Occupy Movement Comes to Elementary Schools

Occupy Movement Comes to Elementary Schools

in Virginia. Lisa Molinaro--Remember that name.
Instead of allowing our children to become independent critical thinkers, they teach them to hate the wealth makers. Instead of teaching them how to be good responsible citizens, they bring in a bunch of marxists to instill class hatred.

Keeping politics out of government run schools requires constant vigilance. In recent years, political ideology has been brazenly imposed on students across the country. Woodbrook Elementary School in Charlottesville, Virginia, provides the latest example of a government school imposing left wing ideology, this time with the Marxist rhetoric of the Occupy movement.
Woodbrook Elementary, (principal Lisa Molinaro), allowed leftist activists into the school to train third graders in writing songs which were performed at an assembly organized by an outside group – Kid Pan Alley – in October of this year. The tune the 3rd graders “wrote” and performed could have come from the soundtrack at Zuccotti park, minus the drug overdoses and rapes.

Some people have it all,
but they don’t think that they have enough
They want more money
A faster ride
They’re not content
Never satisfied
Yes- they are the 1 percent
I used to be one of the 1 percent
I worked all the time
Never saw my family
Couldn’t make life rhyme
Then the bubble burst
It really, really hurt
I lost my money
Lost my pride
Lost my home
Now I’m part of the 99
I used to be sad now I’m satisfied
Cause I really have enough
Though I lost my yacht and plane
Didn’t need that extra stuff
Could have been much worse
You don’t need to be first
Cause I’ve got my friends
Here by my side
Don’t need it all
I’m happy to be part of the 99.

The Colorado Model: The Left's Stratagem for Turning Red States to Blue

The Colorado Model: The Left's Stratagem for Turning Red States to Blue

Although it’s being deployed in several states like Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and others, there are still many who have never heard of the Colorado Model. What’s worse, despite all the Left’s bemoaning of the “vast right wing conspiracy,” Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or whatever enemy they can dream up, there is still nothing like the Colorado Model on the Right.

In sum, the Colorado Model is one of the Left’s most effective stratagems that was “built” to turn “red states” into “blue states” over a very short period of time (with the exception, perhaps, of the 2010 election cycle). When combined with the tactics of Saul Alinsky and his disciples, the Colorado Model is akin to a Soviet platoon armed with AK-47s mowing down a militia armed with slingshots.

Commies & Marxists & Thugs Oh MY!!!

The Communist Revolution, Unions, #OWS & The Power of the 99% in 2012

Not that this should be surprising since Marxists have been behind and involved with in the #OccupyWallSt movement since Day One when the September protests began, but the Neo-Coms in the unionized #OWS movement are now getting more formal advice from their philosophical mentors, the Communist Party USA.

Of course we're told that the #OWS movement is just a "spontaneous" outpouring of anger by ordinary Americans.

There will be unicorns and lollipops in the main foyer.

Why They Must Destroy Our Economy

One of the ploys used by Marxists is to disparage equality of opportunity (i.e. self-determination and reliance on ones' own abilities) and offer up, instead, equality of outcome. (we'll just give everyone exactly the same amount). People shouldn't be judged on their ability but on their need: from each according to his ability to each according to his need.

Under this mantra, no one should be allowed to make more, have more, do more than another; everyone should be equal in their passions, opinions and possessions under the mantra of the "common good" or community. Such also extends to their political rights under the Marxist ideal of "democracy."

The Deliberate and Planned Destruction of Our Economy

The numbers prove it: Democrats have destroyed our economy since taking control of Congress

A new report from Americans for Limited Government (ALG) clearly shows that the Democrats have destroyed our economy since they took control of our lives in January of 2007.

The most eye catching of ALG’s data items is the sad comparison of the rate of 4.6% unemployment at the start of 2007 and today’s alarming 9.7%. In real terms this means while there were about 7 million unemployed workers when the Democrats took over, today that number has more than doubled to 14.8 million out of work Americans.

At the rate they are going these swollen and devastating numbers will be with us as far as the eye can see, even by the Democrats’ own admission. The Democrats attempt to tell us to shut up because “this is the new state of the national economy” makes it even more important that we roll up our sleeves to fight for our freedoms.

