Top 10 Most Ridiculous Uses of Stimulus Funds

"He has called together Legislative Bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures." - Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence, 1776

Senate majority leader Harry Reid has taken to scheduling controversial votes in the we hours of the Morning, most notably this mornings 1am vote to end cloture, on the government takeover of our health insurance industry. In his effort to secure the 60 votes needed, Senator Reid was handing out bribes galore. Senator Ben Nelson, secured a provision in the bill that would exempt Nebraska from the cost of the Medicaid expansion called for in the bill, setting up a scenario which puts all other state on the hook for Nebraska's Medicaid spending, forever. a few other Senators where able to secure similar handouts, Like Mary Landrieu's $300 million provision to cover her states Medicaid expenses. This is disturbing on many levels and should force you to ask yourself; if this was such a great bill why are senators, securing deals to more or less exempt their states from it's consequences.

Secondly is a provision in that Pesky little thing called the constitution which has basically been turned on it's head with this legislation.

Article 1 section 9 U.S. Constitution "No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over an other"

Article 4 Section 2 The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Anthony D Dolpies

Our National Debt is Growing to Immoral and Unsafe Proportions

by Chuck DeVore

If you are under 30, you really need to read this column and pass it on to your friends. Your elected officials are dooming you to a new sort of bondage, a form of 21^st Century slavery, if you will.

First, some background.

On October 16, 1854, Abraham Lincoln, then a former one-term Congressman, gave a three hour speech in Peoria, Illinois in which he decried the extension of slavery into the territories. The Republican Party was barely three months old. Lincoln warned that slavery was a “monstrous injustice” based on the raw principle of “self-interest” at odds with the “fundamental principles of civil liberty.”

Lincoln was moved to action by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, widely seen as a check on the growth of slavery in the territories.

At Peoria, Lincoln presented the economic, legal and moral case against slavery.

Today, we are faced with a similar and urgent crisis: a burgeoning debt at all levels of government that threatens our prosperity, our posterity, and our probity.

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 218-214 to raise the debt limit to $12.4 trillion. Including all unfunded liabilities, such as Medicare and Social Security, federal obligations have reached $106 trillion.

Just the cost of paying back the borrowing from President Obama’s Stimulus plan, which I opposed, will cost you $280 per month for the rest of your life. Imagine buying and trashing an iPod every month for the rest of time – that’s the practical impact of just one of the many planned expansions of government from Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Boxer.

Meanwhile, garden variety federal spending – spending that grew too fast under our last president as well – is vaulting even higher, with Senator Boxer recently voting for a “routine” $1.1 trillion appropriations bill that spends 12 percent more than last year.

Paying for all of this federal spending will eventually force middle-class tax rates to double. For those in college that means you will likely have to postpone starting a family and buying a house, take longer to pay off your student loans, and have less savings for education, health care, and retirement.

This is intergenerational theft and it is immoral.

In fact, it has a certain parallel to slavery. In effect, your leaders are stealing from your future while you, those younger than you, and those yet born, don’t have a say in the process. It is, as Lincoln said, based on pure “self-interest.” Of the mounting debt and its impact on the 65 million Americans between the ages of 16 and 30 we can invoke Lincoln by saying that your, “sacred right of self government is grossly violated by it!”

In this, California is a harbinger, once again, for the nation. Our state debt and obligations are approaching half a trillion dollars. This has led to a plummeting credit rating that pumps up the cost of borrowing. This, in turn, diminishes the money available to fund schools, repair roads, and provide social services. That’s why, as a lawmaker, I have yet to vote for a general obligation bond that would be repaid by the taxpayers – our credit card has been maxed out since I arrived in Sacramento in 2004 and, no matter what the claimed urgency, I have resisted the temptation to add to debt that my 18 and 12-year-old daughters would have to repay for the next 30 years.

