Saturday, March 27, 2010

Despite the Hype, Obamacare is Dead

By: Peter Egan

Obamacare is dead in the water. Yes, I said it and no, I'm not crazy.

Despite what you may have heard, Obamacare still has a long, long way to go before it ever manifests itself as a reality. In addition to the myriad of court challenges by individual states (which may or may not have valid points - I'm not a lawyer), Obamacare still must pass the test of voters this November, and the voters have the power to 'kill the bill', even if the courts don't.

As I predicted here on this site as well as on another site on a post entitled: Real Vote on Obamacare Takes Place this November, soon-to-be House Speaker Boehner has made clear that if Republicans regain a majority in the House of Representatives this November that Obamacare will not be funded.

Republicans will campaign on this issue, and will quite possibly eclipse the then-unprecedented sweep of 1994.

For anyone reading this that is unfamiliar with how the U.S. Government works, all budgetary matters (anything involving the spending of money, be it taxpayer funds, borrowed or printed money - for those of you in Rio Linda) must originate in the House of Representatives.

As explained previously on this site, whichever party controls that legislative chamber ultimately has the final say on whether or not Obamacare (Healthcare Reform, for those of you in Rio Linda) ever becomes a reality. If republicans are able to net at least 39 House seats this November, the chances are better than good that this Healthcare "Reform" is completely scrapped, most likely in favor of something that actually constitutes a reform and doesn't so much resemble a Chavez-style government takeover of yet another industry.

This so-called "healthcare" bill is not about healthcare at all, as Democrat Congressman John Dingell explained. It's about control. According to Dingell, a Democrat from Michigan, the real purpose of the healthcare bill is to
"control the people". Bear in mind this is coming from a Democrat Congressman just days after Democrats passed a bill that every Republican and dozens of Democrats voted against in the name of "healthcare reform".

Yes, Dingell, Democrat from Michigan actually made the statement and there is plenty of audio to prove it.

The American people are not as stupid as the ruling party seems to believe, and this November my money says that they'll be thrown out of power in the House and lose a good bit of the Senate. Before all is said and done, the vast majority of voters will understand what this recent healthcare bill is really all about, and Democrats are going to pay the price for it for several elections to come.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Republicans Need a Leader Like Newt Gingrich Was in 1994

Author's Note: This post is a response to a comment made on a post on Mixx entitled: A History Lesson on Healthcare Reform... Remember 1994?

That was the title for the Mixx page for the recent Mainstream 180 post entitled: Democrats Have Short Memories, But An Elephant Never Forgets.
The comment was a response to a remark from my friend Janejas, who had this to say:
@FatLester The difference is that there are more than 30 million Americans that will have healthcare this time.I do believe that they will have something to say about it in November too.
My response to his comment is as follows:

The people whom you are referring to (and that number is debatable) typically don't vote except during Presidential election years. Will they this time? If I'm a psychic the answer is "no".

Furthermore, as many as 50 million stand to lose existing healthcare coverage due to the incentives provided to employers to drop healthcare coverage and place their employees on the federal plan.

This certainly won't stand to help the Carteresque unemployment figures. I'll give the President the benefit of the doubt and assume he hasn't been deliberately destroying jobs to advance his healthcare reform measure.

The only thing that MAY save you guys this go around is the fact that the GOP has no real leader like they did in 1994. I respect Boehner, but he's no Newt Gingrich in terms of leading a movement.

I know the future Presidential candidates are all keeping a low profile until the 2012 election season nears, but someone within the GOP besides Rush, Mark Levin and Beck (read: someone in an elected position in either the House or Senate) must step up and assume a leadership role if the party is to be able to capitalize of the Dem's increasing unpopularity as was the case in '94.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Democrats Have Short Memories, But An Elephant Never Forgets

President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a plethora of other House and Senate Democrats either have extremely short memories, or are completely inept in their political strategies being deployed in hopes of passing Obamacare, a complete federal takeover of the U.S. healthcare industry.

They are not the first Democrats to pursue such a strategy.  As I recall, in the early-to-mid 90's there was a similar dynamic in which the Democrats had control of the Presidency (William Jefferson Clinton); the Senate by a 56-44 margin (George Mitchell was MajorityKeader and Bob Dole Minority Leader); and the U.S. House of Representatives by a whopping 82 seat margin.

An Elephant Never Forgets...
Just two years later, the Republicans picked up a net 54-seat gain in the House, winning a landslide mid-term election that resulted in Newt Gingrich's ascension to the House Speaker position. An net gain of eight Senate seats left the GOP with the same advantage the Democrats had held going into the election: 56-44. Senator Dole (whose wife Senator Elizabeth Dole I have met) became the Majority Leader and Hillarycare was history... Until now.

Remember what the big issue-of-the-day was going into the '94 mid-term elections? I remember. It was the very same issue dominating all the headlines coming out of Capitol Hill today.

There was little if any substantive difference between the plan the former First Lady and current Senator wanted to take credit for when her husband (and I use that term loosely, no pun intended), and the one President Obama has staked his legacy on today.

