. Joe Wilson was correct when he blurted, "You Lie!" to Mr. Obama....because it appears that Mr. Obama did, in fact, LIE.
 




Connect



Connect
Posted: September 15, 2009 - 3 comment(s) [ Comment ] - 0 trackback(s) [ Trackback ]

Well Obama is goin to be on tv all this week, on the morning talk shows, except for Fox of course and he will also be on Letterman. They reserved the whole show for him...good gosh, talk about an ego maniac.....can't get enough of himself.....




Connect



Connect
Posted: September 13, 2009 - 4 comment(s) [ Comment ] - 0 trackback(s) [ Trackback ]

I"m wondering how many times Obama is goin to be on television, he's goin to be on 60 minutes, again for the 3rd time this year..man does he like listening to himself talk...I liked how he said in a clip "I'm going to be president for a long time"..hmmmmmm




Connect



Connect
Posted: September 12, 2009 - 0 comment(s) [ Comment ] - 0 trackback(s) [ Trackback ]

Do you think if it were reversed, the liberal media would've been all over it.......

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/11/michigan.shooting/index.html




Connect



Connect
Posted: September 12, 2009 - 0 comment(s) [ Comment ] - 0 trackback(s) [ Trackback ]
Category:

I learned of this article late last night while working. Its a wonderfuld piece.

 

http://strongerthandeathhq.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/betraying-our-dead-by-ralph-peters/

 

 




Connect