This Guy Gets It!

A reporter approached this gentleman and was curious as to how he exactly fit into the tea party movement.  The reporter must have this idea that "black people" aren't conservatives.  So, she wishes to patronize him by asking him if he feels uncomfortable - insinuating that he's out of place without his brothers.  Listen to his response.  Taste it!

For further reading, read http://theconservativeanthem.blogspot.com/2010/02/black-history-month-part-3-cultural.html

National Health Care Reeks Of Compassion

A woman in California had been undergoing cancer treatments and was in remission.  She was on a list to receive an organ from a donor.  During this time, the Government sent paperwork to her telling her that she is eligible to receive Social Security benefits for her three year old son.  She decided to take advantage of this and signed up.  This was in March.  Well, come April, Medicaid told her that she was no longer entitled to her universal health care because the disability benefits caused her income to rise above the allowable level for Medicaid.

Let this be a lesson to all - the long arm of Liberalism appears to be benevolent, but beware; the other arm of Liberalism is primed and ready to pick your pocket.  The promises of government will ultimately be your demise.  Health care is the responsibility of each of us, not collectively, but individually.  I wonder how many could afford health care for their families if they weren't spending their health care money on cable or on a brand new car which depreciates by roughly 50% over the first 4 years it is off of the lot (with 20% of that coming in the first year).  See, we spend money on the things we really want to spend money on.  We have left the principles of deferred gratification in favor of instant gratification by financing our lives through debt.  Then, when we have no money (because of our own choices) we expect the government to come in and save the day.  It's not fair that someone who has worked all their lives are enjoying the fruits of their labor and I'm not - unfortunately, that's the attitude of many in America.  Don't try keeping up with the Jones' -- in reality, the Jones' are probably broke anyway.

Research:

http://cbs4.com/health/Diana.Smith.Woman.2.1623788.html
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/news/column/lowdown/newcar_free/chart.500.jpg

Medicare Income Requirements for California:

Medi-Cal Programs – Qualification at a Glance (Asset limits are the same for all programs: Single: $2,000; Couple: $3,000)


Program / Requirements Your Monthly Income

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

•65 or older, blind or disabled

Single: up to $845/month

Couple: up to $1,407.20/month

Note: Higher income levels apply for individuals who are blind.

Aged & Disabled Federal Poverty Level (A&D FPL) Program

•65 or older, blind or disabled

Single: up to $1,133/month

Couple: up to $1,525/month

Medi-Cal with a Share of Cost (SOC)

•65 or older, blind or disabled

Single: over $1,133/month

Couple: over $1,525/month

250% California Working Disabled (CWD)

•Have work

•Meet Social Security’s definition of disability

•Pay small monthly premium

Single: up to $2,257/month

Couple: up to $3,036/month Note: Income excludes disability benefits

http://www.cahealthadvocates.org/low-income/medi-cal.html#qualify

MSNBC Out Of Touch

MSNBC is running a piece about the Obama Economy.  Just as they are delusional to their own readership, they seem to be delusional on everything else.  The story says to ignore the polls because the markets indicate the economics that Obama is using is working.  On Friday, the DOW did reach 11k again and the S&P 500 is up 74% since the recession began.  But, what are the markets really a factor of?

When we speak of markets, there are the stock/securities markets (DOWJIA, S&P 500, etc.)  There are also markets in the retail world and in the corporate world.  The "market" is an invisible entity that houses the transactions of business.  Through these transactions, the markets thrive or shrivel.  When it comes to the securities markets, it is a little different.  The securities markets make their transactions, not based solely on the transaction of goods and services, but based on speculations.  When disastrous things happen in society, the securities markets do what?  They tank!  When the tide of these events is stemmed, what do the securities markets do?  Just like the spouse that was cheated on, they try to slowly regain trust in the other.  The securities markets slowly try to regain trust in the economy.  So, they "readjust" themselves and basically march forward with the notion of "this is the way it is now, let's just hold out and see what happens."  So, the market moves on down the road, moving up and down in value.

