Home

Mama Grizzly aka Sarah Palin.

1 Comment

This is from Breitbart’s Big Government.

I hope Mama Grizzly can take big bites out of the DemocRats 

and the RINO’s.

I would love to see Mama Grizzly and Senator Ted Cruz team up to

run for President and Vice President.

In a sign of how active Sarah Palin intends to be in influencing the 2014 elections, SarahPAC, Sarah Palin’s Political Action Committee, released a video on Wednesday meant to ignite independents, conservatives, and Tea Partiers for the 2014 midterm elections.

These voters propelled Republican candidates in the historic 2010 midterm elections that saw Republicans take back the House of Representatives on the backs of Tea Party voters.

Titled “Loaded for Bear,” the video shows footage and headlines from mainstream media outlets like Politico referring to Palin as a “kingmaker” and conservative outlets like Fox News acknowledging how successfully Palin has used her star-power to help elect conservative candidates to office.

The video also features Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) praising Palin for her fearlessness and being instrumental in electing senators such as Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, Jeff Flake, Deb Fischer, Cruz and governors like Nikki Haley of South Carolina.

In 2012, former South Carolina Senator and current president of the Heritage Foundation Jim DeMint said Palin’s endorsement “has more influence in primaries than any other endorsement right now.”

“Sarah Palin picks winners,” Cruz says in the video.

And by all measures, that dynamic will not change in the next two years for Palin is often a one-woman clearinghouse for conservative and Tea Party candidates.

The video, which the group PassCodeCreative made, features Palin at Tea Party rallies in places like Nevada and at the Iowa State Fair in 2011, where she impressed Iowans, liberals and the mainstream media by answering nearly every question asked of her and engaging comfortably with nearly everyone who approached her for nearly six hours.

In the video, footage of Palin’s 2013 CPAC speech is shown where Palin says, “Don’t let the the big consultants, the big money men and the big bad media scare you off” from running for office.

She urges Republicans to focus more on “rebuilding the middle class” than rebranding the party and says “it is time to furlough the consultants.”

Palin also speaks about her signature issue of dismantling the permanent political class and fighting crony capitalism. She urges Republicans look for candidates from Main Street communities, PTA meetings, small businesses and Tea Party rallies.

“SarahPAC supporters – the 2014 elections are just twenty months away. We appreciate your support, together we have elected many great commonsense conservatives over the past four years,” SarahPAC Treasurer Tim Crawford says in a statement posted with the video. “Together, we will keep fighting to support these bold candidates.”

Reporters in the video note only “Sarah Palin will hold Congress to account,” that Palin “plays by her own rules,” and Palin “doesn’t care about old dogs” in the GOP. These are the qualities that make Tea Partiers, conservatives, and independents trust Palin.

“The next election is twenty months away, the last thing we need is Washington D.C. vetting our candidates,” Palin says in the video.

The video notes that there are 35 Senate and 36 Governors races in 2014 and ends with a clip of Ted Cruz saying at CPAC, “I would not be in the U.S. Senate today if it were not for Gov. Sarah Palin.”

The words “We Haven’t Yet Begun to Fight” splash across the screen as SarahPAC’s signature bear roars at the end of the video.

About these ads

KARL ROVE SNAPS BACK AT SARAH PALIN: ‘IF I DID RUN FOR OFFICE & WIN, I WOULD SERVE OUT MY TERM’

Leave a comment

This is from The Blaze.

Karl Rove need to shut up and go away.

Karl Roves is not or ever has been Conservative.

Karl Rove and GOP Chairman Reince Priebus are the problem.

Their win and lose record is horrible.

We need to weed The Establishment Republicans out of the party.

Karl Rove isn’t taking too kindly to Sarah Palin’s criticism.

After the former Alaska governor took a not-so-veiled shot at establishment “experts who keep losing elections yet keep getting rehired” in her speech to conservative activists Saturday, Republican strategist Rove said Palin should agree with him in his quest to find more “electable” GOP candidates.

“First of all I live in Texas, I don’t live in Washington,” Rove said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Second of all, look — Sarah Palin should be agreeing with this. She didn’t support [Missouri Senate candidate] Todd Akin and when he said the reprehensible things he said, she wisely came out and said he should get out of the race.”

Rove, whose American Crossroads super PAC spent millions during the 2012 campaign yet achieved just one election night success, also dismissed Palin’s advice to either “buck up” or run himself — by bringing up her resigning the Alaska governorship.

“I appreciate her encouragement that I ought to go home to Texas and run for office. I would be enthused if I ran for office to have her support… I don’t think I’m a particularly good candidate, sort of a balding fat guy. Second of all, if I did run for office and win I would serve out my term and I wouldn’t leave office midterm,” Rove said, eliciting momentarily stunned silence from the rest of the Fox News panel.

 

 

 

PALIN: FEDS ‘STOCKPILING BULLETS’ IN CASE OF RIOTS AFTER DEFAULT

1 Comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

I think Sarah is half right with her comments.

I think the stockpile is for when prices soar due to Obamacare.

 

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin claimed the federal government is “stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.” Palin believes such calamity may result from the country defaulting on its obligations.

She claimed the threat of default exists because Washington politicians are not serious about reducing the country’s debt, as evidenced by the drama over the sequester.