The length of time Americans are unemployed has spiraled upward with a dizzying speed. In the month of January 2007 the average unemployment recipient had been on the rolls for 16.2 weeks. Today that too has all but doubled to 30.2 weeks with no end in sight.

In January 2007, when the Democrats took the reigns of government, America actually had a monthly surplus of $38.2 billion, as per data available from the Treasury Department. At the start of January this year, just three years later we sagged under the weight of a $46.6 billion monthly deficit.

More than this, when the Bush Administration combined with a Republican controlled Congress turned in a monthly surplus in January 2007 it was an increase of $21 billion over January 2006. During the final year of the last GOP controlled Congress, Treasury receipts increased “13% year-over-year to a record $260.6 billion.”

Deliberate and calculated destruction of a system that has produced more millionaires than any other in recorded history.

The VAT Will Break Us

The Value Added Tax is a monster that should be put out of our misery with utmost haste and without remorse. The VAT is a pernicious tax that will cost manufacturers and the consumer ten times what we now pay for goods. Only a socialist/marxist could ever come up with an idea like this.

The VAT will add additional taxes at every step of the manufacturing process, with each subsequent user paying the tax and passing that additional cost on to the next one in line, who will add the cost to his price and pass it along to the next user. The end-user, that's us, will pay all of it when we purchase the goods. The rationale for this stupidity is that with each step in the manufacturing process, the raw material increases in value, thus the name, Value Added.

Its stupid. It will kill manufacturers and it will increase the price of goods to a point where they cannot be purchased. Only someone deliberately trying to kill the American economy would consider this.

Morning Bell - Undermining the Rule of Law

Congress vs. The American People

Another day, two new polls showing the American people are strongly against the health care plan President Barack Obama will sign into law today. According to CNN, 59% of Americans oppose President Obama's plan. And according to CBS News, 48% of Americans oppose the plan (with 33% in strong opposition) compared to only 37% who support it (with only 13% in strong support). Digging deeper into the CBS poll, we find that 76% of Americans disapprove of how Congress is handling its job on health care, 46% think Congress has spent too much time on health care, and 49% believe the rules and procedures used in Congress to get the current health care bill passed have been mostly unfair.

But the leftist majorities in Congress just do not care what the American people think. Today, the Senate will press forward with work on the proposed "fix-it" bill through the reconciliation process. You may have thought it was impossible to make the policy and process of Obamacare even worse, but that is exactly what this reconciliation bill does:

Abuse of Process:
According to the Congressional Research Service, 19 reconciliation measures have been enacted into law since the procedure’s first use in the Carter administration. The record shows that reconciliation has been used for virtually all imaginable scenarios — save one: There is no precedent for using it to enact a once-in-a-generation rewrite of the relationship between Americans and their government that appeals exclusively to one side of the aisle. But that is exactly what Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is attempting to do. According to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, a plurality of the American people strongly oppose this procedural tactic for this highly unpopular policy.

Even Higher Deficits:
According to the Congressional Budget Office, new entitlement spending in the reconciliation bill would cost $216 billion in 2019 alone and will increase by 8% every year after that. Now, the Democrats will tell you that the CBO has also said their plan raises enough taxes and cuts enough Medicare to pay for this gigantic new entitlement. But the CBO is obligated by law to believe whatever Congress tells them. The American people are not. According to the latest NBC/WSJ poll, 76% of the American people do not trust Congress. That is why, according to the latest CNN poll, 70% of the American people believe Obamacare will cause the federal budget deficit to go up.

Even Higher Taxes on Business:
As bad as the employer mandates in the Senate health bill were, the taxes on businesses in the reconciliation bill are even worse. Companies that hire certain low-income Americans will have to pay $3,000 per employee, per year, even if the company offers insurance. And companies that employ 50 or more workers will face higher tax penalties to the tune of $2,000 per full-time employee.

New Taxes on Investments:
Investment is what creates job growth. One would think at a time of 9.7% unemployment, the government would not want to increase taxes on investment. Not this leftist government. The reconciliation bill slaps a 3.8% tax on investment income.

Cornhusker Kickbacks for All:
You may have heard that the reconciliation bill "got rid of" the Cornhusker Kickback. That is not quite true. What it really did is extend the additional Medicaid funding Nebraska got to every state. But to keep the new entitlement spending deficit neutral, the new Medicaid funding creates a fiscal time bomb for states by vastly cutting Medicaid reimbursements in 2015. This reconciliation will only further strain already bankrupt state governments.