So, the DOW just hit 11k again.  All is well, right?  Last week, on April 6th, the jobless claim came out and it was a big surprise to the economists.  It rose by 18,000!  It was no surprise to the rest of us who actually have a clue.  Unemployment still at 10% (arguably higher since after so much time, this number doesn't include people who are unemployed).  Obama claims he will have laser-like focus on jobs and the economy.  The only laser he is using is a destructive one.  Not only this, the Federal Government is spending money like there's no tomorrow and charging it to future generations.  There was a story from the Tax Policy Center that reports the amount of people not paying any Federal Income Tax is now at 47%.  So, just about half of Americans pay no income tax - thanks to all of the deductions, credits, etc.  Now, I'm all in favor of getting my money back from the government and I'll take it when I can get it.  But, 47% pay no federal income tax.  Why?  Well, I have a theory:

Why do we find crime to be higher in poorer neighborhoods?  I know there are all kinds of studies on this, but the main reason is desperation.  When you've lost all hope but still have the need to survive, what do you do?  Do you regard the law?  No.  Do you regard others?  No.  You do what you need to do to survive, regardless of the lives of others; regardless of this country.  People who are told every day by their government that their poverty is a direct result of mean, capitalistic rich people and that their only hope is government, begin to actually believe it.  For the most part, who is easier to control, form a Government standpoint?  Those that have the least amount of money.  Therefore, to make their poverty more comfortable, they offer tax credits, etc. so that they do no have to pay Federal income tax.  This isn't done out of benevolence, but of sinicism. 

Now, don't walk away from this saying that I'm against tax breaks because I'm not.  However, to get a tax break you have to pay taxes!  If someone is going to loss weight, they have to have that weight to begin with - you can't lose weight you don't have and you can get a tax break on that which you don't pay.

So, unemployment is still high; almost half of America is subliminally being encouraged to remain poor and we have a Government who takes no regard for the people - whom they work for!  That's why they passed Health Care.  That's why Obama rolled-back the Regan Revolution by signing an Arms reduction, not with Russia, but with ourselves.  We will reduce our Arms, but you think Russia will?  But, in typical liberal fashion, we don't care about the facts, we just want Russia to like us again :)

The economy is improving?  Hardly. 

Research for this post:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36322393/ns/business-businessweekcom/

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001289

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2010/04/new_jobless_claims_make_surpri.html

Pre-Existing Conditions Important For Insurance

What is the definition of insurance?  Insurance is the transfer of risk from one party to another.  Usually, one party is willing to accept the risk of the other party by virtue of a premium.  For example, if the insured is wanting to insure his boat from natural disaster, the insurer will offer such protection (from property/monetary loss) at a rate deemed comfortable by the insurer.  A boat in the middle of New York is being insured and a boat on the Florida coast is being insured.  Which boat insurance policy is more expensive in our example?  Well, the boat that brings the most risk to the insurer will be the boat that maintains the most expensive policy.  So, the insurer is willing to accept both risks - but, if he is charging $300/annually (for a 50k damage policy) for the boat in New York and $300/annually (same 50k policy) for the boat in Florida, where is the insurer most likely to have to pay a claim?--Obviously in Florida.  Now, if insurer charged the same $300/annually for both New York and Florida, the insurer will take a very large hit once the next hurricane blows through Florida.  To which the Left would shout with joy that the insurance company is taking a hit - remember wise-guy, if they take a hit, all of the other policies they insure will take a hit as well. 

Anyway, so, for our example, the insurer must charge more for the same 50k policy in Florida than he would in New York.  Why?  Because the risk being transferred is greater in Florida than in New York.  Now, let's turn our attention to health.

(Let's assume health care operates as a lump sum benefit based on diagnoses.)  The policy sought after is the same 50k policy, but it is for health and not for boats.  Person A has Type II Diabetes.  Person B has Type I Diabetes, had a stroke 3 years ago and is about to go on dialysis.  Which person brings more known risk to the table?--Person B, obviously.  So, again, the insurer will charge more for higher risk.  Is this wrong?  No, absolutely not!  The only way an insurance company is able to pay its claims is by taking the premiums and investing them to make money.  So, if an insurance company is going to consider a high risk individual (a person they will more likely pay a claim on sooner) they need to be able to cover that loss.