“If we are going to wet our proverbial pants over 0.3% in annual spending cuts when we’re running up trillion dollar annual deficits, then we’re done,” Palin wrote of the sequester set to hit on Friday. “Put a fork in us. We’re finished. We’re going to default eventually and that’s why the feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”

In a Facebook note on Tuesday in which she blistered D.C. politicians for yet another “ginned-up” crisis, Palin wrote that the “real economic Armageddon looming before us is our runaway debt, not the sequester, which the President advocated for and signed into law and is now running around denouncing because he never had any genuine intention of reining in his reckless spending.”

Palin said the world knows that if Washington politicians cannot even deal with a modest 0.3% per year cut in the federal budget, then the country is heading straight for default.

“If we can’t stomach modest cuts that would lower federal spending by a mere 0.3% per year out of a current federal budget of $3.6 trillion, then we might as well signal to the whole world that we have no serious intention of dealing with our debt problem,” Palin continued.

- See more at: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/28/Palin-Feds-Stockpiling-Bullets-in-Case-of-Riots-After-Default#sthash.gwmNBfQY.dpuf

Going Rogue: Sarah Palin says she plans to ‘shake up the GOP machine’ with $1.2M raised through her PAC

2 Comments

This is from The U.K Daily Mail.

It is time someone shook up the GOP.

The establishment Republicans need to be tossed out of the party.

We also need to bounce Karl Rove out the door.

We lost the last two presidential races because of spineless Moderates.

Men that were to gutless to carry the fight to Obama.

We sure as Hell can not afford 16 years of progressives Communist.

Ronald Reagan America needs you or someone like you.

 

Once again Sarah Palin is showing that she has no plans to play by the rules.

She has parted ways with FOX News after a turbulent relationship with the conservative cable news channel, taken pot shots at pundits in the ‘lame stream media’ and slammed her own party for selecting Mitt Romney as the 2012 Republican presidential nominee.

Now the former Alaska governor says she’ll use the $1.2 million raised through her SarahPAC to ‘shake up the GOP machine’ and unveiled a vague vision on how she’ll get her message out to a larger audience.

Keep an eye outKeep an eye out: Sarah Palin, in 2008, failed to give specifics about what’s up her sleeve but financial reports show her PAC has $1.2 million in the bank

News broke on Friday night that she had not renewed her $1 million annual contract with FOX News, after three years as a contributor on Roger Ailes‘ network.

Palin then spoke out on Saturday, in an interview with Breitbart.com, saying that she was working to ‘free up opportunities to share more broadly the message of the beauty of freedom and the imperative of defending our republic and restoring this most exceptional nation.’

Calling the future ‘wide open’ with opportunities, she shared how she plans ‘to pick battles wisely, and all in due season’ – hinting that she still has a fight left in her.

Her vision for the future coincided with the financial disclosure from her Political Action Committee, SarahPAC, with records released on Monday showing she ended 2012 with nearly $1.2 million in the bank.

She raised around $20,790 between Nov. 27 and Dec. 31 and spent $67,800 during that time period on expenses including consulting, speech writing and legal fees.

 

Though speculation grows over her future, she was quite clear about her view of her party’s past performance in 2012.

She blasted the Republican establishment, announcing her intention ‘to shake up the GOP machine that tries to orchestrate away too much of the will of constitutional conservatives who don’t give a hoot how they do it in DC.’

AwkwardAwkward: Sarah Palin took to Facebook to complain about her employer

She didn’t mince words on the presidential election of 2012, saying former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney lost because he was too moderate and blamed the party for not listening to the desires of grass roots conservatives.

‘We had an election defined by a biased media plus millions of voters who sat it out in disgust. As long as we allow the media and GOP establishment to tell us who our nominees must be, we can expect to lose. I’m not interested in losing. America’s next generation can’t afford another loss.’

Yet again she took a dig at what she has dubbed the ‘lame stream media,’ calling for more ‘truth-telling’ and praising conservatives, like radio personalities Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin but seemed to intentionally leave out any of her former FOX colleagues.

It’s not clear how exactly Palin’s arrangement ended with the conservative cable news outfit.

FOX, the News Corporation unit run by Mr Ailes, has insisted they parted ways on an amicable note despite repeated signs of a strained relationship.

‘We have thoroughly enjoyed our association with Governor Palin. We wish her the best in her future endeavors,’ Bill Shine, an executive vice president at FOX, told the New York Times.

Senator John McCain’s former running mate joined the network in January 2010.

With her colored past in U.S. politics, Mr Ailes made no secret of her true appeal.

‘I hired Sarah Palin because she was hot and got ratings,’ he told the Associated Press in an October 2011 interview.

Unlike former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who hosts a weekly talk show on FOX at the network’s headquarters at 1211 Avenue of the Americas on West 47th Street in Midtown Manhattan, FOX News built a studio for her at her Wasilla, Alaska home.

Her husband, Todd, would occasionally take on the role of cameraman and producer during her live television appearances.

Despite the cozy arrangement that allowed the Alaskan to work from home, it was said that Palin and FOX were not seeing eye-to-eye.

After Sen. McCain‘s loss to Obama in 2008, Palin returned to her native Alaska and then abruptly resigned from her post as governor of Alaska in July 2009.

Her book, ‘Going Rogue: An American Life,’ was published in November 2009 by News Corp.‘s HarperCollins, and she followed it up in 2010 with another book, ‘America by Heart.’

Her relationship with FOX News has been known to be tense, as she and the company’s CEO have traded barbs and often appeared annoyed at each another.