Our national debt also has profound and unsettling national security ramifications. Since Mr. Obama became president, the Peoples Republic of China has quietly sold their long-term U.S. government securities and shifted their entire $985 billion government debt portfolio to securities with six-month maturities. What might happen next spring when the Chinese simply let these securities mature and demand dollars for their debt?

Once upon a time, Americans were concerned for their children, for future generations. They saved and invested and built. Today, those in charge are taking the full inheritance from those whose turn at the helm is yet to come. In a sense, allowing their raw self-interest in massively borrowing for the present to bury the future. We are living better today at the expense of those who largely cannot vote. Why? Because we can.

The institution of slavery was also driven by self-interest. One man was able to live off the sweat of another man’s brow. Why? Because he could.

Perhaps America has become hardened to her children. Perhaps the generation in power today, a generation raised on self-interest, self-gratification, and self-actualization, cannot help but to steal from the future to bolster their present.

I can only hope that California’s youth will awake to the danger and reclaim their future before it is too late.

One last word. When Lincoln spoke at Peoria, the Republican Party was in its infancy. Today, the Republican Party is 155-years-old. In recent years we lost our way on the principle of fiscal discipline. Many current and former Party leaders either encouraged Big Government or idly stood by without thought of the economic, moral and future implications. This is why the Republican Party ranks lower in many eyes than an as yet unformed “Tea Party.” But, the debt crisis is too dire, and the stakes too high, to try to form a new party in the midst of this storm. Instead, those of us who care about America and its future must act now to fully reclaim the Republican Party and fashion it into a real alternative to the Big Government, Big Spending, Big Borrowing and Big Taxing ways of the Democratic Party. It is only by first being true to our principles that can we hope to successfully challenge Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and their allies.

SOLD: Sen. Ben Nelson to vote for health care bill; Secured favors for his home state...

I usually don't post videos polls on my blog sites but I think this one is important, as it shows how quickly the image of Obama as created by MSM have severely collided with reality. What one should take away from such a poll is that Obama has sunk from being an "above the fray", "post-partisan" to being just an average politician.

CBO: Reid Bill Forces 10

Million Out of Current

Health Care

• Posted December 10th, 2009 at 2.36pm in Health Care.

You don’t hear President Barack Obama make this promise anymore, but when he was first selling his health insurance plan, Obama repeatedly promised the American people: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” Lost in the November 18th Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) version of Obamacare, was the CBOs latest confirmation that Obama’s statement is blatantly false.

Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee Ranking Member Mike Enzi (R-WY) asked the CBO to clarify their analysis of employer-based coverage changes and this weekthe CBO wrote back:

We estimate that between 9 million and 10 million other people who would be covered by an employment-based plan under current law would not have an offer of such coverage under the proposal.

The plain English translation of the above CBO speak is: “Under Obamacare, employers will dump 10 million of their employees out of their current coverage whether they like it or not.” No wonder Obama has stopped making his “if you like your health care you can keep it” promise.

Watchdogs Say Bank Bailout Funds Cannot Pay for Obama's Jobs Program
(CNSNews.com) – Two members of the special oversight panel put together by Congress to monitor the Troubled Asset Relief Program said Thursday that leftover funds from the bailout of the financial industry cannot be directly used to fund new job stimulus programs planned by President Obama. New legislation will need to be approved by Congress and signed by the president for that purpose.



Boxer Compares Abortion with Viagra

Senator Boxer is really just missing the point here, but this is a classic example of Democrat debating techniques, pitting one group; men against another; women. They do this to avoid the real issue, which is that the American people shouldn't be forced to subsidize another individuals sexual practice's, or the consequences of them. I remember when the liberal mantra was keep your laws out of our bedroom & off of our ovaries, The mantra now seems to be, it's my bedroom, everyone must watch and pay for the video cameras, The ovary thing hasn't really changed, just make sure you leave your wallet on the dresser.

Sen. Landrieu Says She'll Let 'Lawyers on Our Staff' Figure Out If Constitution Authorizes Congress to Force Americans to Buy Health Insurance Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) – Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) told CNSNews.com she would leave it up to the “constitutional lawyers” to explain exactly where Congress gets the constitutional authority to force Americans to buy health insurance, the central mandate in both the Senate and House health care bills.