A Government Takeover Preview:
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) has already announced he will vote against the reconciliation bill because of the government takeover of the student loan industry that Democrats tacked onto the health care bill in order to help pay for the new entitlement. The student loan debacle is unfortunately just a preview of the direction the left wants to see health care go. The government first justified subsidizing student loans in the Clinton administration by saying it would make college more affordable. The opposite happened. College costs have only skyrocketed, just like health care costs will only sky rocket under this bill. So now this reconciliation bill is completely nationalizing the student loan industry. Unless the direction of health care policy changes, our health care sector will not be far behind.

Slaughter on North Capitol Street

There Is No Bill But the Senate Bill

Heritage Foundation Morning Bell

Another day, another poll showing President Barack Obama's health care plan is wildly unpopular with the American people. Yesterday NBC News/The Wall Street Journal released their latest poll showing that the percentage of Americans who believe President Obama's health care plan is a bad idea (48%) is at the highest level since they started asking the question last year. Only 36% of Americans are willing to call the plan a "good idea" which is up a whole four points from the time when House Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter (D-NY) wrote this about the Senate health plan:

[U]nder the Senate plan, millions of Americans will be forced into private insurance company plans, which will be subsidized by taxpayers. That alternative will do almost nothing to reform health care but will be a windfall for insurance companies. ... Supporters of the weak Senate bill say "just pass it -- any bill is better than no bill."

I strongly disagree -- a conference report is unlikely to sufficiently bridge the gap between these two very different bills. It's time that we draw the line on this weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board. The American people deserve at least that.

The Senate health bill is so unpopular, even among House Democrats, that the leftist House leadership is desperately trying to trick the American people into believing that the House can pass the Senate bill without voting on it. Hence the Slaughter Rule which would deem the Senate bill passed at the same time the House would approve a new reconciliation bill.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was crystal clear on her motives this week telling a group of leftist bloggers: "It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know. But I like it because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."There is one increasingly glaring problem with Pelosi's pass-the-bill-without-voting plan: it is proving impossible to draft that reconciliation bill. The Democrats first promised to unveil their new bill last Wednesday. Then Thursday. Then Friday. Then Monday. Then last night. As of this morning, still nothing. Democrats say they are waiting for a score from the Congressional Budget Office before they release their bill, but there is nothing stopping them from releasing whatever text they have now and then publicizing the CBO score when it comes back. But they are not choosing that open and transparent path.

As we reported last week, getting a CBO score consistent with reconciliation is going to be very difficult. According to House rules, a reconciliation measure must reduce the deficit by at least $2 billion over five years compared to existing law. In this case, however, "existing law" would be the yet-to-be-passed Senate bill. And all of the changes Democrats want to make to the Senate bill (scaling back the tax on high-end health insurance policies; closing the Medicare D loophole; boosting insurance subsidies; increasing Medicaid payments; and expanding the Cornhusker Kickback to all) either increase spending or decrease revenue. Which means the Democrats have to identify new revenues to make the CBO score work. And as Congressional Quarterly reported yesterday, Democrats have not yet identified the right pay-fors to game the CBO right. That is why House Leadership has not unveiled their new bill yet: they can't figure out how to pay for it.

Not that it really matters if they ever do. The reconciliation bill is never going to become law. The Senate will never pass it. They have no reason to. The Senate likes the existing Senate bill. That's why it's called "the Senate bill" ... they are the ones who passed it. The White House also likes the Senate bill. As soon as the House passes it, President Obama will sign it and then leave for Asia. That's it. Obamacare will be, as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs promised last Sunday, "the law of the land." After the Senate bill is law, what could possibly motivate the White House, let alone the Senate, to ever pick up the yet-to-be-written House reconciliation bill?

This is why the White House political machine is pulling out all the stops to get the House to pass the toxic Senate bill. Democratic National Committee Vice Chair Donna Brazile is actively encouraging primary challenges to Democrats who vote against the Senate bill. One House Democrat aide tells Politico: “We’re having donors, even donors outside of our district, that are being called and asked to urge support." For her part Speaker Pelosi is relishing the bare knuckle fight telling reporters yesterday: "I never stop whipping. There’s no beginning, there’s no middle, and there’s no end." Let's just hope her members remember which bill she's really whipping them on.