My point is, let the Democrats pass the damned thing if they're that hell-bent on it. It will ensure we gain power back that much sooner - long before their healthcare bill will even begin to be implemented.

If 1994 was any indication of what will happen this coming November if Obamacare IS passed (considering Hillarycare never became law in the 90's), the GOP will not only win back majorities in both Chambers of Congress, but the prospect of obtaining a supermajority in one is not an unrealistic possibility. There could well be some party-swapping going on between October and December with less-radical Democrats defecting to the party in power.

Whether the bill gets passed or not, the Dems were voted enough rope to completely hang themselves with, and they've done everything within their capability to do just that.

The panic I see in the eyes of tea party-goers is good if it can be sustained until November. As long as American voters don't forget what happened throughout this past year, I'm quite comfortable with the GOP's electoral chances at winning back strong House and Senate majorities, effectively rendering Obama a lame-duck for the final two years of his Presidency (unlike Clinton, Obama's a one-term President).

Monday, March 15, 2010

Tea Party Movement Should Not Field Candidates in Elections

Tea Party: Good as a Movement, Bad as a Political Party

The 'Tea Party' movement is a good thing as long as it doesn't attempt to become its own party, which would ensure the democrats a number of House and Senate seats they would otherwise not have.

How could this be? Well, think about it. The mere presence of a 'Tea Party Candidate' on a ballot would do little other than siphon votes away from the Republican candidate.

Let's face it, that 3-10% of votes that candidate would receive in an election such as Nevada's Senate race are all going to come from voters who would otherwise vote Republican. Few if any would otherwise vote for the Democrat in the race. That means that the presence of a 'Tea Party Candidate' would serve to advance the Democrats' stronghold on power.

While I do not disagree that the Republican Party is in need of some reform, and that the RINO's need be shown the door, the GOP is still a far better alternative than a Democrat winning a given House or Senate seat.

Teaching the Republicans 'a lesson they'll never forget' by supporting a Tea Party Candidate is not worth the consequence - failure for the GOP to seize on or both Houses of Congress as a check on President Obama's power.

If the Tea Party really wants to make an impact, it will attempt to revive the 'Green Party' and encourage it to field candidates in major House and Senate races, and especially the 2012 Presidential contest. Now that might actually help serve to advance the actual agenda behind the Tea Party movement.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

In Defense of Private Companies

Private Businesses Aren't Out To Get Their Employees

By: Fat Lester

Author's Note: This was originally written in response to a post I saw on Amplify about unjust firings by private corporations.

As someone who has worked in managerial and executive positions at 100+ employee companies, I can personally attest to the contrary of the main point made by this article.

A Director of Human Resources is about one of the most difficult jobs in the entire world today, because of the litany of state and federal laws regarding hiring, firing, pay and incentives. The American government (with some help from the states) has made it extremely difficult for a private company to terminate an employee, even under just circumstances.

I've overheard former co-workers plotting frivolous lawsuits against the company while they thought no one was listening. They were discussing a preliminary meeting one of them had already had with a personal injury attorney regarding a meritless, yet-to-be-filed lawsuit. That is not to say all or even most attorneys would accept such a case, and I'm certainly not knocking the profession. That said, I think you get the point.

I've seen the pains companies must go through to ensure minimal potential for liability should an employee need to be terminated. Have you ever thought about all the documentation that must be conducted on a company's behalf just so that if they need to fire or lay off an employee for ANY reason, they've got documentation to support the reasoning should the terminated employee contest the firing in court.

That is not to say there are some nefarious individuals working for private companies out there that do some pretty bad things. However, the article at TechRepublic makes it seem like all these villainous corporations are just waiting to take advantage of their employees at every opportunity. That is not the case. The occurrences of fired (or still employed) employees frivolously suing private companies is far greater than the rate of employees fired under unjust circumstances.

Original copy of story to which this post responds:

Monday, January 25, 2010

An Open Letter to Republicans in Congress (House and Senate)

This post originated as a response to a post I came across by Joe Barton, Republican Congressman from Texas.

Congressman Barton had submitted a story from the Wall Street Journal about the validity of climate science.

Rep. Barton's commentary goes as follows: "We need to continue looking into the validity of the science before changing our entire economy. There are just too many embellished claims."

First, I would like to make unequivocally clear that I am in agreement with the Congressman for the most part. Where I take exception is not with the premise or point of his argument. My issue is that I don't think Congressman Barton's comments go far enough.

By calling for additional reviews of some of the scientific data, one is implicitly suggesting that the global hubbub over the nonexistent phenomena often referred to as "climate change" may in fact hold some validity. To do this is to give the propagandists driving the campaign far more credit than they deserve. The people promoting "climate change" hysteria are the same people who just a few years back were telling us that by 2010 we'd all be dead from "global warming". Well, the coldest decade on record seems to have put a nail in the coffin of "global warming", but the environmental alarmists are still pushing full-speed ahead.