Now, are there people with so great a risk that insurance companies are not comfortable with covering them?  Sure.  Is that wrong?  No!  It is a private company and it can set its own standards of risk tolerance.  So, what does Obama's plan do to this scenario?

Obama wants to eliminate pre-existing conditions.  By doing this, the risk transfer is 100% on the insurance provider.  Therefore, it is no more insurance, but simply reimbursement coverage.  Now, if an insurance company is required to pay claims for any and every thing, what do you think will happen to premiums?  Again, the company is trying to protect against loss.  Well, we would have our Florida example to the 10th power.  Insurance companies would raise premiums; possibly hundreds or even thousands of percents higher.  By the way, who pays these premiums?  We buy the policies, so we do!  If your premium jumps 1000%, what would you do?  Well, you'd still keep your cable, but you'd get rid of the insurance.  Taste it - because you know its true.  So, insurance policies are being dropped at a rapid pace.  With no client's paying premiums, the insurance companies do not make money.  Businesses that don't make money, fail.  Obama's plan is to destroy the insurance industry thereby leaving no other alternative but to rely on the sugar mama of Government.  However, the Government cannot pay for this without help from your taxes.  So, instead of paying premiums to an insurance company, you will pay higher taxes to cover this massive intrustion into capitalism.

Call your Congressman and demand a "no" vote on healthcare!

Dial: 877-762-8762 or 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121

More Government Waste

There were a bunch of stories on the front page of CNN.com this morning so I felt I would take a minute and give a quick comment about a couple.

Story 1: FCC To Upgrade Citizen's Internet http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/16/life.without.broadband/index.html?hpt=C1

The FCC is planning to get 9 out of every 10 Americans on a broadband connection.  The FCC says that 2/3 of the American people do not have high-speed internet in their homes.  They base this one a sample population of 5,005 people.  There are 300,000,000 people in the United States (as of 2000 Census).  Assuming the family of 4 is the norm, that would leave 75,000,000 households in the US.  (I know, these are crude numbers.)  So, how can 5,005 represent 50 million people (2/3 of 75k)?  Furthermore, is it the government's job to spend our tax dollars to give someone else faster internet?  This is internet welfare!  However, there is an underlying reason for this.  The faster the connection, the quicker the Government can get to your personal information.  Remember the Cash for Clunkers deal?!  The website stated that by proceeding through it, your computer became property of the Federal Government.

Story 2:  Toyota Disputing Runaway Car

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/03/15/cb.rowlands.toyota.prius.cnn?hpt=C2

I've felt this since the beginning.  This Toyota accusation of hybrid malfunctions doesn't seem to add up.  Remember when SUVs were the evil killers on the earth?  Remember news stories that portrayed SUVs as actually thinking beings, capable of search and destroy?! (Note this story http://wcbstv.com/local/fatal.van.accident.2.1543802.html) Now, the wonderful hybrid car, the one that the Government needs to have towards a "cleaner earth" is now the subject of much scrutiny, much like the SUV.  However, cars do not accelerate on their own.  It requires input from the driver - either directly on the gas pedal or by pressing the increase speed button on the cruise control.  This whole circus is just another way that irresponsible people are trying to get something for nothing.  However, since it costs half of your estate to buy one of these things, perhaps the tree huggers have programmed these cars to fight back against the evil rich people.  Just goes to prove that Capitalism and Environmentalism do not mix.  The only logical conclusion?  Give Environmentalism a lethal injection and get it out of our way for good!

Reform, A Brief Thought

Obama is screaming for health care reform and reform of the health care industry.  Chris Dodd, one who paved the way for our financial crisis, is now demanding that we reform Wall Street.  Allow me to translate this for you.  Being tri-lingual (English, German, and Liberal) I'm able to translate these campaign slogans into every day English.  "Health care reform" = Government runs health care.  "Wall Street reform" = Government runs Wall Street.  So, these evil, big capitalistic companies that give evil large bonuses to their CEOs will now be ran by benevolent big Government; who votes on their own pay raises and spends your money, not because you bought a good or service from them, but because they stole it through your taxes.  Yes, reform is what we need!  (maniacally giggling like Gargamel).  