In late 2011, America waited to see if Palin would enter the presidential race after she openly flirted with the idea.

When Palin did finally decide not to throw her hat in the ring in October 2011, she made the announcement on a conservative radio program, The Mark Levin Show, instead of FOX.

Failing to give the exclusive to her employer was seen as a slap in the network’s face.

 

Then months later, in April 2012, Mr Ailes bluntly stated Palin ‘had no chance to be president’ during a speech at the University of North Carolina.

Palin called his perspective ‘interesting’ and retorted that, ‘I wonder if he is aware that the same thing was said about me when I ran for city council, mayor, and eventually governor,’ in an interview on Breitbart.com.

 

‘No doubt many people who are told they can’t do something will work that much harder, and they succeed,’ she added.

Mr Ailes later clarified that he wasn’t ‘referring to any …long-term prospects,’ adding that ‘nobody can predict the future.’

But in August of 2012, she showed she had no love for FOX when at the Republican National Convention she took to Facebook to complain that the network had taken her off as a contributor for the convention coverage.

‘I’m sorry Fox cancelled all my scheduled interviews tonight because I sure wanted to take the opportunity on the air to highlight Senator John McCain’s positive contributions to America, to honor him, and to reflect on what a biased media unfairly put him through four years ago tonight,’ she wrote to her more than 3 million followers on her Facebook page.

FOX said the changes were due to a condensed line-up of speakers but the public spat had many wondering last summer if her stint on cable would be coming to a close.

Her last appearance on FOX, the most watched cable news network, was on Dec. 19 for an interview on Greta Van Susteren’s show.

Read more:

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270137/Sarah-Palin-says-plans-shake-GOP-machine-1-2M-raised-PAC.html#ixzz2KRVxHd31
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

PALIN: ‘WE HAVEN’T YET BEGUN TO FIGHT!’—EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH BREITBART NEWS

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbart’s Big Government.

 

We need to start fighting real hard.

If not we are going to lose America.

 

In my research for the film I made on Governor PalinThe Undefeated, I was constantly amazed at the anti-establishment stands she took at every step in her rise to power. Moves that a conventional politician would run from, she embraced: in Wasilla, in Juneau, and in the rise of the Tea Party. Her ability to see “over the hill” to what is really important, what really matters, is what sets her apart.

Andrew Breitbart embraced the Governor as a fellow warrior in the long struggle against a detached and venal political/media complex. He lives on in spirit and through the work of those he inspired—including, but not limited to, those who report and contribute at his site.

The Governor has been at the forefront of the fight against the Permanent Political Classand, as such, inspired Peter Schweizer and myself in our work last night on Fox News with Sean Hannity’s special “Boomtown.” We consider ourselves honored at Breitbart News to have her share with us her thoughts on the road ahead in this exclusive Q & A.

1. What’s next for you?

Short term: I encourage others to step out in faith, jump out of the comfort zone, and broaden our reach as believers in American exceptionalism. That means broadening our audience. I’m taking my own advice here as I free up opportunities to share more broadly the message of the beauty of freedom and the imperative of defending our republic and restoring this most exceptional nation. We can’t just preach to the choir; the message of liberty and true hope must be understood by a larger audience.

Focus on the 2014 election is also imperative. It’s going to be like 2010, but this time around we need to shake up the GOP machine that tries to orchestrate away too much of the will of constitutional conservatives who don’t give a hoot how they do it in DC. DC is out of touch, obviously. Voices on the right like Mark Levin, Rush, and the writers here at Breitbart have come out strongly against the “go along to get along” politicians who wave the white flag before the battle even begins. We’re not going to be able to advance the cause of limited constitutional government unless we deal with these big government enablers on our side. And this all ties into the problem of crony capitalism and the permanent political class in the Beltway. We need to consistently take them on election after election – ever vigilant.

As far as long-term plans, the door is wide open. I know the country needs more truth-telling in the media, and I’m willing to do that. So, we shall see. And always in the center of it all I have an awesome, full, exciting, and large family living in a very unique part of America that keeps me hopping! I love it!

2. Where do you think the country stands at the beginning of the President’s 2nd term?

Before the November election I wrote that we all know what Obama’s second term will look like because we’ve seen his first. I said: “We know what we will get from a second Obama term. We will get the same failed policies. We will get Obamacare locked into law. We will get a debt crisis. We will get more inflation and higher gas prices. We will get tax increases. We will get fewer jobs. We will get more small businesses collapsing under the weight of higher taxes and unfair regulation. We will get more corruption and crony capitalism favoring the Obama administration’s friends. We will get less domestic energy development and increased dependence on terrorist sponsoring foreign regimes for our energy needs. We will get a ‘blame America first’ foreign policy that bows to our enemies and snubs our friends like Israel and leaves America and the world less safe. We will get less opportunity and security for ourselves and for our children.”

Predicting the future has never been easier because here we are! Already we see higher taxes, a stagnant economy, the same inflationary monetary policies, Obamacare looming like a dark cloud over small businesses, yet another demand for “debt ceiling” increases, continued stonewalling about the tragic Benghazi attacks, a Secretary of Defense nominee who has a history of being antagonistic to our ally Israel, and the attack on our Second Amendment rights by an administration that has no respect for the Constitution or the separation of powers.