The remainder of this post is addressed to the Congressman, and not just Congressman Joe Barton, but every other Congressman and Senator who believes in freedom, national sovereignty and an educated populace. While the rest of this post reads as though Rep. Barton is the only person being addressed, that is because I initially wrote the piece in response to his commentary about the WSJ story. That said, he is certainly not the only member of Congress to whom this message is intended. The following is intended for every Republican federal office-holder as well as any democrats that actually have the nation's best interests at heart (assuming there's at least one), as well as anyone else in the American government that cares about our nation's best interests.

Without further adieu, here is my response:

You Congressman know as well as I do that this "climate change" (formerly known as "global warming") is being thrust upon us for two reasons. The first and most obvious is the financial motives of those pushing for alternative energy sources (in which the propagandists are heavily invested, as you well know).

The second reason is a bit more nefarious than simple corrupt profiteering. The second reason, as you well know, is the establishment of a "global tax" as a means of setting the precedent for the abolition of national sovereignty.

You know this. Please do not insult my intelligence by pretending to be naive to the globalist agenda. You know it exists. Don't you understand that those of us who still love America and still value freedom and liberty above all else want people like you to call a spade a spade without beating around the bush or pretending to play dumb.

We know, and we know that you know. The difference is that you can hold a press conference any time you wish, you can have a column published in any newspaper, and most importantly you can use the "taboo words" on the House floor, creating a permanent public record that at least one legislator possesses enough strength of character to say what many of us already know while in session.

We WANT people like you to call out the enemy for what it is, for what they are. We elect people like you to be our voice in Washington. Unfortunately, we are all too often disappointed by the absence of backbone and courage in those we elect to serve us in our nation's capitol.

The Republic is under assault from within. The American Government's current ruling regime (including its rabid leaders in the House and Senate) poses every bit as grave a threat to this country as does Al Qaeda. At least our military can can go and kill those terrorist groups that wish to kill us.

To me Congressman, an elected official (in this case a Senator) who has a disdain for Americans' right to own and carry guns and would vote against confirming a Supreme Court nominee because that person believes in the Constitutional rule of law, is as dangerous as Al Qaeda, perhaps moreso.

Well, that is not a viable option for dealing with Nancy Pelosi (who is either a treasonous traitor or a 'useful idiot', as the Soviets like to refer to them as. Those of us who would prefer not to live in the New Soviet Union would like to see some people like you actually call them out for what they are, and expose them for the traitors and scoundrels they really are. If one of your colleagues says or does anything that borders on treason, for the love of God, please call them out and don't let it slide or look the other way!

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

A trip down memory lane (part one)

Whenever I'm having a bad day, I find that reminiscing and thinking back to the 'good ole days' often helps cheer me up.

I admit, during the democrat primaries last year I was secretly hoping to see Hillary Clinton pull out a victory over Obama. At first I thought it was merely a case of me cheering for the underdog. However, today I realized that was not the case at all.

It wasn't so much that I wanted to see Hillary heading up the American government, but rather I wanted to see her husband Bill back in the spotlight. That's right, I believe I could stomach another four years of one William Jefferson Clinton being back in the spotlight.

While I disagree with almost all of his policies, I have to admit that there was nary a dull news day when Bill Clinton was president. In fact, had Hillary won (and then beaten McCain), newspapers would have received a new lease on life and wouldn't be falling off the map left and right.

For whatever reason, I was in a foul mood when I woke up this afternoon. I just happened to stumble across this video on YouTube, and it almost immediately cheered me up --- big-time.

So without further adieu, I present to you, President Bill Clinton telling the truth:

I hate to admit it, but God I love that video! Thanks Bill, you really cheered me up today :-)

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Barack Obama is definitely NOT a Muslim

There have been some nasty rumors swirling around throughout the course of the election season purporting that Barack Obama is actually Muslim. As best I can tell, the rumors appear to stem from the fact that Obama's middle name is Hussein. The fact is that this claim (that Obama is Muslim) could not be any further from the truth --- and the proof is below.

To even suggest that Barack Obama is Muslim or has ever practiced the religion of Islam is a heinous insult to the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world who live peaceful lives and harbor no hatred nor aggression for others based upon such trivial characteristics as race and religion.

While I have never sat through a service at a Mosque, I have known enough Muslims well enough to know that their religion is far more loving and peaceful than that propagated by the likes of the Reverend Jeremiah Alvesta Wright Junior.

In fact, to associate Wright's church with any legitimate religion is a stretch to say the least. I have attended Catholic services for more than two decades, and I have never once heard anything uttered from the priest's mouth that in any way, shape, manner or form resembled the hate-filled rhetoric that has been programmed into the minds and hearts of Wright's flock --- Obamas included.

This is not a church or a religion. It is a cult, plain and simple. May God have mercy on us if this guy becomes the most powerful man in the world, whether by vote or by fraud.

As you watch the video below, keep in mind that Barack and Michelle Obama enjoyed these sermons on a weekly basis for 20 years.

America, don't say you weren't warned about this.