Perspective of A Russian immigrant no.4

Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant (No. 4)

By SVETLANA KUNINPosted 12/08/2009 07:02 PM ET

---

IBD Exclusive Series:
Perspectives of a Russian Immigrant

---

I look at the people who support the transformation of America in disbelief: They are destroying the very land that gave them so much opportunity.

Groomed, well-fed and educated, comfortably living in a prosperous society, they need a mission to give meaning to their lives. These "fighters for the less-fortunate among us" glaze over the fact that hundreds of millions of people from around the world desperately try to come to this country for all it offers, regardless of their economic status, race, class, or gender.

Immigrants rightly see this country as the best place to obtain a decent life for themselves and their families.

When I immigrated to America in 1980, I was overwhelmed with the amount of food and goods available at any store, at the numerous charitable organizations helping the needy, and even the government programs that helped people to obtain necessary skills to find a job.

Later, I realized that the country was in the midst of a deep recession. Compared to where I came from, it seemed like the pinnacle of prosperity.

As a secular Soviet Jew, my first Christmas in America was amazing. The proud display of religious symbols was a celebration not only of the holiday, but of a population free to express their beliefs without fear of oppression.

I understand why at the beginning of the 20th century Jewish immigrants in America wrote many beautiful Christmas songs; these songs were born out of grateful hearts. Churches and synagogues coexist without issues. Nobody is forced to practice or not practice a religion.

Soon, however, I noticed darker aspects underlying life in America. Political correctness had seeped into everything like cancer. Under the pretense of multicultural diversity, suppression and intolerance of uniquely American traditions such as liberty, private property, and e pluribus unum (out of many, one), became not only acceptable, but necessary in supposedly enlightened society.

Under the pretext of helping the needy, liberals eliminate people's drive to better themselves and their families. Instead, they obsess about events of the past and exacerbate the victim mentality in the very people they claim to help.

The stranglehold of political correctness has only grown stronger. I see in today's governmental policies a replication of the very things I escaped from.

In the USSR, representatives of the Communist party — partorgs (literally: party organizers) — were ingrained into every aspect of civilian, official and military life. These political organizers controlled public order by observing the behavior and speech of every citizen.

People who wanted a more secure and privileged life found it necessary to join the propaganda machine. In order to survive, citizens were silent out of fear of retaliation by the authorities.

Government-controlled medical care and poorly compensated medical personnel stimulated corruption at every level of service. People had to resort to bribery in order to get the help they needed, and underpaid medical personnel were open to the payouts.

Those who could not pay had to beg for help. The only hospitals comparable to American hospitals were in Moscow and a few other cities, where government officials were treated. In the rest of the country, medical care was substandard. This was the reality of free health care for everyone.

No one can dispute that America has issues with its medical system, and here too, some people struggle to get the help they need. But the solution to the problem is not more bureaucratic control. The quality of medical care will inevitably decline for everyone.

I came to this country in the middle of a recession, and I saw the economy revive and prosper when the government eased the tax burden on people and businesses. People were free to use their talents without the interference of central planning. Today the opposite is taking place, and we see the opposite results because central planning results in wasteful spending, corruption and the suppression of initiative.

I am afraid these transformers of America are destroying the future of our children. I hope the free spirit of America triumphs.

• Kunin lived in the Soviet Union until 1980. She now lives in Connecticu

The Verbal post

Listen to Dobbs on Blog Talk Radio

Tune in at 3pm est to the show to witness the verbal beatdown of the progressive movement

ok folks we had some tech issues during our last broadcast so we will continue with some of the issue we missed, also health care, climategate keeps heating up despite the msm best effort, but have no fear we are not only back but never backing down, 3pm est

The Conservative Republic Live, Where Liberty Lives

Dobbs

my Disection of Obama's West Point speech

You Don't want to miss this, you will hear analysis that even the best have missed

The New York Times Trying to Provide Cover for Obamacare

No Big Cost Rise in U.S. Premiums Is Seen in Study By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN The eagerly awaited report gave Democrats ammunition against Republicans who have criticized the bill on the ground that it would raise costs for most Americans.