The problem is that some on the Right are now skittish because of the lost 2012 election. They shouldn’t be. Conservatism didn’t lose. A moderate Republican candidate lost after he was perceived to alienate working class Reagan Democrat and Independent voters who didn’t turn out for him as much as they did for the McCain/Palin ticket in 2008. Granted, those same voters also didn’t turn out for Obama as strongly either. We had an election defined by a biased media plus millions of voters who sat it out in disgust. As long as we allow the media and GOP establishment to tell us who our nominees must be, we can expect to lose. I’m not interested in losing. America’s next generation can’t afford another loss.

3.  The MSM have declared both you and the Tea Party dead and buried. Reaction?

I was raised to never retreat and to pick battles wisely, and all in due season. When it comes to defending our republic, we haven’t begun to fight! But we delight in those who underestimate us.

MARK LEVIN: TEA PARTY ONLY THING THAT STANDS ‘BETWEEN LIBERTY AND TYRANNY’

1 Comment

This is from Brietbart’s Big Government.

 

Mark is correct we Patriots in the Tea Party are holding the  Liberty Line.

The Establishment republicans are retreating from Liberty.

We will continue the fight to preserve Liberty.

We believe in the words of General Douglas MacArthur “Duty,Honor, Country.

 

Conservative scholar, talk radio host, and former Reagan administration official Mark Levin said conservatives need to first overthrow the Republican establishment to more successfully take on President Barack Obama and the institutional left.

“We cannot get through Obama and the left until we get through the Republican Establishment,” Levin said, railing against establishment consultants who attack the base and politicians who know nothing of “Burkean reform” because they have spent their whole careers “clawing their way to the top.”

In a talk at the Heritage Foundation on Wednesday with his mentor, former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese, for whom Levin served as Chief of Staff, Levin said the Republican Party is, “devouring the conservative movement,” and the old bulls need to step aside in favor of a new generation of conservatives who are fluent in conservatism.

“It’s time for the old bulls to get out of the way and for the fresh faces who believe in conservatism and liberty and originalist principles to step up,” Levin said, criticizing those like House Speaker John Boehner for “yielding territory” to the left in negotiations.

Levin said the Tea Party consists of constitutionalists, libertarians, Evangelicals, and those who are against the rigged establishment, beltway culture that for too long has not embraced conservatism and, as a consequence, lost national elections (George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney).

The Tea Party is the only thing that stands between liberty and tyranny,” Levin said. “We have to defeat the Republican establishment mush in Washington, D.C.

Levin also named the establishment media organizations and institutions on the right that he said were not helping advance the conservative cause.

He said, “in a lot of our media outlets,” there are “a lot of old, dreary people who are just around all the time” who “reject” Reaganism.

Levin named Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard, who recently called for more tax increases; and the National Review, the Washington establishment publication that vigorously supported Mitt Romney in the primaries, Levin said, in many ways, has “become a mouthpiece for the Republican party.”

Levin said the Republican Party will go the way of the Whig Party if they do not put out more “cutting-edge intellectuals and artistic” spokespeople for the conservative cause that transcends race or class.

Shortly after President Barack Obama was elected in 2008, Levin wrote Liberty and Tyranny, which sold over a million copies despite not being reviewed and being completely ignored by mainstream media outlets and programs.

The prescient book not only clearly articulated what would eventually turn out to be the Tea Party’s opposition to Obama’s statism (Levin knew what Obama was going to do before even Obama) but was also symbolic of how, in the new media age, books and ideas could commercially succeed without the legacy media institutions of yesterday that no longer act as gatekeepers.

To appeal to young people and minorities with conservatism, Levin said Republicans needed to call on parents and grandparents to have an impact on young people and appeal to their sense of liberty and anti-authoritarianism.

He said this “bottom up federalism” can appeal not only to young people but to minorities.

Levin noted that capitalism is the plan and the strategy is the constitution, and that was the foundation of Reaganism.

He said after Reagan, George H.W. Bush lurched to the left rather than “build up Reaganism” and the party and the conservative movement has not been the same since.

Levin also said ethnic front groups who want more balkanization instead of assimilation are also threats and need to be called out.

In talking about Republican institutions, Levin said the Republican National Committee needs to be managed better because, simply put, “when you lose, you gotta bring some other people here.”

“Backbenchers need to go to the front,” Levin said, noting that the frontbencher establishment class has been trying to “clean out” conservatives who do not toe the moderate, establishment line.

Levin said Obama would inevitably overreach on many fronts during his second term. For instance, Levin predicted Obama would try to break down America’s sovereignty by working with the United Nations on a global tax and committing America to more international military arrangements.

“The people are going to rise up,” Levin said.

When discussing the future of conservatism, Levin highlighted in particular Texas Senator-elect Ted Cruz and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, among others.

“I love Sarah Palin,” Levin said.

“You see how intelligent she is?,” Levin asked, noting that Palin is nothing like the caricature of her on the left and in the mainstream media.

Levin said Palin should be given credit for effectively and enthusiastically articulating the conservative cause, even though she has been attacked by the mainstream media and the Republican establishment.

“Yet, she still rallies the base a hundred times more than these people telling us what we are supposed to do,” Levin said.

Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

1 Comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

I have news for Mr. Reince  Priebus the Electoral College is not the problem.

The problem is the Establishment Republicans you have nominated.

Both McCain and Romney did not really want to win.

Like Bob Dole before they got the nomination because it was their turn.

Sarah Palin almost able to drag John McCain to victory.

The Establishment Republicans need to be kicked out of the party.

