To President Obama and his addiction to creating new ways to spend our money:
A trillion dollars is one million, million dollars. Whew. That’s a very big pile of cash.. So, if you had just had a random drawing or lottery for one million Americans, they could have been millionaires, gleefully spending their money (our money) with abandon and helping buy stuff to stimulate the economy. Or ten million people with $100,000 to go out to eat, go to the mall, and buy stuff. But that would have been foolish.
We could have given 2 million small businesses $500,000 to employ new workers, which could have been as many as 20 million new jobs, at $50,000 each. That is a “living wage”, something progressives love to demand. Sadly, that would have been anathema to the progressives’ mantra of business bad, business evil. But it would have been jobs and it would have been money into business. But again, that would have been foolish.
Instead, you spent the money on people who were friends of Candidate Obama, or Rahm Immanuel. You spent the money on vote bribing to teachers and unions, not to “create or save” more jobs, but to give the staff teachers who already have jobs a little reminder of why they should vote democrat and why they should teach our children grades K-12 how to grow up to be good democrat voters.
A trillion dollars was so much money, even this administration could not spread it around fast enough. What you and the media consistently fail to tell the public, when you return time and again for another little taste of our money, is that you have been holding back one third of the stimulus money for yourself. Yes, you need the big slush fund of our money in 2012 to buy union and teacher and police votes to perpetuate your drunken spending spree of our money. You need everyone to be crying and begging and having their hands out so that President/Candidate Obama doesn’t have to use as much George Soros money to get re-elected.
President Obama, you want us to tough it out together, while you spent $10,000,000 on parties last year. You want to live the dream life of hanging out with LeBron, chilling with McCartney, schlepping with Opra, while spending, spending, spending our money and failing failing failing to fix the economy. At least Jimmy Carter had the good grace to actually wear a tacky sweater while shaking his finger at us. President Obama, you seem to be the only one who is living high on the hog these days, while unrolling yet another new “economic plan” that will suck money out of the engine of capitalism and then bestow it on some Democrat candidate in danger of losing their job. American money for Democrat incumbents’? Doesn’t quite seem right, now does it?
We get to hold you to the same standard of finger pointing and whining that you gave us as Candidate Obama. We get to deliver to your door the verdict that you have been given everything any President could want, a veto proof senate, a house majority, a pile of cash that could reach the moon, and you have still failed in everything except excuses.
When you roll out another “economic plan”, pardon us if we no longer trust you to use logic and common sense and proven economic policies. We don’t believe you. You have never been a worker or an employer. These are not things you or the people around you understand.
Tea Party people are adults. We know you can’t spend your way out of debt. We know you can’t have jobs without companies to employ them. We know you can’t consistently make employment regulations that cripple companies and then openly encourage millions of illegal workers to work off the books while enjoying all the benefits.
No matter what New and Improved Plan you roll out, if it doesn’t drastically stop Congress from spending NOW, it will not be supported by the majority of the American people. We are the people, and we know.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Democrats Move to Limit Free Speech Again
They’re at it again; the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission against promotion of the new book
“Young Guns: A New Generation of Political Leaders” by Reps. Eric Cantor of Virginia, Kevin McCarthy of California and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. http://gopyoungguns.com/
The Democrats are claiming the publisher can not promote the book because it’s political and violates election law! Yep I guess when you’ve totally screwed up the economy and are behind in the polls it’s illegal to have any one say good things about your opposition.
Just how many of our rights does the left think it can violate and remain in power?
As Soren Dayton at Redstate points out -
Restating, Democrats use the power of the federal government to attempt to prohibit the political speech and promotion of speech by their political enemies. That’s the kind of thing that lead to the American Revolution. Tea Parties make perfect sense in this context.
I couldn’t agree more.
“Young Guns: A New Generation of Political Leaders” by Reps. Eric Cantor of Virginia, Kevin McCarthy of California and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. http://gopyoungguns.com/
The Democrats are claiming the publisher can not promote the book because it’s political and violates election law! Yep I guess when you’ve totally screwed up the economy and are behind in the polls it’s illegal to have any one say good things about your opposition.