This Article in the Times touts a CBO study claiming that individuals who buy health insurance under Obamacare would see significant reductions in premiums. This is extremely vexing considering the CBO released a report lat week that made the opposite claim, reporting that insurance premiums per family would actually increase by nearly $3000 by 2016. By now you must be wondering; how could both reports be true? The times headline is misleading. Premiums will go up as originally reported, only this time the CBO factored in government subsidies provided to families up to 400% above the poverty line. That translates to nearly 60% of the American people. This leaves 40% of the American people who do not qualify for a subsidy paying both the cost of higher premiums & the bill for everyone else. In a nutshell the Democrat health reform plan is to just force 60% of the American people into welfare.

Anthony D Dolpies

Howard Dean on Socialism & the permanent campaign

UK Scientist: 'Case for climate fears is blown to smithereens...whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed'

The Mind-set of Malcontents

Every Obama speech seems to be constructed with one objective in mind, to reinforce the mind-set of the malcontent. Whether the venue is foreign or domestic he portrays an image of a world filled with injustice, populated with hapless inhabitants biding their time until some evil force devours them, with their only salvation being some international bureaucrat or government program that will fulfill their basic needs and change the course of an unjust human history selflessly guiding it toward some far off unreachable utopia.

Obama subscribes to the zero sum philosophy, or at least that’s what he preaches, this is the theory that an individual or a nation can only advance their own interest or add to their wealth by denying those things to another. On the domestic level this philosophy suggests that if a corporation or employer is allowed to keep more of its earnings through low taxation somehow the employee’s wages suffer. Or that one individual’s economic hardship is the direct result of another individual’s success, in other words he presents an image of an ever shrinking communal pie. Promising the malcontent a bigger piece in return for a vote or support of some liberty stealing legislation that will level the playing field and foster a better “equality” among citizens.

Globally the same concept applies. One nation’s prosperity impedes the ability of another to achieve the same. Obama advanced this theory in his speech to the U.N. then repeated it during his recent Shanghai town hall, he proclaimed “power in the 21st century is no longer a zero-sum game; one country's success need not come at the expense of another.” Obama’s idea to correct this perceived injustice is the same as his answer to domestic issues, global wealth redistribution and intergovernmental regulations tasked with insuring economic balance.

Power or economic success has never been a zero sum game. The idea is absurd, power goes hand in hand with a strong economy, economic success depends on many factors, navigable waterways and geography, political stability, government policies, cultural factors, human beings in general have the same basic potentials but a nation’s success can never be guaranteed. It is also important to realize that countries like China and India have grown economically after pulling back their governments involvement in the marketplace, Obama suggests just the opposite, while global wealth redistribution has proven as much of a failure as its domestic cousin. Look at Africa, GDP has decreased as economic aid to the continent has reached unprecedented levels. Finally the industrial revolution did not just benefit the U.S. it advanced nearly all of civilization, the nations that lag behind did so as a result of cultural barriers and political instability, the industrial revolution was not the cause of those instabilities.

In reality Obama seeks the same globally as he does domestically a population of victimized serfs in permanent economic stagnation dependent on an elite political class that holds out the carrot of unattainable utopia in exchange for individual liberty.

Anthony D Dolpies

Hating Sarah

The mainstream media and liberal establishment is absolutely frightened by Sarah Palin, here is the latest offering

So according to Tina Brown, whoever that is, the reason why thousands of people are camping out overnight in freezing temperatures to see Sarah Palin and buy her book, the reason why people seem to feel so closely connected and supportive of the former governor is because the American people are dumb, and we have finally found a politician who is as stupid as we are.