Then we need to vote out the RINO’s.

Then get back to Conservatism that wins every time it is on the ballot.

 

From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, Republicans who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering changing laws that give the winner of a state’s popular vote all of its Electoral College votes, too. They instead want Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally, a move that could transform the way the country elects its president.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus endorsed the idea this week, and other Republican leaders also support it — suggesting that the effort may be gaining momentum.

There are other signs that Republican state legislators, governors and veteran political strategists are seriously considering making the shift as the GOP looks to rebound from presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Electoral College shellacking and the demographic changes that threaten the party’s long-term political prospects.

“It’s something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at,” Priebus told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, emphasizing that each state must decide for itself.

Democrats are outraged at the potential change.

Obama won the popular vote with 65.9 million votes, or 51.1 percent, to Romney’s 60.9 million, or 47.2 percent, and won the Electoral College by a wide margin, 332-206 electoral votes. It’s unclear whether he would have been re-elected under the new system, depending upon how many states adopted the change.

While some Republican officials warn of a political backlash, GOP lawmakers in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are already lining up behind proposals that would allocate electoral votes by congressional district or something similar.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he “could go either way” on the change and doesn’t plan to push it. But he said it’s a reasonable issue to debate and that he prefers that leaders discuss it well before the next presidential election.

“It could be done in a thoughtful (way) over the next couple years and people can have a thoughtful discussion,” Snyder said.

Republican leaders in the Michigan Statehouse have yet to decide whether to embrace the change there. But state Rep. Peter Lund, a Republican who introduced a bill to change the allocation system two years ago, said some Republicans might be more receptive to his bill this year following the election.

“We never really pushed it before,” he said, adding that the bill wasn’t designed to help one party more than the other.

Democrats aren’t convinced. And they warned of political consequences for Republicans who back the shift — particularly those governors up for re-election in 2014, who include the governors of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, among others.

“This is nothing more than election-rigging,” said Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer.

Each state has the authority to shape its own election law. And in at least seven states — Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and North Carolina — Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature and the governor’s office.

Already, Maine and Nebraska have moved away from a winner-take-all system to one that allocates electoral votes based on congressional district.

“This is a concept that’s got a lot of possibility and a lot of potential,” said Washington-based Republican strategist Phil Musser, acknowledging that the debate would “incite different levels of partisan acrimony.” Musser also predicted that more pressing economic issues would likely take priority in most Republican-led statehouses.

In Pennsylvania, Senate Republican leader Dominic Pileggi this week renewed his call for the Republican-controlled Legislature to revamp the way it awards electoral votes by using a method based on the popular vote that would have given Romney eight of the state’s 20 votes.

Democrats quickly criticized it as partisan scheme.

“It is difficult to find the words to describe just how evil this plan is,” said Pennsylvania state Sen. Daylin Leach, a Democrat. “It is an obscene scheme to cheat by rigging the elections.”

Gov. Tom Corbett, who supported a related proposal from Pileggi last year, had not seen the new plan and could not say whether he supports the new version, the Republican governor’s spokesman Kevin Harley said.

In Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker has said that changing how electoral votes are allocated was an “interesting idea” but that it’s not one of his priorities, nor has he decided whether he supports such a change.

It’s gotten a lukewarm reception in the Republican-controlled Legislature as well. No proposal has been introduced yet and no lawmaker has announced any plans to do so, but the state Assembly speaker, Robin Vos, first proposed the change back in 2007.

“I am open to that idea,” Vos said in December as lawmakers prepared for the start of their session. “But I would have to hear all the arguments.”

All 10 of the state’s Electoral College votes went to Obama last fall under the current system. If they were awarded based on the new system, the votes would have been evenly split between Obama and Romney.

Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett sent an email plea urging people to sign a petition against the change: “We can’t sit silently by as they try to manipulate the democratic process for political advantage,” Barrett wrote. “We can’t let them attack the very democratic institutions and rights that others have sacrificed so much to gain — just because they don’t believe they can win in a fair election fight.”

So far, Republicans have only advocated for the change in states that have supported Democrats in recent elections. The view is predictably different in states where the Republican nominee is a cinch to win.

“The Electoral College has served the country quite well,” said Louisiana GOP Chairman Roger Villere, who doubles as a national party vice chairman.

He continued: “This is coming from states where it might be an advantage, but I’m worried about what it means down the road. This is a system that has worked. That doesn’t mean we can’t talk about changes, but we have to be very careful about any actions we might take.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/19/republicans-want-to-change-laws-on-electoral-college-votes-after-presidential/?test=latestnews#ixzz2ITDkbEsW

 

 

 

 

Armed Protection For Democrats, But Not For Schoolchildren

Leave a comment

This is from the Last Resistance.

The author points out the hypocrisy in the liberal gun control arguments.

Obama is anti gun but he is protected by men with guns.

The Obama daughters are protected by eleven armed guards plus the Secret Service.

 

After Jared Loughner killed six people and injured fourteen others with a gun in Arizona at the beginning of 2011, liberals demanded to know why Sarah Palin, on whose shoulders they placed the blame for the massacre, would not weigh in on the issue. Her silence was outrageous.

Then something like a week later Palin did voice her opinion on the matter, and those very same outraged Democrats became outraged again. “Why is she sticking her nose in the matter,” they demanded.