Just how many of our rights does the left think it can violate and remain in power?
As Soren Dayton at Redstate points out -
Restating, Democrats use the power of the federal government to attempt to prohibit the political speech and promotion of speech by their political enemies. That’s the kind of thing that lead to the American Revolution. Tea Parties make perfect sense in this context.
I couldn’t agree more.
Friday, September 3, 2010
The Revolt of the Bourgeois
After all the hysterica last year about how we were going to blow up the country and be violent, we now have folks realizing we're just tidy people, with a mission.
The Revolt of the Bourgeois
Rich Lowry
September 3, 2010 12:00 A.M.
Tea partiers are mad as heck, and they’re letting the world know — politely.
The much-analyzed speeches at the Glenn Beck Lincoln Memorial rally weren’t as notable as what the estimated 300,000 attendees did: follow instructions, listen quietly to hours of speeches, and throw out their trash.
Just as stunning as the tableaux of the massive throngs lining the reflecting pool were the images of the spotless grounds afterward. If someone had told attendees they were expected to mow the grass before they left, surely some of them would have hitched flatbed trailers to their vehicles for the trip to Washington and gladly brought mowers along with them.
This was the revolt of the bourgeois, of the responsible, of the orderly, of people profoundly at peace with the traditional mores of American society. The spark that lit the tea-party movement was the rant by CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, who inveighed in early 2009 against an Obama-administration program to subsidize “the losers’ mortgages.” He was speaking for people who hadn’t borrowed beyond their means or tried to get rich quick by flipping houses, for the people who, in their thrift and enterprise, “carry the water instead of drink the water.”
The tea party’s detractors want to paint it as radical, when at bottom it represents the self-reliant, industrious heart of American life. New York Times columnist David Brooks compares the tea partiers to the New Left. But there weren’t any orgiastic displays at the Beck rally, nor any attempts to levitate the Lincoln Memorial — just speeches on God and country. It was as radical as a Lee Greenwood song.
A New York Times survey earlier this year occasioned shock when it found that “Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class.” We’re so accustomed to the notion of a revolt of the dispossessed that a revolt of the possessed (in the non-demonic sense, of course) strikes us as a strange offense against the nature of things. But it’s threatening to wash away the Democratic congressional majorities in a historic wipeout.
In extremis, Democrats and liberal commentators have dragged the debate over the tea party into the well-worn rut of elite condescension to the bourgeois, a term coined in its modern sense by Rousseau and not meant as a compliment. For more than a hundred years, the bourgeois have been accused of being insipid, greedy, and unenlightened. To the long catalogue of their offenses can now be added another: unenthralled by Barack Obama, the Romantic hero seeking to transform the nation.
The tea party represents a revolt against his revolution, and thus a restoration. If a tea-party-infused Republican party were to take Congress and manage to cut federal expenditures by a sharp one-fifth, that figure would only be back to its typical level of recent decades of roughly 20 percent of GDP. If the party were to succeed in making the federal government more mindful of its constitutional limits, it would only be a step toward the dispensation that obtained during most of the country’s history.
To be sure, the tea partiers are fiercely anti-establishment, and that produces political candidates who are exotic and unexpected. Then there’s Beck himself. As he’d probably be the first to admit, he’s an unlikely leader for the disaffected bourgeois. He’s emotionally extravagant and conspiracy-minded, an intellectual enthusiast and rollicking showman.
The last time Republicans benefited from a wave election, they had their own Beckian figure at the top in the person of House Speaker Newt Gingrich. They wallowed in their revolution and let Gingrich’s ideological grandeur define them — to their regret in the end. If the wave comes this time, Republicans should endeavor to be a sober and responsible party for sober and responsible people, resolutely cleaning up after the failed Obama revolution.