The real reason why the media is scared of Palin is because she is self made. People weren't lined up for blocks to get a glimpse of Barack Obama when he published his two autobiographies, nobody really knew who Obama was until the media latched onto him during the 2008 campaign and began carrying the water for him.

Obama is a creation of the media, an empty suit propped up by glamorous and supportive coverage. The mainstream media credibility is directly linked to Obama's success or failure and they can't afford his failure. Now that the American people are seeing the real Barack Obama and the disaster that his Presidency they are rejecting him.

Sarah Palin is the complete opposite, the media did not create Palin, therefore they cannot destroy her, no matter how hard they try.

Anthony D Dolpies

________________________________________________________________

Obama wasn't done with his bow to the Japanese Emperor, he went on to China and bowed before the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao

Is Medicare the Real Target of ‘Health Care Reform?’

by Dr. Jane Orient

Warmist Death Star has been destroyed? 'The Death Blow to Climate Science': Climatologist says scandal reveals 'deliberate fraud'

UK Telegraph: Climategate: How the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science

Fox News: Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' Evidence of Collusion Among Climatologists and Manipulation of Data'

WSJ: Skeptics 'see blood in the water' -- Files reveal scientists apparently making references to things like 'hiding the decline' in temps

Yesterday I posted a video of Senator Lindsay Graham grilling attorney General Eric Holder on his decision to try enemy combatants in civilian courts, Graham asked Mr. Holder if Osama Bin Ladin where captured would he be given the constitutional protections that american citizens enjoy, such as miranda warnings and an attorney before having to submit to questioning, Holder was perplexed by this question and really did not know how to answer it.

Here are a couple of our illustrious legislators answering the same question.








So Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to think about answering such a question, after all the speaker views the rule of law as such a secondary thing. Senator Leahy, believes we have so much evidence against Bin laden that miranda or interrogation is unnecessary. This is more or less the same argument Holder tried to mount yesterday. This is absolutely absurd, first are we to assume that regardless of guilt an interrogation of Bin Laden is unnecessary, Senator Leahy or the Attorney General is not the least bit curious about information Bin laden may have regarding additional terror cells, plans for future terror attacks, the details of the terror networks finances, connections to countries like Iran. That's just the tip of the Ice berg. But these government officials are also missing the real problem with this fiasco, we will now be setting precedent that the courts or the government can arbitrarily decide who deserves constitutional protections. The constitution was structured to protect the individual from a government that would conduct such a kangaroo court.

Anthony D Dolpies

A Leviathan of Land: Perspective on the

Size of the US Gov’t In Pictures

• Posted November 19th, 2009 at 3.50pm in First Principles.

With the takeover of health care and frenzied government growth front and center, many are wondering when we will - if we haven’t already - reached a tipping point that fundamentally alters America. Much of what’s been done is described as a temporary fix. However, as President Reagan noted, “There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.”

With this reinvigorated discussion of how big is too big, it is worthwhile to remind Americans of just how massive the Federal government already was before our current woes began. There are few more striking measures of the government’s size than the land mass of the Federal estate. The vast majority of federal lands fall within one of four agencies: the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Agriculture’s US Forest Service. At over 258 million acres, the Bureau of Land Management alone is bigger than France and Germany combined. When combined with the other aforementioned agencies, the land area is equal that of ten European nations as shown in the accompanying graph (click it to see a larger version).

The $100 Million Health Care Vote?

The health care bill includes a $100 million section for increasing medicaid subsidies to the state of Louisiana.

Countdown to More Debt: Dems Considering "More Expensive" Plans for Next 'Stimulus'
Nov 17, 2009 - Washington Democrats are marking the nine-month anniversary of the trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ by acknowledging it isn’t working and preparing another ‘stimulus’ of more spending and more debt to be piled on our kids and grandkids. The Obama Administration pledged the trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ woul... More

Graham get's one right for a change,

Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant (No. 3)

By SVETLANA KUNINPosted 11/17/2009 07:27 PM ET

This is the third article to appear on these pages from an IBD subscriber who lived in the Soviet Union until 1980. Click here to read the previous two articles.