Now, in the aftermath of this recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, liberals summoned their outrage that the National Rifle Association was cowering in silence rather than joining liberals in their fantasy world in which sentient guns have malice in their hearts and murder on their agenda.

Yesterday the Trinity Episcopal Church of Newtown tolled its bell 26 times, one for each victim of Adam Lanza’s dementia.

A little over an hour later, the NRA’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, gave a press conference in which he suggested having armed police officers at every school. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he said.

The NRA has even offered to train school security officers and develop and develop security plans–for free.

But liberals, never content to let their outrage be mollified, went from being outraged over the NRA’s silence to being outraged over the NRA’s “poorly timed” statement. The NRA has been Palin’d.

There is also criticism over the NRA’s proposal, of course, and substantial criticisms are fair. But they go something like this: “Put cops in every school? Are you insane?”

Well, what is more insane: to ask gun owners to turn in their guns to the government, asRep. Sheila Jackson Lee did, and expect not only that good people will comply, but that people intent on killing will comply (“Aw, gee, I really wanted to shoot up that mall today, but the government’s asking me to turn in my gun, so nevermind”); to expect the government to outright confiscate guns, as MSNBC’s Ed Schultz suggested; or to have trained professionals at the entrances of schools?

Better question: Why do Democratic politicians, who receive the taxpayer-funded protection of armed security, want to keep women and children from being protected by armed security?

 

 

Liberal Professor Wants NRA President’s “Head on a Stick”

Leave a comment

This is from Political Outcast.

I was under the impression Liberals were so tolerant and caring.

I was lead to believe only Conservatives were this hateful.

 

A professor of history at the University of Rhode Island tweeted that he wanted the NRA president’s “head on a stick.” After people accused Professor Erik Loomis of wanting to assassinate LePierre, the head of the NRA, he clarified, saying that it was only a metaphor. He tweeted:  “Dear right-wing morons, saying you ‘want someone’s head on a stick’ is a metaphor. I know metaphor is hard for you to understand.— 
Erik Loomis.” In another tweet, he added, “Dear rightwingers, to be clear, I don’t want to see Wayne LaPierre dead. I want to see him in prison for the rest of his life.” He called upon the Obama administration to repeal the Second Amendment and labeled the NRA a terrorist organization.

Metaphor or not, it’s still violent speech. I’m not saying he doesn’t have a right to express his opinion, but it’s this kind of “metaphor” that he blamed the Gabrielle Giffords shooting on. Specifically, he blamed the “violent speech” of Sarah Palin and the tea party. In the aftermath of the Giffords shooting, he wrote:

“From a political perspective, the big loser is Sarah Palin. Truthfully, the whole Tea Party movement loses here because a lot of Americans are flinching in the face of the violent rhetoric that propelled them to power. Many Republicans are defending themselves vociferously. Some, such as Rush Limbaugh, claim that Loughner was a liberal and a Democrat, but this just alienates most people at this time. But no one lost more than Palin. Perhaps she was right to be irritated that people connected her with the shooting, but then again, she’s the one who had a target over Giffords’ district. Her aide claiming that it was actually surveyor symbols just insulted our intelligence.”

So Loomis can use symbolic language, and it’s ok even if it is violent. But when Sarah Palin’s PAC publishes a map with “crosshairs” over the representatives who voted for Obamacare, that’s evidence that she and the rest of the tea party caused Jared Lee Loughner to murder Giffords.

And why is it always about Gabrielle Giffords? I know that she was shot and injured and will likely never fully recover, but she is alive. Six people were killed that day, including Judge John Roll who Andrew Napolitano described as a “hard-working, well-respected, conservative” judge. Why would the tea party be in favor of killing a conservative judge?

They wouldn’t. Liberals have to leave out those important data in order to take full, political advantage of the massacre. They don’t care about people. They don’t want to protect children or prevent massacres from happening. They just want control. Calling for the killing of the head of the NRA is just fine as long as you’re a liberal who wants to disarm law-abiding citizens. That after all is the goal.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/12/liberal-professor-wants-nra-presidents-head-on-a-stick/#ixzz2FeHvapl0

 

This Is Your Life under Obamacare

Leave a comment

This is from American Thinker.

Sarah Palin was right about the death panels.

We are headed to health care like Great Britain.

Or even worse we could end up with Cuban health care.

Health care with the efficiency of the BMV and compassion of the IRS.

 

Thanks, Obama voters. You just imposed on the rest of us degraded medical care and rising costs. This is no longer hypothetical or abstract. It’s real. It’s the law.

Here are some of the bad repercussions of your vote:

1. Decline in pay for doctors

Medicare pays doctors only a small fraction of the work they put in. So if she does $100.00 worth of work, Medicare sends him $20.00 or $25.00. Is it any wonder that doctors pad the bill? One of my students who works in a doctor’s office said in class she’s in charge of billing, and it’s “totally true” that Medicare pays doctors only a fraction of what they did.

Another one of my students told us that the doctor she used to work for (she still keeps track of her friends who work in the office) was getting arrested for fraud. He said, “How am I supposed to pay my employees on such little money? How am I supposed to live?”

Have you sat in a doctor’s office recently? Doctors take in patients per hour at an alarming rate, just to pay their own bills. I can hear their muffled voices in the mini-offices nearby. I don’t imagine he spends more than five minutes — and that’s long — with each patient.

Doctors run through patients like cattle at branding time.