They could do much worse than to take their cue from the tea partiers at the Lincoln Memorial, who knew how to make an impression without scaring anyone or trashing the place.
— Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail, comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2010 by King Features Syndicate.
The Revolt of the Bourgeois
Rich Lowry
September 3, 2010 12:00 A.M.
Tea partiers are mad as heck, and they’re letting the world know — politely.
The much-analyzed speeches at the Glenn Beck Lincoln Memorial rally weren’t as notable as what the estimated 300,000 attendees did: follow instructions, listen quietly to hours of speeches, and throw out their trash.
Just as stunning as the tableaux of the massive throngs lining the reflecting pool were the images of the spotless grounds afterward. If someone had told attendees they were expected to mow the grass before they left, surely some of them would have hitched flatbed trailers to their vehicles for the trip to Washington and gladly brought mowers along with them.
This was the revolt of the bourgeois, of the responsible, of the orderly, of people profoundly at peace with the traditional mores of American society. The spark that lit the tea-party movement was the rant by CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, who inveighed in early 2009 against an Obama-administration program to subsidize “the losers’ mortgages.” He was speaking for people who hadn’t borrowed beyond their means or tried to get rich quick by flipping houses, for the people who, in their thrift and enterprise, “carry the water instead of drink the water.”
The tea party’s detractors want to paint it as radical, when at bottom it represents the self-reliant, industrious heart of American life. New York Times columnist David Brooks compares the tea partiers to the New Left. But there weren’t any orgiastic displays at the Beck rally, nor any attempts to levitate the Lincoln Memorial — just speeches on God and country. It was as radical as a Lee Greenwood song.
A New York Times survey earlier this year occasioned shock when it found that “Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class.” We’re so accustomed to the notion of a revolt of the dispossessed that a revolt of the possessed (in the non-demonic sense, of course) strikes us as a strange offense against the nature of things. But it’s threatening to wash away the Democratic congressional majorities in a historic wipeout.
In extremis, Democrats and liberal commentators have dragged the debate over the tea party into the well-worn rut of elite condescension to the bourgeois, a term coined in its modern sense by Rousseau and not meant as a compliment. For more than a hundred years, the bourgeois have been accused of being insipid, greedy, and unenlightened. To the long catalogue of their offenses can now be added another: unenthralled by Barack Obama, the Romantic hero seeking to transform the nation.
The tea party represents a revolt against his revolution, and thus a restoration. If a tea-party-infused Republican party were to take Congress and manage to cut federal expenditures by a sharp one-fifth, that figure would only be back to its typical level of recent decades of roughly 20 percent of GDP. If the party were to succeed in making the federal government more mindful of its constitutional limits, it would only be a step toward the dispensation that obtained during most of the country’s history.
To be sure, the tea partiers are fiercely anti-establishment, and that produces political candidates who are exotic and unexpected. Then there’s Beck himself. As he’d probably be the first to admit, he’s an unlikely leader for the disaffected bourgeois. He’s emotionally extravagant and conspiracy-minded, an intellectual enthusiast and rollicking showman.
The last time Republicans benefited from a wave election, they had their own Beckian figure at the top in the person of House Speaker Newt Gingrich. They wallowed in their revolution and let Gingrich’s ideological grandeur define them — to their regret in the end. If the wave comes this time, Republicans should endeavor to be a sober and responsible party for sober and responsible people, resolutely cleaning up after the failed Obama revolution.
They could do much worse than to take their cue from the tea partiers at the Lincoln Memorial, who knew how to make an impression without scaring anyone or trashing the place.
— Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail, comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2010 by King Features Syndicate.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
It's Come to This... Feds Subpeona Chuck E. Cheese
It's Come to This... Feds Subpeona Chuck E. Cheese
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, September 2, 2010, 10:31 AM
Government Gone Wild–The federal government subpoenaed Chuck E. Cheese this week. They suspect the company may be marketing their product to teens and children.Ya think?
“Chuck E. Cheese: Where a Kid Can Be a Kid!”
The federal government has subpoenaed Chuck E. Cheese for marketing their product to children.Advertising Age reported:
MARKETERS RECEIVING 2010 FTC SUBPOENAS
(marketers in bold did not receive a similar subpoena in 2007)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, September 2, 2010, 10:31 AM
Government Gone Wild–The federal government subpoenaed Chuck E. Cheese this week. They suspect the company may be marketing their product to teens and children.Ya think?
“Chuck E. Cheese: Where a Kid Can Be a Kid!”
The federal government has subpoenaed Chuck E. Cheese for marketing their product to children.Advertising Age reported:
The Federal Trade Commission is once again handing out subpoenas to companiesHere’s the list of companies:
that market food to children and teens.
Three years after initially
delivering what is technically known as “orders to file special report” to 44
marketers, the FTC last week began sending subpoenas to 48 companies in order to
prepare a follow-up to its 120-page report issued in 2008, “Marketing Food to
Children and Adolescents: A Review of Industry Expenditures, Activities and
Self-Regulation.”
“This is a follow-up to measure the effects that
self-regulation has had over the last three years,” said Carol Jennings,
spokeswoman for the FTC’s Division of Advertising Practices/Bureau of Consumer
Protection. “We are supportive of industry voluntary efforts to limit their
marketing to kids and this will see whether more is needed.”
Ms. Jennings
said the findings will be made available to the public.
A handful of
marketers that received subpoenas in 2007 were left off the 2010 list,
presumably because they have limited their marketing to children. Twelve
companies on this year’s list are new, but 36 companies are once again receiving
subpoenas — including Yum Brands, which was called out by FTC Chairman Jon
Leibowitz in a December 2009 speech in which he said, “Many companies that
market heavily to children and teens have yet to join or make a commitment. Why,
for instance, hasn’t Yum Brands, with its KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut chains,
stepped up? Or Chuck E. Cheese and IHOP? Or the marketers of Air Heads and Baby
Bottle Pops?”
Calls to Yum Brands were not returned. A spokeswoman for CEC
Entertainment, parent company of Chuck E. Cheese, said she could not comment
without having seen the subpoena.
MARKETERS RECEIVING 2010 FTC SUBPOENAS
(marketers in bold did not receive a similar subpoena in 2007)
- Boskovich Farms
- Burger King Holdings
- California Giant
- Campbell Soup Co.
- CEC Entertainment
- Chiquita Brands International
- The Coca-Cola Co.
- Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
- Coca-Cola Enterprises
- ConAgra Foods
- Dairy Management
- Danone Foods
- Del Monte Fresh Produce
- Doctor’s Associates
- Dole Food Co.
- Dr. Pepper Snapple Group
- Dunkin’ Brands
- General Mills
- Grimmway Enterprises
- Hansen Natural Corp.
- The Hershey Co.
- Hinkle Produce
- Hostess Brands
- Imagination Farms
- Kellogg Co.
- Kraft Foods
- LGS Specialty Sales
- Mars, Incorporated
- McDonald’s Corp.
- McKee Foods Corp.
- National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board
- Nestlé USA
- PepsiCo
- Perfetti Van Melle USA
- The Procter & Gamble Company
- Ralcorp Holdings
- Ready Pac Produce
- Red Bull North America
- Rockstar
- Sonic Corporation
- Stemilt Growers
- Summeripe Worldwide
- Sunkist Growers
- Sunny Delight Beverages Co.
- The Topps Co.
- Unilever United States
- Wendy’s/Arby’s Group
- Yum Brands
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Dear Patients: Vote to Repeal ObamaCare
The Westshore Tea Party is non-partisan. However, it is easier to take over those organizations which are closest to our ideals of free markets, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. This is why you occassionally see postings for candidates who also embrace those ideals.We also took up the banner of the Ohio Project because it represents all 3 of our principles. Here is why we must not concede our ideals, and why we cannot be fooled with "fixes" to the Health Care Act of 2010.