Whenever I speak about my experiences living in the USSR, my American friends respond that such things can never happen in a democracy like the United States.

They don't understand why I am repulsed when I hear the president talk about "sacrificing for the collective good," which sounds so compassionate, as opposed to greedy capitalism.

"Sacrifice for the collective good" is one of the founding principles of socialism, where the collective, not the individual, is the basis of society.

Revolutionaries in Russia did not go around boasting about destruction; they made inspiring speeches about fairness, equality, justice and the greater good. After securing power and their own access to material goods, government officials decided what to give and take from the masses, according to their definition of what is good.

When party leaders talk about the "collective good," what they are really talking about is their right to determine what is good for the collective. Government bureaucrats decide what level of sacrifice is needed and who needs to sacrifice. They replace voluntary charity with the forceful redistribution of other people's private property.

Why do people born into a free society accept a failed 100-year-old ideology? It seems Americans are simply unaware of modern history. They don't know the theory behind slogans such as "fairness and equality" and "sacrifice for the collective good," much less how it works when implemented. They buy into old utopian slogans masquerading as new progressive ideals for "Hope and Change."

In the USA, people move up and down the economic ladder all the time. In Western Europe, a milder form of a socialist-democratic political system resulted in higher unemployment, less innovation and less social mobility compared with the U.S. European youth face a continuing decline in their standard of living, as they are burdened with an unsustainable welfare state.

In the USSR, China, North Korea and Cuba, a much harsher form of socialism led to mass murder and mass misery under the banner of "sacrificing for the collective good," "fairness and equality" and service to the state.

The USSR provides numerous examples of what an oppressive centralized government can lead to:

Millions of talented artists, writers and scientists were sent to prison because they did not conform to government standards. Government control of agriculture led to constant shortages of food in one of the largest and most resource-rich lands in the world.

Americans think they are protected. The Constitution is a uniquely American document that specifically limits the power of the government and protects individual liberties. But if all branches of government will ignore this unique document, and people will allow them to do so, there will be nothing different about America.

Americans are not different from people in Russia, Germany, China, Korea or anywhere else. It is human nature to seek power and control, just as it is human nature to seek profit. Deny profit and you destroy any incentive for people to produce and innovate. Give up enough of your liberty to any centralized power and the result is entirely predictable.

Compare North Korea to South Korea, East Germany to West Germany before the fall of the wall — these are examples of the same people living under two different systems: socialism vs. capitalism.

Laws are necessary in a civil society, and this includes laws that regulate the free market. But a government takeover of the economy will result in the transformation of the land of opportunity into a land of apathy and stagnation, a land in which individuals become cogs moving and turning according to government regulations.

In the USSR, they taught us in school that socialism is good and capitalism is bad. That they now teach the same in American schools I find strange.

EXCLUSIVE: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist

So let me see if I have this right, According to The Speaker if one person does not have insurance they are preventing someone else from getting it, or they are adding to the overall costs because apparently all these people are deadbeats and don't pay the ensuing medical bill that accompanies the treatment, and therefore they must be imprisoned where they will then become an actual burden to the tax payer. The Speaker then mentions the insurance subsidies, those insurance welfare payments are going to come from tax increases, in essence creating the situation where one person receives a benefit and then passes on the cost to someone else. Didn't Pelosi just describe this as a criminal act?

Of course what is always missing is the question about how government adds to the cost of everything, from toothbrushes to surgery, with administrative and other regulatory fees, this cost of compliance is far higher than any other factor.

Anthony D Dolpies

President Oba Mao Heads to China

China is gearing up for Barack Obama’s upcoming visit.

As pictures from Wen Xue City show, the T-shirt vendors are already warmed up, Mr President!

(While in Ireland this summer, people referred to the US President as O’Bama, as in O’Brien.)

My question: Will Obama meet with his half-brother Mark Ndesandjo who lives in Shenzhen?