If you don’t believe this will happen under Obamacare, you’re naïve. Costs will be rationed (see no. 3, below), and that rationing will include a doctor’s lowered reimbursement for services rendered.

2. Government health care is inferior

What would happen to the NBA if you were to pass a law that pays every player $100K, no matter how good or bad he is? Answer: the best players would go overseas and play for more money. The mediocre players would become the starting five. The back benchers would be rotated in as if they’re the sixth or seventh man. Maybe the “top mediocre” players (if there is such a thing) would take money under the table. Why would they play hard when they get the same as the worst players?

The quality of the NBA would decline. The TV contracts would expire and not be renewed. The fan base would shrink to WNBA levels and so would the caliber of play. Remember the NFL replacement refs recently? The NFL went downhill, and the fans booed.

Why the inevitable decline? What’s going wrong?

The left misreads — they always misread — human nature. The law of human nature and economics says that if you don’t pay people well, the best and the brightest won’t go into the profession.

Why would future doctors sign up for four years of Medical school hell and come out saddled with huge student loans when Obamacare shall pay them so little, just because some leftist bureaucrats say doctors make too much anyway. “It’s not fair!”

As a result, we will get doctors who just graduated from Hollywood Upstairs Medical School. They will be little better than an RN — if you’re lucky.

Consider Canada and Great Britain. Our friends up north and over the pond don’t have the highest medical care under their health services, to put things mildly.

How long do Canadians wait for the specialist? About 9.5 weeks.

According to a new study by Canada’s Fraser Institute, surgical waitlists are costing the nation about $1 billion each year in lost productivity. The average Canadian can now expect to wait 9.5 weeks for treatment with a medical specialist, this number up from 9.3 weeks last year. (Source)

The wait time adversely affects the patient.

Based on a 2011 Statistics Canada finding, the study makes the assumption that 11% of patients “were adversely affected by their wait for non-emergency surgery.” Dividing the cost individually, health rationing for Canada’s 941,321 patients seeking specialized surgery came out to $3,500 per patient in lost wage hours. (Source)

If you’re in a lot of pain, 9.5 weeks can mean a lot of misery.

How much does healthcare spending cost Canadians per person annually?

According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, healthcare spending annually totals about $200 billion, or $5,800 per person when spread across the country’s 35 million residents. (Source)

In Great Britain, in a terrible irony: the former director of the National Health Service (NHS) died while waiting for her treatment, which had been canceled four times.

Margaret Hutchon, a former mayor, had been waiting since last June for a follow-up stomach operation at Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford, Essex.

But her appointments to go under the knife were cancelled four times and she barely regained consciousness after finally having surgery.

Her devastated husband, Jim, is now demanding answers from Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust — the organisation where his wife had served as a non-executive member of the board of directors. (Source)

Patients can starve to death in the NHS or leave medical care with malnutrition:

Malnutrition killed more than 240 patients on NHS wards in 2007, the highest toll in a decade, figures show.

The appalling statistics reveal that the number of men and women starving to death in hospitals has risen by 16 per cent since Labour came to power.

Since 1997, 2,311 hospital patients have died from malnutrition and the effects of hunger.
There were 209 cases in 1997, when Tony Blair was elected under a pledge to save the NHS.

Ten years later the toll was 242.

In one area the number of deaths from malnutrition rose by more than 50 per cent.

The figures also show that over the past decade 55 patients have starved to death in council-run care homes.

[...]

In 1997, 70,658 patients were admitted with malnutrition and 75,431 discharged from hospital with it.

By 2007, these figures had jumped to 130,594 admitted and 139,127 discharged. (Source)

Remember the opening ceremonies to the London Olympics and the praise festival to Socialism?

Maybe it should have been a funeral march.

We can now expect, broadly speaking, the same in the USA.

It gets worse.

3. Yes, Virginia, there really is a death panel

Yes, supposedly to save costs, a panel of bureaucrats will decide, for example, that a 60-year-old cancer patient will not get chemotherapy. It’s too costly, and younger patients need it. Elderly, go home and take a pill. If you believe the Independent Payment Advisory Board’s cost-cutting measures won’t ration medical care, which will involve life and death decisions at the end of the bureaucratic process, you still believe in the tooth fairy. Let’s hope the bureaucratic fairy isn’t mean and requires you to fill out paperwork just so you can be considered for the operation.

4. Incredibly Shrinking Doctors

The number of doctors will shrink, possibly by eighty-three percent, if doctors carry out their threat. But even if they don’t, America will still face a shortage of doctors.

Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.

[...]

Even if doctors do not quit their jobs over the ruling, America will face a shortage of at least 90,000 doctors by 2020. The new health care law increases demand for physicians by expanding insurance coverage. This change will exacerbate the current shortage as more Americans live past 65.

[...]

By 2025 the shortage will balloon to over 130,000, Len Marquez, the director of government relations at the American Association of Medical Colleges, told the Daily Caller. (Source)

But wait. There’s more.

5. Medicare is cut

To help pay for Obamacare cuts from Medicare will happen. ABC News Jake Tapper reports that in 2009 Obama admits that one-third of ObamaCare funding is taken from Medicare.

Eventually, millions will come under one program — ObamaCare.

6. Taxes go up

There are over twenty ticking tax bombs waiting to explode in the American economy. Here’s a partial list:

• A 2.3% excise tax on U.S. sales of medical devices that’s already devastating the medical supply industry and its workforce. The levy is a $20 billion blow to an industry that employs roughly 400,000.