Dear Patients: Vote to Repeal ObamaCare
By HAL SCHERZ
Facing a nationwide backlash, Democratic congressional candidates have a new message for voters: We know you don't like ObamaCare, so we'll fix it.
This was the line offered by Democrat Mark Critz, who won a special election in Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district after expressing opposition to the law and promising to mend it—but not to repeal it. As a doctor I know something about unexpected recoveries, and this latest attempt to rescue ObamaCare from repeal needs to be taken seriously.
For Democrats who voted for ObamaCare, this tactic is an escape route, a chance to distance themselves from the president with a vague promise to fix health-care reform in the next Congress.
To counter this election-year ruse, my colleagues and I at Docs4PatientCare are enlisting thousands of doctors in an unorthodox and unprecedented action. Our patients have always expected a certain standard of care from their doctors, which includes providing them with pertinent information that may affect their quality of life. Because the issue this election is so stark—literally life and death for millions of Americans in the years ahead—we are this week posting a "Dear Patient" letter in our waiting rooms.
Associated Press
Andy Griffith pitches President Barack Obama's health care law to seniors.
The letter states in unambiguous language what the new law means:
"Dear Patient: Section 1311 of the new health care legislation gives the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and her appointees the power to establish care guidelines that your doctor must abide by or face penalties and fines. In making doctors answerable in the federal bureaucracy this bill effectively makes them government employees and means that you and your doctor are no longer in charge of your health care decisions. This new law politicizes medicine and in my opinion destroys the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship that makes the American health care system the best in the world."
Our doctor's letter points out that, in addition to "badly exacerbating the current doctor shortage," ObamaCare will bring "major cost increases, rising insurance premiums, higher taxes, a decline in new medical techniques, a fall-off in the development of miracle drugs as well as rationing by government panels and by bureaucrats like passionate rationing advocate Donald Berwick that will force delays of months or sometimes years for hospitalization or surgery."
We cite the brute facts of ObamaCare's passage:
"Despite countless protests by doctors and overwhelming public opposition—up to 60% of Americans opposed this bill—the current party in control of Congress pushed this bill through with legal bribes and Chicago style threats and is determined now to resist any 'repeal and replace' efforts. This doctor's office is non-partisan—always has been, always will be. But the fact is that every Republican voted against this bad bill while the Democratic Party leadership and the White House completely dismissed the will of the people in ruthlessly pushing through this legislation."
Then we address the Democrats' evasive campaign maneuver:
"In the face of voter anger some Democratic candidates are now trying to make a cosmetic retreat, calling for minor modifications or pretending they are opposed to government-run medicine. Once the election is over, however, they will vote with their party bosses against repealing this bill."
The letter's final lines are the most important:
"Please remember when you vote this November that unless the Democratic Party receives a strong negative message about this power grab our health care system will never be fixed and the doctor patient relationship will be ruined forever."
This message is going out to an electorate that is already frustrated over what they see happening to health care. Missouri voters rejected ObamaCare overwhelmingly in August, voting by a margin of 71%-29% to reject the federal requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance. Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen has assessed that ObamaCare is "a disaster" for Democrats. And around the country many little-noticed primaries have reflected voter rage—including the Republican primary victory of surgeon, political newcomer, and advocate of repeal Daniel Benishek in Michigan's first district.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration's damage-control efforts have fallen flat. The latest round of pro-ObamaCare television spots targeting the elderly and starring veteran actor Andy Griffith have not only failed to move the polling numbers. They have caused five U.S. Senators to ask for an investigation of the ads as a violation of federal laws barring the use of tax dollars ($750,000) for campaign purposes.
America's doctors have millions of personal interactions each week with patients. We have political power. And we intend to use it by working to defeat those who have disrupted and gravely endangered the best health-care system in the world.
Dr. Scherz, a pediatric urological surgeon at Georgia Urology and Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, serves on the faculty of Emory University Medical School and is president and cofounder of Docs4PatientCare.
