They Just Don’t Get It, Do They?

“For me… These are people’s lives… These are people’s children… I don’t worry about the Consitution on this to be honest… I care more about the people who are dying every day that don’t have health care…”

Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) does not worry about the Constitution. He does not care what the Constitution says because he cares more about the people who are dying every day that don’t have health care.


The Constitution is the law of the land, and the thought that people are dying every day “that don’t have health care” is a myth. I have never, in my entire life, heard of one person being turned away at an emergency room because they didn’t have insurance. My own brother-in-law had a heart attack, and once he recovered (in a hospital, without any health insurance) they worked with him to pay towards his bill. The cost of health insurance can be astronomical, but people don’t die in the United States because they “don’t have health care”.People die because of the cost of health care, not because they “don’t have it”.

Many more people will die, however, if politicians like Phil Hare keep ignoring the U.S. Constitution in the name of health-care.

— Posted with Stuffr! —

Five Thoughts Until Midnight

We were all feeling a bit better today, which is a relief after the week we’ve had around here. No piggy tails though, which is even better.

Thought #1

As I stated a couple nights ago, if President Bush was responsible for the shortage of seasonal flu vaccine a couple years ago, then why isn’t mainstream media asking the same questions or making the same accusations against Barack Obama?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced last week that production of the vaccine is slower than expected. While the CDC had hoped for 40 million doses by the end of October, the real numbers will be about 30 million doses because of manufacturing delays, said Dr. Anne Schuchat, CDC’s director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

Could the CDC have been guessing the actual number of swine flu cases rather than reporting the true numbers? It sure sounds like it to me.

Thought #2

For the past several month, while following the health care debate, I have heard many accusations about “profiteering” at health insurance companies. We are told, almost continuously, by the mainstream media that the insurance companies are evil, that they are raking in tons of money while “bodies pile up”.

Well, someone in the media (at the Associated Press no less), did some homework, and it seems those corrupt insurance companies aren’t quite as corrupt as Democrats and their allies would like us to believe.

Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That’s anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she was pleased they will be talking about the “immoral” profits made by the insurance industry.

She actually called insurance companies immoral for making a 6% profit margin while railroads brought in 12.6 percent, network and communications equipment makers raked in 20.4 percent, and Tupperware brought in 7.5%. Clorox, Molson Coors Brewing, and Yum Brands (KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell) all brought in more than 8 percent profits.

Shame on those insurance companies for attempting to stay in business. Nanny State Nancy will have none of that!!!

On a quick sidenote, isn’t it ironic? Railroads brought in 12.6% yet Amtrak loses money every year. The same people who run Amtrak, the Post Office, Social Security, and the IRS want to control your health care. Does this make sense, morally or economically?

When has the government made anything more cost efficient, competitive, or affordable? Which brings me to my next thought.

Thought #3

It looks like Nanny State Nancy and her gang of thugs are going to try and re-brand the term “public option” by calling it the “consumer option” or the “competitive option”, both of which are oxymorons much like Nanny State Nancy herself.

We already have a consumer option, it’s called the free market, and there is no competitive option when it comes to government controlling anything. Think Amtrak, the Postal Service, Social Security, and the IRS.

Thought #3

Why is the presidential pooch eating veal? Who’s paying for that?

Bo, a Portuguese water dog, feasted on a cake shaped like a dog house that was made out of veal.

I wonder if the millions of people out work, who have exhausted all of their unemployment benefits would like to feast on veal? I bet they could care less about the presidential pooch. I bet they would just like to be working again. Maybe we could focus on actually creating jobs for a while?

Thought #4

There is speculation that the health care bill being negotiated behind closed doors in the Senate could quadruple the payroll tax, and Harry Reid announced today that the Senate version of the bill will indeed contain a “public option”.


Thought #5

And finally… There is a war raging in New York’s 23rd House District. I am not going to link to any of the hoopla directly because, frankly, I’m sick of it all.

For those of you who don’t follow politics too closely, there is a Republican candidate running who seems to be farther left than many Democrats. An independent who just happens to be conservative is also running for the seat. Many prominent politicians are supporting the independent candidate, while some more “stalwart” Republicans, like Newt Gingrich, are supporting the local party (which backs the RINO).

As an independent conservative, you know who I would be backing, that is, if I lived in NY 23. But I don’t, and neither do any of those prominent politicians backing the candidates and trying to throw their weight around up there in New York.

I live in the 11th District of Georgia, and when it comes to voting in my local elections, I vote for the candidate I think will do the best job, regardless of party, regardless of what other politicians on the national stage might think.

I vote for the best candidate, I vote my concious, I don’t care about party affiliation. I care about what’s best for my family, my community, and my country. Therein lies the reason why I am not a registered member of either party. If I had a letter after my name it would be (I).

(I) vote for the people who will best represent my family in Congress.

(I) vote my concious when it comes to the important questions facing me.