An Excerpt From the UK Telegraph

The end of the road for Barack Obama?
Barack Obama seems unable to face up to America's problems, writes Simon Heffer in New York.

"Obama's big problem," a senior Democrat told me, "is that four times as many people watch Fox News as watch CNN." The Fox network is a remarkable cultural phenomenon which almost shocks those of us from a country where a technical rule of impartiality is applied in the broadcast media. With little rest, it pours out rage 24 hours a day: its message is of the construction of the socialist state, the hijacking of America by "progressives" who now dominate institutions, the indoctrination of children, the undermining of religion and the expropriation of public money for these nefarious projects. The public loves it, and it is manifestly stirring up political activism against Mr Obama, and also against those in the Republican Party who are not deemed conservatives. However, it is arguable whether the now-reorganising Right is half as effective in its assault on the President as some of Mr Obama's own party are.

Well, with the exception of the "rage" I'd say most of what is stated in the above paragraph is true.

Tax Rates Going Up

Work hard, Citizens. The wealth re-distribution is just getting started.

Backdoor taxes to hit middle class

NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.

Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

More here

End Run To Circumvent Constitutional Requirement

The key word in this article is "toxic". CO2 is going to be placed in the same category as mercury and lead. CO2 is NOT a toxic substance. If it were, plants would be dead. This is an end run by the administration to avoid the required Senate ratification of a treaty. In other words, its a Marxist tactic. Hows that hopey-changey thing working for ya so far?

Wall Street Journal -- Business Fumes Over Carbon Dioxide Rule

With the chance for a global treaty on carbon dioxide looking unlikely and the U.S. Senate not interested in taking up the president’s cap and trade plan, the Obama administration is about to take the next step in regulating greenhouse gasses in the same way they restrict emissions of mercury and other toxic substances.

Writers Jeffrey Ball and Charles Forelle look at the EPA’s move to finalize it’s carbon-dioxide “endangerment” finding today or Tuesday, a move that advances the policy business people see as the worst possible outcome.

“The spokeswoman said that the EPA is confident the basis for its decision will be "very strong," and that when it is published, "we invite the public to review the extensive scientific analysis informing" the decision.

EPA action would give President Barack Obama something to show leaders from other nations when he attends the Copenhagen conference on Dec. 18 and tries to persuade them that the U.S. is serious about cutting its contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions.”

A Failed Presidency? A Failed Marxist Is More Like It

I think people have begun to realize that Zero is more of a Marxist than Karl or Joe ever thought about being and are rejecting the socialist engineering and marxist tactics being employed.

From The American Thinker:
Another Failed Presidency

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson. In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out.

Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding ashove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and mostimportantly, in forging connections with the American people.

The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them.

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed.

Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?

No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us.

All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.

But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task--all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms forboth houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

Margaret Thatcher: "The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money."

"When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." -James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union

"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus

"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own." - Unknown

MyHeritage.org

November 6, 2009 By Amanda Reinecker
Conservative Comeback

Tuesday was a big day for conservatives. The landslide victories of gubernatorial candidates Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey, plus the Maine referendum upholding marriage as a union between a man and a woman, clearly illustrates that "the state of conservatism is strong," writes Heritage's Conn Carroll in Wednesday's Morning Bell.

But why would states that voted last year for President Barack Obama now vote against candidates the President himself campaigned for? Heritage Vice President Michael Franc explains that "it's all about taxes, debt, and too much government." In short, it's about the government's complete abandonment of conservative principles.

The results in Virginia, New Jersey and Maine confirm what has become increasingly evident over the past 10 months: conservative principles are very much alive and popular among most Americans.

Since taking office, President Obama has made it clear he is among the most progressive Presidents in our history. But he didn't win based on his progressive tendencies. In fact, Carroll explains that the President led a fairly moderate campaign:

Obama promised to address jobs, the economy, our national security and even hold teachers accountable for children's education. Obama promised that most of America would receive a tax cut. He promised to win a necessary war in Afghanistan. These are conservative principle.

Once elected, however, the President and his allies on the Left quickly abandoned these sound campaign promises in favor of big-government policies that increase taxes, kill jobs, raise the deficit and weaken our national security. As history has repeatedly revealed, there is an inherent conflict between these progressive policies and the "overwhelming conservative philosophy in America."