Dear Patients: Vote to Repeal ObamaCare
By HAL SCHERZ
Facing a nationwide backlash, Democratic congressional candidates have a new message for voters: We know you don't like ObamaCare, so we'll fix it.
This was the line offered by Democrat Mark Critz, who won a special election in Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district after expressing opposition to the law and promising to mend it—but not to repeal it. As a doctor I know something about unexpected recoveries, and this latest attempt to rescue ObamaCare from repeal needs to be taken seriously.
For Democrats who voted for ObamaCare, this tactic is an escape route, a chance to distance themselves from the president with a vague promise to fix health-care reform in the next Congress.
To counter this election-year ruse, my colleagues and I at Docs4PatientCare are enlisting thousands of doctors in an unorthodox and unprecedented action. Our patients have always expected a certain standard of care from their doctors, which includes providing them with pertinent information that may affect their quality of life. Because the issue this election is so stark—literally life and death for millions of Americans in the years ahead—we are this week posting a "Dear Patient" letter in our waiting rooms.
Associated Press
Andy Griffith pitches President Barack Obama's health care law to seniors.
The letter states in unambiguous language what the new law means:
"Dear Patient: Section 1311 of the new health care legislation gives the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and her appointees the power to establish care guidelines that your doctor must abide by or face penalties and fines. In making doctors answerable in the federal bureaucracy this bill effectively makes them government employees and means that you and your doctor are no longer in charge of your health care decisions. This new law politicizes medicine and in my opinion destroys the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship that makes the American health care system the best in the world."
Our doctor's letter points out that, in addition to "badly exacerbating the current doctor shortage," ObamaCare will bring "major cost increases, rising insurance premiums, higher taxes, a decline in new medical techniques, a fall-off in the development of miracle drugs as well as rationing by government panels and by bureaucrats like passionate rationing advocate Donald Berwick that will force delays of months or sometimes years for hospitalization or surgery."
We cite the brute facts of ObamaCare's passage:
"Despite countless protests by doctors and overwhelming public opposition—up to 60% of Americans opposed this bill—the current party in control of Congress pushed this bill through with legal bribes and Chicago style threats and is determined now to resist any 'repeal and replace' efforts. This doctor's office is non-partisan—always has been, always will be. But the fact is that every Republican voted against this bad bill while the Democratic Party leadership and the White House completely dismissed the will of the people in ruthlessly pushing through this legislation."
Then we address the Democrats' evasive campaign maneuver:
"In the face of voter anger some Democratic candidates are now trying to make a cosmetic retreat, calling for minor modifications or pretending they are opposed to government-run medicine. Once the election is over, however, they will vote with their party bosses against repealing this bill."
The letter's final lines are the most important:
"Please remember when you vote this November that unless the Democratic Party receives a strong negative message about this power grab our health care system will never be fixed and the doctor patient relationship will be ruined forever."
This message is going out to an electorate that is already frustrated over what they see happening to health care. Missouri voters rejected ObamaCare overwhelmingly in August, voting by a margin of 71%-29% to reject the federal requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance. Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen has assessed that ObamaCare is "a disaster" for Democrats. And around the country many little-noticed primaries have reflected voter rage—including the Republican primary victory of surgeon, political newcomer, and advocate of repeal Daniel Benishek in Michigan's first district.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration's damage-control efforts have fallen flat. The latest round of pro-ObamaCare television spots targeting the elderly and starring veteran actor Andy Griffith have not only failed to move the polling numbers. They have caused five U.S. Senators to ask for an investigation of the ads as a violation of federal laws barring the use of tax dollars ($750,000) for campaign purposes.
America's doctors have millions of personal interactions each week with patients. We have political power. And we intend to use it by working to defeat those who have disrupted and gravely endangered the best health-care system in the world.
Dr. Scherz, a pediatric urological surgeon at Georgia Urology and Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, serves on the faculty of Emory University Medical School and is president and cofounder of Docs4PatientCare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)