(I) vote for the people who will put our country first, rather than their interests, their wallets, or their egos.

Anyone who votes a straight ticket just to vote for all the (R) or (D) candidates on the ballet is doing more harm than good. Believe it or not, not all Democrats are liberal, and not all Republicans are conservative. It’s time to put country above party, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs an (M), for moron, after their name.

You Shouldn’t Compromise Your Principles

When the U.S. House of Representatives passed their version of the $15 billion automaker bailout earlier this week, I was disappointed, but not nearly as disappointed as I was that Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) voted for the bailout. To say I was shocked is an understatement.

Before I get too far into this post, let me make a few statements. I understand that Thaddeus McCotter is from Michigan, a state that has been hit hard by this economic downturn because of their ties to the automotive industry. I understand he is an elected representative, whose job is to represent the constituents who live in his district. And, I understand that many of his constituents probably support the bailout effort and demand that he do so as well.

Rep. McCotter has made no secret of his support of this bailout, yet he adamantly fought against other bailout efforts in the past. Apparently, supporting taxpayer funded programs to prop up failing U.S. businesses is only correct if it happens to involve businesses that have a direct impact on your own district. It’s a shame too, because unlike many other members of Congress, I really didn’t think Rep. McCotter was a hypocrite. I thought he was one of those elected officials we could believe in. You know, someone who we could actually trust and who would stand up on their principles and do the right thing for our country.

It seems I, like many other people, was mistaken.

Continue reading

When Conflict Of Interest Is Ignored

Imagine for a moment that a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives sitting on the House Banking Committee which had jurisdiction over Fannie Mae had a wife who served in a high level positon at Fannie Mae.

Would the shit hit the fan or what? Democrats would be calling for him to step down from the banking committee and calling for a a probe into his ethical conduct while serving on that committee.

But what if the same thing happened, but it was Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) involved with the executive at Fannie Mae?

Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.

So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.

Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank’s relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie.

Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical.

“It’s absolutely a conflict,” said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. “He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?

That’s right. Nothing was done. Nothing at all. Read the entire article to read how Frank blocked all attempts at imposing new regulation on Fannie while his lover was working there. Read the entire article to read how far Frank’s fingers are into this entire mess facing us today.

The Blame Game

As you know by now, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on the $700 billion bailout yesterday.

In the House, a simple majority rules. Bills can pass by a one vote margin. The Democratic Party has the majority in the House which is comprised of 435 members. 235 are Democrats, 199 are Republican, and 1 seat is vacant. In order to pass this bill today, the Democrats simply needed 218 votes.

Since the vote failed earlier today in a vote of 205-228 (1 member did not vote), I have heard talk from all of the major news outlets that the Republicans were responsible for the failure of this bill.

How did the Republicans kill this bill? That argument just isn’t logical at all.

Sixty-five Republicans voted FOR the measure. Because of those 65 votes, the Democrats simply needed 153 votes from their own party, yet only 140 of them thought voting for the measure was a good idea. Along with 133 Republicans, 95 Democrats voted to kill the bill.

Without any help from Republicans, Nancy Pelosi needed 92.7% of her colleagues to vote for the bill. Because of the number of Republicans that voted for the bill, that number lowered to 65.1%. She ended up with 59.6%. Forty percent of her own caucus voted against her. This vote was an epic fail for the Speaker of the House and it showed the true measure of her leadership.

The American people did not want this bill and I commend the 228 Representatives who stood their ground and actually represented the people.

Visit the U.S. House website to see how your Representative voted.

All The Wrong Reasons

With Congress and the President ready to toss the pending “Bereft Banker BailOut” at our feet, I thought I would see what Republican House members were saying and doing.

In a closed-door session with House Republicans Sunday evening, Minority Leader John A. Boehner called the $700 billion financial rescue deal a “crap sandwich” — then said he plans to vote for it.

Things are not looking good if the Minority Leader of the House refers to the pending legislation as a “crap sandwich” and then says he’s still willing to vote for it. Shouldn’t our Congressmen be voting for the the right solution rather than the best solution they could come up with before some imaginary deadline?

With support from Cantor and Ryan in hand, party leaders – in conjunction with the White House – were expected to start leaning on other members to back the bill.

When you hear that Republicans need to lean on other Republicans to convince them to back a bill, you know the bill is a bad idea. You lean on people when they want to force them to do something. If it was a good idea, wouldn’t they be backing it willingly?

Minority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.), who negotiated the terms of the tentative agreement for House Republicans, met Sunday afternoon with a bloc of retiring GOP lawmakers in an effort to secure their support for the plan, members familiar with the discussions said.

During that session, Illinois Rep. Ray LaHood, who has battled with party leaders over the years, told his colleagues that they should support the team because none of them would have to face voters in November.

He told his colleagues to support the bill because they are retiring and wouldn’t have to face voters in November. If that isn’t the clearest signal that this bail out bill is still a bad idea, I don’t know what is.