Tuesday's results exposed this conflict by demonstrating the broad support for conservative ideals. They reflect the same sentiments expressed at tea parties, protests and town hall meetings nationwide: enough is enough!
An even worse health care plan

On Thursday, over 10,000 people rallied on the steps of the Capitol to express their concerns about the harmful health care discussions currently under way in the House of Representatives. The House could vote on this proposal as early as Saturday, though this timeline could slip as moderates peel off.

"Look closely at the latest House bill," writes Heritage health policy analyst Bob Moffit in Human Events. "This 1,990 page beast contains all of the problematic issues Americans has with [the last proposal] -- and then adds more," all of which will adversely impact the lives of all Americans.

Moffit outlines a few of the major flaws with the House's "revised" bill:

1. The federal government will control the health insurance market, roughly one-sixth of the nation's economy;

2. A great deal of power will be granted to a newly appointed "Health Choices Commissioner," i.e. a health czar, who would define coverage and premiums for everyone;

3. Eligibility for Medicaid, a poorly functioning entitlement program in desperate need of reform, will expand, causing benefits to decrease for those who truly need them;

4. Federally mandated minimum benefits that will be subsidized by taxpayers, regardless of whether they need the benefits or not;

5. Individual mandates that will require everyone to purchase government-approved coverage or else pay an extra income tax of 2.5 percent; and

6. Employer mandates that will likely force small business owners to cut wages and lay off workers in order to meet the coverage requirements, or pay a heavy fine per employee by choosing not to provide coverage.

And all of this will be ours for a whopping $1.055 trillion over the next 10 years -- a price tag that will surely add more than "one dime to our deficits" and saddle future generations with massive debt. All of this is in the bill, but few will be able to see it, as Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) has rescinded her pledge to post the final language online for 72 hours before a vote.

This is not real health care reform. Instead, Moffit argues, "it is a new health care entitlement that will speed up our fiscal insolvency, push new taxes on Americans in all income brackets and have a greater say over our health decisions."

In an exclusive interview recorded at The Heritage Foundation, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) explains that the current health care bill reflects a big-government approach to problem-solving. "The most outrageous detail in the current House bill is the philosophy on which it is premised," he argues. "It is premised on the philosophy that the government knows best how to organize one-sixth of our economy."

Real reform should be a bi-partisan product, based on America's core principles, that empowers the individual to choose the coverage that best suits his specific needs and budget and those of his family.

2200 Pages and Counting

That 1,990-page Democratic health care bill?
It's longer now; includes new government controls
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
11/05/09 9:17 AM EST

It's become common practice to refer to the House Democrats' national health care bill as being 1,990 pages long. That's true of the bill introduced last week by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But now Democrats have added a 42-page "manager's amendment" to the bill. Some of the new language in the amendment replaces material already in the bill, but there are enough new provisions to ensure that the bill is now more than 2,000 pages long. And there will likely be even more additions to the bill before the final debate.

What's more important is what is in the new amendment. Much of it reflects Democrats' concerns that their bill would cause an increase in health insurance premiums. Remember when the House leadership, the White House, and sympathetic media commentators everywhere attacked the insurance industry for predicting that the Democratic bill would cause premiums to go up? The manager's amendment is, in effect, the House Democrats' admission that it would do just that. Their answer: more government control. The new language sets up a process for the government to monitor "unjustified premium increases" and threaten insurance companies with exclusion from the government-run Health Insurance Exchange if they exhibit a "pattern of excessive or unjustified premium increases." The government, of course, will determine what is "excessive" or "unjustified."

Worst Bill Ever

Wall Street Journal -- The Worst Bill Ever

The Journal’s editorial page pours out its cup of fury on the almost-final version of the $1.06 trillion House health bill. The piece is useful because it gets to the central point of the moment in Washington – for 8 months of fairly sustained debate on health care, we’re pretty much back where we started.

For all of the presidential palaver and town halls, the Democratic plan is mostly the same (only longer) that it was when the process began.Just as we knew in the spring, the Senate will pass a less liberal bill than the House and then the president will try to make a compromise between the two chambers’ plans. The Journal gives four things for those who love America and capitalism to be frothed about in the Pelosi plan.

“Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, ‘saving’ about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.”

NY-23 Is the "Tipping Point"

DCProtestWarrior:NY-23 Is the "Tipping Point"

Doug Hoffman is the beginning of the conservative movement's efforts to take Congress back to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. The "Republican" leadership in the House will be measured by how well they adapt to the new/old ideas of governing.
Its time for the conservatives in Congress to put a stop to the socialist ideas being pushed down the throats of American citizens. Its time to recognize that the Constitution tells Congress what they can and cannot do.

The Constitution is the Law.
Everything else is a regulation.

There's An Idea At the Bottom, After You Read Boehner's Statement

Boehner Statement on Sen. Harry Reid's "Opt-Out" Plan

GOP Leader: “Will Democrats allow states to opt out of the job-killing tax increases, unfunded mandates, and Medicare cuts for American seniors?”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) made the following statement today in response to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s announced “opt- out” plan for a government takeover of health care:
“Whether you call it a public option, an opt-out, a trigger, or a co-op, the fact is all of these proposals put us on the path to government-run health care. Forcing Americans off of their current health coverage and onto a government-run plan isn’t the answer, but that’s exactly what the Democrats’ plan would do.
"This 'public option' is only one of the problems with this legislation. Will Democrats allow states to opt out of the job-killing tax increases, unfunded mandates, and Medicare cuts for American seniors? We don’t need to give states the option of skipping one portion of this big-government scheme, we need to scrap it and start over on bipartisan reform that lowers cost and expands access at a price we can afford – that’s what the American people want, and what they deserve.”

I guess the question should be, will Senators sign up for the same plan they are cramming down our throats? Will Congress "opt-out" of this monstrous restriction of basic American rights?

Proposed: An Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
"Congress shall make no law that applies to any citizen of the United States that does not apply equally to all US Senators and Representatives and Congress shall make no law that applies to any US Senator or Representative that does not apply equally to all citizens of the United States . All existing laws and regulations that do not meet these criteria shall be declared null and void!"

They're Gonna Shove It Down Our Throats

and the only way we are going to be able to fix it is to elect enough true conservatives to overturn it in the next session, IF we last that long. This monstrosity isn't even written yet, and they're passing it. I hope all you useful idiots that put these socialist morons in power are happy.

Cap and Tax will be next. Then God knows what they'll try.

Health Care by Committee

It's been described as "misleading," "anti-family," "anti-job," "pro-abortion," and, my personal favorite, "a proverbial mackerel rotting on the beach in the moonlight"--but no matter what you call it, Sen. Max Baucus's (D-Mont.) health care plan may be the
President's best shot at reform. Today, Baucus's Finance Committee approved his "concept" by a 13-9 vote, even as more news breaks on what the proposal would actually mean to American families.

In the last few days, plenty has been written about the plan's hidden taxes and higher premiums, but the most glaring revelation is the fact that lower- and middle-class citizens will be the ones hurting under Baucus's "compromise." Despite President Obama's promise that he wouldn't raise taxes "one penny" on the average family, Bloomberg News broke down the report from the Joint Committee on Taxation and found that individuals who make less than $200,000 a year will be footing a whopping 87% of Baucus's bill. And these are folks who already have health insurance!

Experts at PricewaterhouseCoopers have also studied the fallout for families under the Finance Committee's plan. By their calculations, the average family pays about $12,300 for their current coverage, but under Baucus's concept, it would increase to $21,300 by 2016." The Heritage Foundation fleshes it out this way: instead of reducing a family's health insurance premiums by $2,500 per year, as President Obama promised, this plan would actually raise them $4,000 more than they would have been without reform. On top of that, the plan still includes abortion as a necessary part of health care.

As bad as it is now, the final plan will be worse. Despite what does or doesn't pass today, the leaders in the House and Senate intend to stuff the conference bill fuller than a turkey at Thanksgiving. Sen. Harry Reid has promised to reinsert the public option along with a host of other bad amendments concocted behind closed doors that no one will see--until it's too late.

Marxist Sugar Daddy; Evil Personafied

He proabably bought The Annointed One's Nobel Peace Prize.

The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.”—George Soros
“George Soros is an evil man. He’s anti-God, anti-family, anti-American, andanti-good.” —Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson

Illegal Market Manipulation, Felony Insider Trading, Villain, Currency collapses

Read the rest at the link.