• A 3.8% surtax on investment income from capital gains and dividends that applies to single filers earning more than $200,000 and married couples filing jointly earning more than $250,000.

• A $50,000 excise tax on charitable hospitals that fail to meet new “community health assessment needs,” “financial assistance” and other rules set by the Health and Human Services Dept.

• A $24 billion tax on the paper industry to control a pollutant known as black liquor.

• A $2.3 billion-a-year tax on drug companies.

• An $87 billion hike in Medicare payroll taxes for employees, as well as the self-employed.

• A hike in the threshold for writing off medical expenses to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5%.

• A new cap on flexible spending accounts of $2,500 a year. (Source)

These taxes will hinder growth in certain sectors of the economy and cost jobs.

7. Millions will still be Uninsured

Remember the reason for ObamaCare? Millions were uninsured. How could that be justice, according to utopian leftists? It turns out, however, that millions will still be uninsured.

The CBO reports:

CBO and JCT now estimate that the ACA, in comparison with prior law before the enactment of the ACA, will reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 14 million in 2014 and by 29 million or 30 million in the latter part of the coming decade, leaving 30 million nonelderly residents uninsured by the end of the period (see Table 3, at the end of this report). Before the Supreme Court’s decision, the latter number had been 27 million. (Source)

For more about the grim results, read Jeffrey H. Anderson’s article “CBO: Obamacare to Cost $1.930 Trillion,” Leave 30 Million Uninsured

8. You might not be able to keep your private insurance through work

Some companies will provide health insurance for their employees, but how long will this last if the company experiences profit loss or decline?

ObamaCare will lead to a dramatic decline in employer-provided health insurance-with as many as 78 million Americans forced to find other sources of coverage.

[...]

In a study last year, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimated that an additional 35 million workers would be moved out of employer plans and into subsidized coverage, and that this would add about $1 trillion to the total cost of the president’s health law over the next decade. McKinsey’s survey implies that the cost to taxpayers could be significantly more. (Source)

Even if those numbers are adjusted as time goes on and facts come in, why would companies keep their insurance plans if it’s cheaper for the companies to offload their employees into Obamacare? Yes, maybe some will keep their private insurance out of the goodness of their hearts, but others will not be as kindhearted.

For firms which do not offer any insurance, have more than 50 employees, and have at least one employee receiving insurance subsidies, they must pay a tax of $2000 per subsidized employee. The tax is applied to all of a firm’s employees (after excluding the first 30), not just those that are subsidized. For example a firm with 51 employees would pay $42,000 in new annual taxes, and an additional $2,000 tax for every new hire. (Source)

This is too complicated and costly for business. It’s difficult to see how these taxes won’t slow certain sectors of the economy down and pass on costs to the consumers.

9. States can Save Money by Offloading their Employees

Even states can save money in their budgets by offloading their employees into the federal government program called ObamaCare. Gov. Bredesen, a democrat, writes:

My state of Tennessee could reduce costs by over $146 million using the legislated mechanics of health reform to transfer coverage to the federal government. (Source)

So state employees, your gold-plated health insurance will look like the one Joe Factoryworker has. Incidentally, Joe was paying for your health care in your retirement by his taxes. Now we have true equality, which the left values.

10. Penalties for Noncompliance, Courtesy of the IRS

The CBO reports:

People who do not comply with the individual coverage requirement will be charged a penalty, assessed through the Internal Revenue Code, although exemptions from that requirement or its associated penalties are provided for several categories of people-including those with taxable income below the threshold for mandatory tax filing (projected by CBO and JCT to be about $10,000 for a single filer and about $19,000 for a married couple in 2016), unauthorized immigrants, members of certain religious groups, people who would have to pay more than 8 percent of their income for health insurance, and those who obtain a hardship waiver. In 2016, the penalty for noncompliance with the requirement for obtaining insurance is set to be the greater of a flat dollar amount specified in statute ($695 per individual and up to three times that amount for a family) or a percentage of income in excess of the filing threshold (2.5 percent of income). (p. 3 footnote 5)
Conclusion

We couldn’t afford Medicare or Medicaid. They’re unfunded liabilities by trillions of dollars, when projected into the future. And the solution is — what? To impose a third government insurance program that we can’t afford — ObamaCare?

That’s like a working-class family not being able to afford their two cars, so their solution is to buy a third one.

The same parade of horrible things listed above shall — shall — happen under Obamacare, coming to its rotten fruition in the next two or three decades. No, this won’t happen overnight. This is why the never-spike-the-ball president was wrong when, at the Obamacare signing, he said he didn’t see the sky fall or the birds stop singing or Armageddon. Of course the decline won’t happen by tomorrow. But the degradation shall happen.

Though it is hard to bear for leftist utopians, sometimes there are no ultimate solutions to social inequalities from big government. Maybe the solution was to keep the local family clinics so that when a homeless guy, reaching into a dumpster, cuts his hand on glass, he can go to the clinic and gets his stitches. Yes, we can have soup kitchens too.

However, ObamaCare doesn’t fix the problem.

Utopian dreams and schemes can be worse than the problem, the cure worse than the disease.

Dr. Frankenstein cried, “It’s alive! It’s alive!” Then the monster was unleashed.

Thanks, Obama voters. You just unleashed the monster.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/this_is_your_life_under_obamacare.html#ixzz2CLRyopIM

 

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 175 other followers

%d bloggers like this: