Why Are Grandma & Grandpa So Riled?

Seniors across this nation are up in arms over the proposed cuts in Medicare of $50 billion in the healthcare bills before Congress. President Obama and the Democrats are pretending that these cuts will not result in healthcare rationing and accessibility problems. They claim the cuts will all be from cost-savings or the introduction of new efficiencies. They say there will be no change in the healthcare that grandma and grandpa receive. Seniors know better.

Grandma and grandpa have plenty of past experience with the outcomes of previous Medicare cuts. When Medicare reimbursements to doctors are cut, doctors drop out of Medicare. Many seniors have been forced to change doctors who accept Medicare assignment unless they could afford to pay the difference between what the doctor charges and Medicare pays for services. Premier healthcare providers such as Mayo Clinic become inaccessible to all but wealthy seniors because Mayo Clinic no longer accepts Medicare assignment. If grandma and grandpa live in rural areas, they have an especially difficult time finding healthcare, often having to travel long distances to find providers who accept Medicare assignment.

Let’s look at H.R. 3200, the most fully developed healthcare reform bill presented to the American people thus far. For grandma and grandpa, it is a disaster.

“In 2010, 40.2 million seniors 65 years and older will be eligible for Medicare. That number is projected to rise to 54.8 million in 2020 and 88.5 million in 2050, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.” (Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/06/end-life-counseling-intensifies-health-reform-debate/) Grandma and grandpa are smart enough to know that you cannot cut Medicare expenses by over ten percent at the same time you increase enrollees by thirty percent without drastic impacts on services.

To adequately provide for these new enrollees, you would have major cuts in services even if you had zero reductions in Medicare’s budget. That budget needs to grow in order to provide current benefits to both current and those additional enrollees. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] warned that the proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Council [IMAC] “to rein in Medicare spending would do little to save the government money over the next 10 years.” The CBO estimated it might save $2 billion between 2010 and 2019, a pittance (less than 0.2%) of the $1 trillion plus cost if H.R. 3200 passes. Furthermore, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote, "In CBO's judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized." (Source: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cbo-medicare-council-would-have-little-savings-effect-2009-07-25.html)

During his presidential campaign in October 2008, Obama accused his rival, Senator John McCain, of supporting “drastic cuts” in Medicare. Obama said, “If you count on Medicare, it would mean fewer places to get care and less freedom to choose your own doctors. You’ll pay more for your drugs. You’ll receive fewer services. You’ll get lower quality care. I don’t think that’s right. In fact, it ain’t right.” (Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574303014243807246.html)

What a difference a few months make! Obama and the Democrats have declared war on grandma and grandpa’s health plan. “The federal government is going to decrease Medicare payments to physicians 37% over the next nine years. In that same nine years the cost of treating patients is expected to rise 22%.”

We will need over 124,400 new doctors (a 23.6% increase) by 2025. In-patient hospital care is expected to increase by 36.6%. Currently, medical school enrollments are down, and more doctors are retiring or leaving the profession. The reasons include the high cost of medical education, the long hours, the paperwork required by insurance companies and Medicare, and the ever-present fear of lawsuits. As Dr. David Kahn, D.C., of Fernley Chiropractic wrote, “All this adds up to someone who [is] getting paid less for doing more work, with more obstacles in the way.” (Source: http://www.rgj.com/article/20090729/FERNLEY03/907290353/1306/fernley) Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), in commenting on government-run health care, said, “It won't matter if 100 percent of Americans have health insurance if they don't have a doctor to see them when they are sick.” (Source: email newsletter from CMPI, July 27, 2009)

Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Florida) was bluntly honest when she said the House healthcare bill essentially tells senior citizens to "drop dead." "Despite their promise to care for our seniors, Democrats have decided that it's too expensive to care for my senior constituents… This bill would cut an additional $156 billion from the Medicare Advantage program in order to pay for the government expansion of healthcare for the young, the healthy, and the wealthy." (Source: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=616402)

Former Senator Tom Daschle, Obama’s first choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, has been called back to the White House to consult on how to get healthcare legislation through the House and Senate. Grandma and grandpa should be alarmed. Daschle wrote in his book, "... Health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them." (Source: http://whitehouse.gov/assets/hero/hero_weeklyaddress_7-18-09_CK-0081.JPG)

The fact is old people need more healthcare than young people. Ninety percent of an individual’s healthcare costs will be incurred during the last ten percent of his or her life. That is reality. Unfortunately, too many in Obama’s administration, if not Obama himself, believe that seniors do not have the same Creator-given, inalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as younger people. The signers of the Declaration of Independence did not discriminate against any age group when they wrote those words.

Many in Obama’s inner circle believe it is moral to discriminate against seniors. They would deny seniors healthcare at the time they most need it. A prime example is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s special health policy advisor and brother to the President’s Chief of Staff. In the January 2009 issue of the medical journal The Lancet, he wrote that if healthcare has to be rationed, he prefers the "complete lives system," which "discriminates against older people." This system assumes that seniors can be denied health care in the later years because they have lived “complete” lives. Scarce resources should go to younger people who have not yet had the chance to live a “complete” life. Ten years earlier, in an article in the Hastings Center Report, Dr. Emanuel wrote health services should not be guaranteed to "individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens," giving as "an obvious example… patients with dementia." (Source: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=616402)

In case you think grandma and grandpa are being paranoid, just look at the newly released directives from the Center for Disease Control (CDC)regarding swine flu vaccinations. In the past, seniors have always been among the first to receive vaccines because the elderly are considered at great risk for complications from the flu. However, with the swine flu vaccine, seniors are not at the head of the list of recipients. They are not even on the list! Instead, children top the list, then healthcare workers and first responders, then young adults, the middle aged, and finally those 55-64. If you are 65 or older, the C.D.C. evidently does not consider you even worthy of consideration for protection from a potential swine flu pandemic.

Now, do you understand why grandma and grandpa are so upset? Why so many are showing up at Town Halls angry and vocal? Why many of them are resigning from the A.A.R.P.?

The words “ration” and “rationing” of healthcare do not appear anywhere in the 1,800+ pages of H.R. 3200. They don’t have to be spelled out explicitly. Seniors know the only possible outcome of the radical cuts proposed for Medicare can mean one thing and one thing only: rationing of care. And any politician who says otherwise is flat-out lying.

Southerners Snubbed?

The Associated Press reported on December 20, 2008, "The South may have inched toward Democrats in November, but that progress isn't showing in President-elect Barack Obama's Cabinet selections. Obama hasn't nominated a single Southerner among his 15 Cabinet secretaries."

A very few with Southern roots have made it onto Obama's appointment list. Former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk has been tapped for U.S. trade representative, a relatively obscure post. Lisa Jackson, Obama's choice to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, grew up in New Orleans. However, she has lived and worked in the Northeast for most of her life. Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, is from Alabama and has worked for several Southern representatives on Capitol Hill.

Nonetheless, this is the first administration since President Dwight Eisenhower without a Southerner in a cabinet post. Southerners need not apply," said disgruntled Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga. "It's hard to believe that there wasn't anybody qualified for something from the South." It was a region Democrats held without dispute before the Reagan revolution, and they hope to return to their majority status in the South. Does snubbing Southerners make sense, then?

Cling to Your Guns: Obama Lies about Gun Control

Few politicians have the gall to blatantly lie in their television ads. Barack Hussein Obama has plowed new ground in his audacity of deceit to run a political ad in which he claims he is pro-gun rights. When I heard it, I laughed out loud after I picked my jaw up off the floor.

With friends like Obama, who needs enemies? As a Life Member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), I know Obama is no friend of my Second Amendment rights. He has an “F” from the NRA. Any gun owner needs to pay close attention to Obama’s words and, more importantly, his actions. Despite his few years as a politician, he has a long string of anti-gun votes.

Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which has given millions of dollars to anti-gun groups, from 1994-2001. He wrote in his own handwriting on a candidate questionnaire in 1996, when he first ran for the Illinois Senate, that he would like to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” Similarly, in 1998, he supported a ban on the sale or transfer of all semi-automatic weapons. (NRA-ILA Staff, “Obama: Issue by Issue,” America’s 1st Freedom, Nov. 2008, p. 36) Back in 1999, Obama proposed increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500 percent. He also called for a federal ban on gun stores within five miles of any park or school. A study of these “Obama Exclusion Zones” determined that over ninety percent of all gun stores would be forced to close and “most major metropolitan areas and their suburbs, and even small towns, would become ‘gun store-free zones’.” (Ibid. p. 39)

As an Illinois State Senator, he voted to limit handgun purchases to one per month in 2003. He supported S.B. 1195, another 2003 anti-gun bill, which would have banned “all single-shot and double-barreled shotguns 28 gauge or larger, and many semi-auto shotguns…along with hundreds of models of rifles and handguns.” (Ibid. p. 38) Any Illinois resident found in possession of one of these guns ninety days after passage would have been charged with a felony. Fortunately, the bill did not pass.

Obama voted ‘no” four times on S.B. 2165 in 2004. This bill would protect citizens from prosecution who used a gun in self-defense in their home against an intruder or attacker. He also said in 2004, “I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.” He proposed “federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement.” He continues to oppose citizens’ right-to-carry laws, stating in April 2008, “I am not in favor of concealed weapons.” (Ibid. p. 39)

More recently in 2005, Obama supported Sen. Edward Kennedy’s ban on center-fire rifle ammunition used in hunting and sport shooting. Even the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) opposed it. Fortunately, this Kennedy amendment to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act failed. He voted “yea” on S.397 in the U.S. Senate in 2005. This terrible bill would have made firearms’ manufacturers responsible for illegal use of their products after sale. It would also have outlawed most types of rifle ammunition. (www.gunbanobama.com) Both Obama and his running mate Sen. Joseph Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This bill protects legal firearm manufacturers from lawsuits resulting from the illegal acts of armed criminals. Obama supports Biden’s bill (S.2237) that would reinstate Brady Bill bans on “roughly 200 makes and models of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns on the basis of things like the shape of their grips, and on ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.” (“Joe Biden: The Voice of Anti-gun Experience,” America’s 1st Freedom, Nov. 2008, p. 41)

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the handgun ban in Washington, D.C. recently in District of Columbia v. Heller. Over 300 members of Congress joined in a brief asking the court to uphold the Second Amendment rights of individuals. Neither Obama nor Biden joined them. This decision was decided 5-4. Key to this landmark decision in defense of your individual right to keep and bear arms was Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito. Both Obama and Biden voted against confirming these justices and expressed strong disagreement with the Court’s decision. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the decision. At an August 2008 candidate’s forum, Obama stated he would not have nominated him or Justice Clarence Thomas who voted with the majority.

Biden, during a speech to the N.A.A.C.P. convention during the presidential primary, predicted: “The next president is likely to name at least one, if not three new Supreme Court justices.” (Wayne LaPierre, “Vote for the Second Amendment,” America’s 1st Freedom, Nov. 2008, p. 9) If you own guns of any type or believe you should have the right to do so, then you do not want Obama to be the one nominating Supreme Court Justices and hundreds of lower-level federal judges. If you, like the Founding Fathers, believe the Second Amendment is essential to freedom from government tyranny, then McCain-Palin is the ticket to support.

Obama would like to ban all handguns and semi-automatic firearms, revoke state Right-to-Carry laws, ration purchases of other firearms, and impose gun licensing and registration. (www.nrapvf.org) As NRA President John C. Sigler warned, “Taken together, Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden constitute the most anti-gun ticket ever to run for the White House.” (John c. Sigler, “Obama-Biden a Clear and Present Danger,” America’s 1st Freedom, Nov. 2008, p. 10)

The divide between Democratic and Republican views of the Second Amendment is clear in their party platforms. The 2008 Democratic Party platform says, “We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.” This new concept that Constitutional protections are subject to regional differences has been dubbed “geo-constitutionalism.” It flies in the face of our Founding Fathers’ intent and the concept of equal protection under the law.

In contrast, the Republican Party platform states, “We uphold the right of individual Americans to own firearms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend themselves, their property and communities.” Voters, cling to those guns! Vote for McCain-Palin.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac: “Just the Facts, Ma’am”

Previously, I looked at the systemic roots of the current economic crisis. Today, let us look at the near-term causes of why we are being asked to foot an additional $700 billion bailout of our credit markets. Everyone seems to be ignoring or has already forgotten that the taxpayers have already incurred a $780 billion bailout in the last two weeks when the federal government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac [M&M].

Every economist agrees that the need for a second bailout, this time of Wall Street, is the direct result of the housing bubble and the risky lending behind it. That lending was fueled by and supported by M&M. Before the Federal government was forced to take over M&M a few weeks ago, they owned or guaranteed “about $5.2 trillion worth of mortgages,” according to The Wall Street Journal. About 15 percent or $780 billion are in very risky “Alt-A” and sub-prime loans.

How and why did M&M get away with those kinds of risky business practices when they are government-sponsored entities, supposedly regulated by Congress? Well, M&M bought their protection from scrutiny.

M&M, over the past ten years, have spent over $200 million in lobbying expenses and campaign contributions to buy influence in Congress and protect them from stronger regulation. For the 2008 elections, they have contributed over $2 million to House and Senate members, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Who have been the beneficiaries of this largesse from M&M? Between 1989 and 2008, the top recipients of campaign contributions from M&M have been:

#1 Christopher Dodd received $165,400 ($116,900 from individuals and $48,500 from Political Action Committees)
#2 Barack Obama received $126,349 ($120,349 from individuals and $6,000 from PACs)
#62 John McCain who received $21,550 (all from individuals)
[Source: Center for Responsive Politics, The St. Petersburg Times PolitiFact Check http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/727/ and http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/09/18/all-recipients-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-campaign-contributions-1989-2008/]

Why was Sen. McCain dead last among all Congressional recipients of M&M contributions? Sen. McCain joined Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC] and Sen. John Sununu [R-NE] to co-sponsor the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 [S.190] authored by Sen. Charles Hagel, [R-NE]. This bill would have improved regulations on “secondary mortgage market enterprises” or M&M. In support of this legislation, Sen. McCain spoke on the Senate floor on May 25, 2006:

Mr. President [of the Senate], this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S.190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. [emphasis added]

[Source: The Congressional Record http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190]

The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 passed the House of Representatives but was killed in the Senate by the Senate Banking Committee, chaired by Sen. Christopher Dodd [Democrat]. M&M’s contributions to Dodd, who received more than any other member of Congress, paid off handsomely by staving off stricter control and oversight by Congress.

The Democrats in Congress have repeatedly fought off Republican efforts to reform M&M. President Bush had proposed similar reforms in the previous Congress. “Democrats in Congress have sought to preserve the quasi-governmental status of the mortgage giants, seeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as places to locate former top Democratic Party operatives, where they have earned millions in compensation, despite a continuing series of financial scandals.” [Source: Jerome R. Corsi, ”Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac execs now offering advice to Obama Senator's links to mortgage giants also include campaign contributions,” WorldNetDaily, September 17, 2008 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75586]

During the current election cycle, Fannie Mae has given 56 percent of their total $1.1 million in contributions and Freddie Mac has given 53 percent of its $555,700 in contributions to Democrats.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also strategically given more contributions to lawmakers currently sitting on committees that primarily regulate their industry. Fifteen of the 25 lawmakers who have received the most from the two companies combined since the 1990 election sit on either the House Financial Services Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee; or the Senate Finance Committee. The others have seats on the powerful Appropriations or Ways & Means committees, are members of the congressional leadership or have run for president."

[Source: Open Secrets.org http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html]

Why would M&M give over $126,000 to a freshman Senator, Barack Obama? It is remarkable that in a mere four years Sen. Obama outstrips all but Sen. Dodd in total funds received from M&M over a twenty-year period. Is it because M&M expects a President Obama would continue the Democrats’ protection against reform of the financial markets?

Three of Sen. Obama’s top advisors were former M&M executives: Franklin Raines, James Johnson, and Jamie Gorelick. Raines, budget director under President Clinton, was CEO of Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998. He earned $21 million during his last year there. Johnson was a former aide to Vice President Walter Mondale and the successor to Raines as Fannie Mae’s CEO from 1999 to 2004, earning $90 million.

“Even after he left, Fannie continued to pay him an annual fee of at least $300,000 a year for consulting services and a $71,000 monthly pension, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission… Fannie also paid for Johnson’s support staff, communications services and provided him a car and driver.”

[Source: Lisa Lerer, “Fannie, Freddie spent $200M to buy influence,” Politico, July 16, 2008 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11781.html] Gorelick, Clinton’s deputy attorney general, was vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003. He earned $26 million in that role.

All three were involved in various scandals and questionable accounting practices while at Fannie Mae, according to reports from The Washington Post and The Associated Press. Raines is Obama’s advisor on housing. He had to return $15.6 million in Fannie Mae stock options in a settlement negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). “Until a controversy concerning an alleged $7 millions in questionable real estate loans he received on favorable terms from failed sub-prime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial surfaced and forced him to step down,” Johnson led Obama’s vice presidential selection committee. Gorelick was accused of conflict-of-interest while serving as a member of the 9/11 Commission in 1995 when she attempted “to establish barriers that barred federal anti-terrorist criminal investigators from accessing various federal records and databases that may have assisted them in their criminal investigations.” Dean and professor of law at Harvard Law School Elena Kagan and others have said Gorelick is Obama’s choice for Attorney General if he wins the election. [Source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75586]

To be fair, Sen. McCain’s campaign manager Rick Davis is a former lobbyist for M&M. Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., McCain’s vice presidential search committee head, was a former employee. Questioned about these links, McCain’s economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin responded, “Sen. McCain has favored GSE reform in the past and continues to favor GSE reform. That’s unchanged.” [Source: op.cit.]

Commentator and reporter John Gibson in a recent interview with Heather Nauert put these issues in perspective. He said:

“Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs…Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people, and as it turned out, some people who couldn’t afford them. Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions…Now remember, Obama’s ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain, Senator Obama, was at the head of the line when the piggy’s [sic] lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks. Senator Barack Obama, number two on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate. Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem.”
[Source: Ed Morrissey, “McCain’s attempt to fix Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2005; Obama can’t get AIG right,” HotAir, September 17, 2008 http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/]

Those are the facts. You decide which candidate -- Sen. John McCain or Sen. Barack Obama -- is most likely to reform our financial system as President.

Barack Hussein Obama “Disses” Flag Again…and Again…and Again….

At the “green” Democratic National Convention in Denver, over 12,000 U.S. flags were trashed after Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at Invesco Field. I guess recycling does not apply to the American flag.

The flags were handed out to the crowds as they entered the stadium. They were waved throughout the convention’s closing event. Now, one would expect that the audience would want to keep their flags as mementoes of this “historic” event. And, that would happen except for one fact: these were Democrats.

Now, I’m sure a few did take their flag home and handled it with the respect it deserves. But that does not extirpate that 12,000 or more trashed their flags. After being alerted by an Invesco Stadium vendor involved in the post-speech clean-up, veterans retrieved the flags and sent them to McCain’s campaign for his Colorado Springs rally on Saturday, September 6th.

Realizing the potential for damage this story presents to Obama’s aspirations, the campaign went on spin cycle immediately. Damon Jones, spokesman for the Democratic National Convention Committee, claimed Republican operatives stole the flags for “a cheap political stunt calling into question our patriotism.” Another Obama campaign official reported, "All of the flags at Invesco were picked up and put in bags and into storage, along with the unused flags and campaign signs. The flags were going to be donated, and the signs were going to be sent out to be used elsewhere."

The problem with these denials is photographs clearly show the flags mixed in with other trash and left behind after the DNCC had vacated Invesco Stadium. Additionally, Boy Scouts had to sort through 84 bags of these flags in Colorado Springs because some were too soiled from other trash to be used at the McCain rally.

According to proper flag etiquette and federal statute [Title 4 Chapter 1 Section 8(k)], a flag should be disposed of only when it is “so worn it is no longer fit to serve as a symbol of our country.” Then, “it should be destroyed, preferably by burning in a dignified manner.” Traditionally, groups such as the American Legion, VFW, and the Boy Scouts conduct these ceremonies on Flag Day, June 14th. Under no circumstances, should a flag be thrown into the garbage.

Is Anyone Surprised? Look at the Acceptance Speech Admission Ticket

At the same event, the crowd had credentials with an upside down flag behind a photo of Osama-Obama. An upside-down flag is the universal symbol of distress. It is an insult to the flag except in a true emergency, such as a ship in imminent danger of sinking

On the ticket, the blue union is in the lower left of the flag, below the red and white stripes. Caught red-handed, Obama spokesman Matt Chandler spun an excuse to KUSA-TV (Denver) that “the flag isn't upside down; it was just stylized to blend the stars on Obama's shirt with the flag.” As one commentator remarked: "It's an upside down American flag…Declaring it is anything else is a lie. Deflecting attention from it is a typical political maneuver. Falling for it is more proof of the dumbing down of the American voter."

These Are Only the Most Recent Examples of Obama’s Disdain for the Flag.

After clinching the Democratic nomination, Obama leased a 757 jet as his private campaign plane from North American Airlines. Their planes are decorated with American flags on the tail and on both sides of the fuselage. Obama had the plane refurbished. He replaced the tail flag with his campaign’s symbol and the fuselage flags with his campaign slogan. Nowhere are their any American flags on the outside or inside of Obama’s campaign plane.

During the primaries, Obama was photographed with Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and Ruth Harkin at a steak fry for Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin. When the National Anthem was played, Richardson, Clinton, and Harkin placed their hands over their hearts. Obama, instead, stood with his fingers laced in front of him. When the National Anthem is played and a flag is present, proper etiquette is to face the flag and place one’s hand over one’s heart or, if in military uniform, stand at attention and salute.

For a long time, Obama refused to wear a flag lapel pin following the 9/11 attacks. When still an Illinois Senator, Obama told an Iowa television station, "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great." More recently, Obama has been seen wearing a flag lapel pin.

Sources:
The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10398830
Digital Art Press http://digitalartpress.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/obama-denver-rally-throws-12000-american-flags-in-garbage-co-vets-save-them-and-use-them-at-mccain-rally/
Fox News http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/mccain-camp-to-chastise-dems-for-discarding-american-flags/
World Net Daily & KUSA-TV (Denver) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72802

Hillary Rodham Clinton's Defeat: Sad Day for Women

I just sent a message on Hillary's website asking her to take her fight to the convention, if at all possible. I watched every minute of Saturday's coverage of the Rules Committee meeting. I was appalled at the outcome. As a Floridian, it did not sit well that we are only worth half a vote. A lot of people here are talking about that. Gosh, under the original Constitution (Article 1, Section 3) our founding fathers counted women and slaves as three/fifths of a person for apportioning Congress. It's hard to believe that the Democratic Party of 2008 would be so regressive as to give certain citizens less representation than they had in 1788, 240 years earlier.

It upsets and saddens me, as a woman, that we are not yet ready for a woman as President. I find it unbelievable that any party would choose such an inexperienced man as Barack Obama over an accomplished woman to lead the U.S. Although it is highly unlikely I would have voted for Hillary in the Fall election, I would have considered it. I am no fan of John McCain. But there is no way -- not a snowball's chance in hell -- that I would ever vote for Barack Obama, even if Hillary is on the ticket for Vice President. He is far too radically left in his voting record and, with no real accomplishments, too inexperienced. It offends me that he and the media were successful in their race-baiting and latent sexism. I fear that if Obama is elected, we can kiss America good-by. Thus, I closed my message to Hillary with "God bless you and God Save the U.S.A."

Democrats Declare Tax War on the Middle Class

The Democratic Party has declared a tax war on the American middle class. Whether Clinton or Obama become their nominee, if the Democrats win, the Middle Class loses. The reason is both candidates have promised to repeal the Bush tax cuts. In the Democratic twisted view of reality, all tax cuts are evil because they only benefit the wealthy, the so-called "fat cats" or "filthy rich."

So, who are these "fat cats" or "filthy rich" who have benefitted from President George W. Bush's tax cuts? Are they only the millionaires and billionaires? Far from it. Instead, they are the vast majority of middle class Americans. Here's the proof from the Tax Foundation.

Note: These figures do not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that these taxpayers may have had to pay. They presume the taxpayers have no dependents and are taking the standard deduction.

Back in 1999, when Bill Clinton was still President, if you were single and making $30,000 per year, you paid $3,158 in federal taxes. Today, under President George W. Bush, you paid $2,756 or 13% less than under Clinton. If you were married and filing jointly with an income of $60,000 per year, under Clinton, you owed $6,585 in federal income taxes. In 2008, under Bush, you owed only $5,513 or 16% less.

If you are a little better off and make $50,000 as a single person, you paid $7,263 in federal income taxes under Clinton, but only $6,606 or 9% less under Bush. A married couple filing with a joint income of $75,000 paid $9,427 under Clinton, but only $7,763 or 18% less under Bush.

For the upper middle class, singles making $75,000 per year paid $14,263 in taxes under Clinton. Under Bush, they pay $12,856 or 10% less. For married couples with a joint income of $125,000, they paid $23,427 under Clinton and $19,463 or 17% less under Bush.

Another way to look at it is when Tax Freedom Day falls. Tax Freedom Day is the day when the average American taxpayer stops working just to pay taxes (local, state, and federal) and starts earning income for personal use. In 2000, Tax Freedom Day was May 3rd, the latest in history. In 2008, we celebrated Tax Freedom Day on April 23rd. Despite the Bush tax cuts, the average American worker pays more in taxes than on food, clothing, and housing combined.

The danger to all American taxpayers, if the Democrats win the White House or continue to control Congress, is the Bush tax cuts will not be made permanent. Many taxpayers do not realize that the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to "sunset" in 2011. According to the Tax Foundation's "The Effect of Temporary Tax Relief on a Typical American Family of Four" report,

"If Congress and the President do not act to make permanent the Bush tax cut, known formally as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), a family of four earning the median income can expect its federal income tax bill to increase by $2,681 between 2010 and 2011, a 48.8 percent increase. This will amount to 3.3 percent of the family’s adjusted gross income in that year and roughly equals what the average family of four spends on out-of-pocket health care costs each year."

What will happen if Bush's tax cuts are not made permanent, a move most Democrats oppose? The 10% tax bracket for the lowest income workers will increase to 15%. The child tax credit which will be $1,000 in 2010 will be reduced to $500. And, married couples will once again pay a marriage penalty. Because married couples pay the majority of all federal income taxes, they were the biggest beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts and stand to loose the most if they are sunsetted (eliminated). These are only some of the painful results that are scheduled to occur on January 1, 2011.

The greatest irony is that if the Democrats get their way and do not make the Bush tax cuts permanent, then the top 20% earners will pay a smaller percentage of the total tax liability than they do now with the Bush tax cuts. In other words, the "fat cats" or "filthy rich" will pay 78.7% or 3% less of all federal income taxes under the Democrats' plan than the 81% they currently pay under the Bush plan. Is this why the wealthiest Americans contribute more to Democratic than Republican candidates?

Source: The Tax Foundation http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22958.html

Other recommended Tax Foundation reports are:
U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2008 http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
The Effect of Temporary Tax Relief on a Typical American Family of Four http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/134.html
The Effect on a Typical Family of Four of Accelerating Scheduled Tax Cuts and Making Temporary Tax Relief Permanent http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/130.html
Impact of Bush Tax Cuts on AMT and Non-AMT Returns for 2007 Under Current Law http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22424.html
Married Couples Pay Majority of Federal Income Taxes, Received Majority of Bush Tax Cuts http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/66.html
The Tax Code's Day of Reckoning: January 1, 2011 http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1476.html
Comparing the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Tax Cuts http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/323.html
Comparing Popular Tax Deductions to the Bush Tax Cuts http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22447.html

A Pox on Democrats Who Want Florida Taxpayers to Pay for a Do-over

The Florida Legislature has the constitutional right to freely and independently set the dates of its elections, including its primaries. It is outrageous that a political party would think it has the right to dictate to Florida or any state its calendar of elections.

To hold a redo of this year's Florida presidential primaries at taxpayer expense has been estimated to cost upwards of $25 million. Our legislature, in session now, is struggling to make budget cuts due to revenue shortfalls and provide more tax relief to our over-burdened citizens. We cannot afford such nonsense.

If Democrats want a revote, then they should pay for it in full and in advance. Otherwise, they need to live with the results of the January 29th vote.

Rasmussen Reports Poll: Real People Are Polled

In case you wonder if real people are polled by polling companies like Gallup, Zogby, and Rasmussen, the answer is "yes." I was polled by Rasmussen Reports on Thursday, August 9th. It was an automated telephone poll of "likely voters" that was quite lengthy. The questions ranged from my opinion of President George Bush to the presidential primary candidates to my political ideological bent to homeland security issues. It was fun to participate.

This is the second time I have been polled in a national political poll. Gallup called me a number of years ago. so, real people do answer these polls that the news media thrive on during political season.

Rasmussen Reports is one of the more reliable polls because of their methodology. They came closest to accurately predicting the outcome of the 2006 presidential race between Bush and Kerry. They survey "likely voters" with a balanced weighting to reflect the population. (See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology for details of their poll design )

The results of the Rasmussen poll I participated in were reported on Friday, August 10th. According to Yahoo! News, "this national telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports August 8-9, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20070810/pl_rasmussen/wiretapping20070810_1 )

Here are the results of some of the questions I remember and how I answered them. Then, I note the results reported by Rasmussen. (Caution: The questions may not be the exact wording used in the poll; they are how I recall them. Nearly all the possible answers included the option "unsure," which I have not noted below since I did not select that for any of mine. When it comes to politics, I always have an opinion!)

• What is your opinion of the job President Bush is doing? Excellent? Good? Fair? Poor? I answered "Good" as did 21% of respondents. Overall, 39% approve of the President's job performance and 58% disapprove. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval )

• If the Republican primary were held today, who would you vote for? Thompson? Guiliani? Romney? McCain? Other? I answered "other." Then, I was given the names of the "second-tier" candidates. I voted for "Tom Tancredo." The results were Thompson, 19%; Guiliani, 28%; Romney, 12%, McCain, 10%, and 31% either Other or Unsure. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history )

• Do you believe Rudy Guiliani is Conservative? Moderate? Liberal? I answered "Liberal." The poll's results were 30% Conservative, 46% Moderate, and 12% Liberal. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Rudy Guiliani? I hold an "unfavorable" opinion as do 42% of other likely Republican voters. Fifty percent are "favorable." (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• If the presidential election were held today, who would you vote for: John Edwards? Rudy Guiliani? Other? I answered "other" because I would vote third party if Guiliani gets the Republican nomination. I will never, ever vote for a pro-choice Republican. In that match-up, Edwards would win 49% to 42%, according to the poll. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• If the presidential election were held today, who would you vote for: Fred Thompson? John Edwards? Other? I answered "Thompson" as did 39% of all polled. Edwards won 50% of likely voters. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• Do you believe allowing the government to intercept phone calls from foreign suspected terrorists makes America safer? I was included in the 59% of all voters and 79% of Republicans who answered "Yes." (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )

• Did Congress vote recently to allow the government to expand its ability to intercept phone calls of foreign terrorist suspects and other electronic communications without warrants? I was also among the 34% who were aware that Congress had approved the legislation allowing this without warrants. Thirty percent incorrectly said Congress rejected it and 36% were unsure. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )

• Does the government worry too much about individual rights or national security too much or is the balance about right? I answered "about right" as did 29% of those polled. Thirty-four percent said it worries too much about individual rights and 27% said it is too concerned about national security. There is marked differences between Republicans and Democrats on this question. Democrats line up 39% that the government is too worried about national security whereas only 12% Republicans said that. Fifty-two percent of Republicans believe that concern for individual rights is excessive versus 12% who say national security concerns are excessive. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )

• Who do you trust more to keep the balance between concerns regarding individual rights and national security needs? Democrats or the President? I said "the President" along with 41% of pollees. Forty-eight percent trust Democrats more. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )

Letter-to-the-Editor Published 2-28-07

I just learned that my letter-to-the-editor to the Florida Times-Union was published on February 28th. The subject was the "slow bleed" proposals of House and Senate Democrats and the jeopardy they would cause our troops in Iraq. Here's the link to the letter: http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/022807/opl_8240671.shtml