Soros: Republic Enemy #1

Is it possible to lay the global financial meltdown, the radicalizing of the Democratic Party, and America’s moral decline, at the feet of one man?

It is indeed possible.

If George Soros isn’t the world’s preeminent “malignant messianic narcissist,” he’ll do until the real thing comes along. Move over, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. There’s a new kid on the block.

What we have in Soros, is a multi-billionaire atheist, with skewed moral values, and a sociopath’s lack of conscience. He considers himself to be a world class philosopher, despises capitalism, and just loves social engineering.

Uh oh. Can you say “trouble,” boys and girls?

Soros is a real life version of Dr. Evil—with Obama in the role of Mini-Me. Which is not as humorous as it might at first sound. In fact, it’s bone-deep chilling.

György Schwartz, better known to the world as George Soros, was born August 12, 1930 in Hungary. Soros’ father, Tivadar, was a fervent practitioner of Esperanto—a language invented in 1887, and designed to be the first global language, free of any national identity.

The Schwartz’s, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to Soros, in order to facilitate assimilation into the gentile population, as the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s. Soros is an Esperanto word meaning “to soar.”

In 1944 Hitler’s henchman Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary, to oversee the murder of that country’s Jews. The Soros children were all given fake identity papers, and were shipped out to various Christian families. George Soros ended up with a man whose job was confiscating property from the Jewish population. Soros went with him on his rounds.

Soros has repeatedly called 1944 “the best year of his life.” In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Joshua Muravchik notes that, “70% of Mr. Soros’s fellow Jews in Hungary, nearly a half-million human beings, were annihilated in that year. They were dying and disappearing all around him, and their numbers no doubt included many whom he knew personally. Yet he gives no sign that this put any damper on his elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect.”

During an interview with “Sixty Minute’s” Steve Kroft, Soros was asked about his “best year:”
Sweetness & Light

(Un)equal Justice Is Served

Family Research Council:

The federal "thought crimes" (a.k.a. "hate crimes") law took another step closer to passage yesterday, as the House voted to go along with a Senate ruse designed to avoid a straight up-or-down vote on the merits of the bill.

The Senate had attached the "hate crimes" measure to a defense authorization bill (despite its complete irrelevance to national defense). The House last night voted to go along with this tactic, which makes it harder for Members to oppose final passage.

On another front where the homosexual agenda is being pushed, "safe schools" czar Kevin Jennings is being defended by the National Education Association--no surprise there!

Liberals defending Jennings have reportedly found the male student that sought counseling from Jennings, then a teacher, about having sex with an older man in a bus station restroom. Jennings advice; "I hope you knew to use a condom."

Jennings's defenders claim they've identified the boy and can prove he was 16 at the time of the incident, and they assert that this absolves Jennings of suspicion that he violated "mandatory reporting" laws regarding child abuse.

But even if true, that is just one outrageous incident involving Jennings. The record still shows that Jennings is someone who thinks kids' "safety" is endangered more by people who say "homosexual conduct is wrong" (such as the Boy Scouts) than by sexual contact with strangers found in bus station restrooms.

From Big Sky Country:

Parents everywhere will be gripping their kids a little tighter after a shocking decision from the Montana Supreme Court. In a major challenge to parental rights, the justices ruled 6-1 that a former same-sex partner can win custody of two children to whom she is not legally or biologically bound.

Michelle Kilstad sued for the right to "parent" her old girlfriend's children even though her former lover married a man and settled down to raise her kids.

The Alliance Defense Fund defended Barbara Mancini's rights to raise her children without interference from Kilstad, a third party with no relation to her children.

In a statement yesterday, ADF expressed their outrage at the ruling, which could open the judicial floodgates to thousands of "de facto" parents who think they're entitled to a right to relationship with their ex-partners' children. "The fundamental rights of parents to raise children the way they see fit should not be threatened by the wishes and desires of a legal stranger... Granting acquaintances and roommates parental rights over the objections of fit parents is a dangerous precedent."

In this instance, the court has essentially forced another person into the Mancini family against its wishes. As ADF weighs its legal options, we would remind these justices that the definition of the family was created by God--and that definition has been the cornerstone of civil society from the beginning, despite what these judges (who think they're like gods) may believe.