Here's a thought.  In this era of reform, how about we reform the real gluttonous beast called Government?  Government wouldn't be so confusing nor expensive if we just let the Constitution determine what it does.  Amendment 10 to the US Constitution says that powers not granted within the Constitution to the Federal Government are reserved to the States.  Period.  I'm sure I'll miss a few (since there are so many), but let's list some of this Federal "cellulitis".

1.  Department of Education  (63.7 Billion (http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html?src=ln)

2.  Department of Agriculture (133 pages of PMS bloating http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/agr.pdf)

3.  Department of Transportation (73.25 Billion http://www.dot.gov/budget/2010/bib2010.htm)

4.  Department of Homeland Security (55.1 Billion http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1241715252729.shtm)

You can read the full list of Federal Departments and Agencies here:  http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

I'm not saying that everything on this list needs to go (obviously Military and Defense items, etc. need to stay).

Where is the outrage over the Government's out-of-control lifestyle?  Where is the demand for reform?  Well, I believe come November, we will see some immediate reform in the seats of Congress.  But, just because they have an R by their name doesn't mean anything (thank you Newt Gingrich).  We must hold them to Conservative principles of limited government and maximizing of personal freedoms and liberties.  Obama wants the Iron Curtain to rule over this country.  Let's be sure to stop that come November!

Health Care At Any Cost

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/08/health.care/index.html

This is unbelievable.  Read the article for a quick temper boost.

Obama was upset because private health insurers have recently raised their rates.  Guess what, Obama - it's none of your concern; they are PRIVATE health insurers.  If people don't want to pay their rates, then they go down the street to the next guy.  But, perhaps this is just a strategic move by the health insurers knowing that once pre-existing conditions are gone, they will have to insure any and all, and thereby, requiring to raise rates to be able to pay for all of it.  Therefore, to recoup this cost, they must raise rates...which is what I've been saying all along (http://theconservativeanthem.blogspot.com/2009/08/fundamental-problem-with-national.html, http://theconservativeanthem.blogspot.com/2008/11/be-it-resolved.html).  Obama thinks his policies will have no ramifications on private business.  But, we clearly see it is beginning to happen.

So, Obama opens his speech with another sob-story.  I doubt the validity of this and question how much she was paid to lie to the crowd.  But, this woman is purportedly a diabetic and was just informed by the evil health insurance company she has that her rates would "more than double."  First of all, the trade off of what she is paying verses what the insurance is paying is still working in her favor.  Secondly, what are the details of such a rate increase?  Are there specifications in her policy that would allow for rate increases if certain criteria are met?  Is this another case of someone not reading their policy before agreeing to it?!  Lastly, Obama is using typical Liberal tactics by avoiding objective, analytical facts and going straight for the "emotional jugular."

Obama goes on to say (quoted from the article) "The price of health care is one of the most punishing costs for families, businesses and our government," Obama said. "The insurance companies continue to ration health care. ... That's the status quo in America, and it's a status quo that's unsustainable"

What?!  The price of health care is a punishing cost to the government?  And he wants the government to run it?!  Who funds the government anyway?  WE DO with our taxes!  So, if health care is a punishing cost to the government, then Obama will have to RAISE TAXES to ease the pain of this so-called punishment.  Don't be fooled.  Obama is "concerned" about the rising cost of health care, but he isn't concerned about the rising taxes since he took office; he isn't concerned about the rising deficit.  What makes you think he is all concerned about the costs of health care?

Furthermore, "The insurance companies continue to ration health care."  Two things about this: is it possible for a company to "ration" its services because they only have a certain amount of money?  But, Obama here is committing fraud to the American people.  He is giving the idea that companies are turning away people left and right and that's not what America is about.  Obama - you run Medicare.  You run Medicaid.  You run Social Security.  How many are turned down for Medicare and Medicaid benefits?!  How many that file for Social Security disability are turned down - and they actually have a viable disability?!  Notice how Obama never tries to explain how government-run health care will be different than these three behemoths of waste.

I'll end with this: Obama responds to GOP criticisms that this plan (nearly $1 trillion) doesn't have any breaks on spending.  Obama's response: "You had 10 years.  What were you doing?"  Ok, 57-states, 1994 to 2006 isn't 10 years, it's 12.  What were they doing?!  They were passing tax-cuts for Americans - that's right, giving us our money back.  They were fighting off the destruction of the Clinton Administration.  They had 9/11 to deal with.  They passed Welfare Reform that limits the amount of time a citizen can be on the program.  So, Obama, like the little brat in the store who doesn't get candy, stands up and says, "Fine.  Since you didn't take any initiative to do this, I will.  Screw you, America!  I'm going to cost your children and grandchildren trillions of dollars because the GOP did nothing for health care.  Yeah, how do you like me now?  What choice do you think I had?" 

In an unrelated story, Scoliosis claims have risen in the US due to added weight and pressure of Hope and Change.

So-Called Science Is At It Again

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35712419/?GT1=43001

This is a very interesting article about laying to rest any debate over the reason for the extinction of dinosaurs.  A group of scientists have closed the case and the verdict is in: dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor that hit the earth millions of years ago.

Combining all available data from different science disciplines led us to conclude that a large asteroid impact 65 million years ago in modern day Mexico was the major cause of the mass extinctions.

Are we happy?  Well, I'm not.  First, notice the language of the above quote from the article.  "Combining all available data"...  In other words, there is still data that is not available.  The data that is available is a known known.  The data that is unavailable is an unknown unknown.  Therefore, to draw an emphatic conclusion is a blatant disregard to any existing data that may have not been uncovered yet.

Not only this, as I addressed in my blog post http://theconservativeanthem.blogspot.com/2009/11/science-couldnt-be-wrong.html , what observations/testing was done millions of years ago to give us documented evidence that we can compare to?  To take a bone and tell me it is 65 million years old, based on faulty radiometric dating methods, isn't very scientific.

So, what about these dating methods?  Here's a little bit that "science" doesn't want you to know.  There are 3 major assumptions that are being made in order for these dating methods to seem valid.  Every rock has elements within the rock.  Based on the elements present determines which dating method is used.  (Potassium-Argon, Uranium Lead, etc.).  The dating method basically makes a mathematical calculation based on the amount of each element in the rock.  Now, before we go on, it would behoove us to not assume any level of intelligence and explain a few things.  This will get a little technical, but hopefully it is understandable.  Thank you college Chemistry for the following explanations.

Elements contain Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons.  For example, if you look at Carbon on the Periodic Table, it is Atomic Number 6.  Atomic Numbers designate how many Protons are in the nucleus of the atom.  It would be easy if Carbon was just Carbon, but there are actually varying occurrences of Carbon.  For lack of a better term, under "normal" circumstances, an element's number of Protons is equal to the number of its Neutrons.  The number of Protons never changes otherwise the element would change.  However, if an element gains Neutrons, it's Atomic Mass can change.  The Atomic Mass number or nucleon number is the total number of Protons and Neutrons.  So, the Atomic Number never changes (# of Protons) but the Atomic Mass (# of Protons + Neutrons) can.  When an element gains Neutrons, the element is no longer known by its title, but rather it's Isotope title and number.  An Isotope is a base element that has gained more neutrons.  For example, Carbon may be Carbon-12 (C-12), Carbon-13 (C-13), or Carbon-14 (C-14).  (Simply subtract the Atomic Number from the Isotope number to find the number of Neutrons). 

Now, there are Isotopes that are stable (C-12, C-13); and there are Isotopes that are unstable (radioactive) (C-14).  When an Isotope is radioactive, it desperately wants to become stable (non-radioactive).  However, it just can't shed Neutrons by jumping on the treadmill.  Isotopes must undergo a process known as Radioactive Decay.  Through this decay, the element works its way down to stable element.  However, sometimes, the Radioactive Decay not only sheds Neutrons, but also sheds Protons (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay for further insight into Radioactive Decay, including types of radiation that occurs).  Uranium-238 (U-238), through this decay process, transforming into many other elements and eventually ends up as Lead-206 (Pb-206), which is finally a stable element.  Lead's Atomic Number is 82, so PB-206 contains 82 Protons and 124 Neutrons.  Uranimum, in this case, is known as the Parent Element and all those it decays into are known as Daughter Elements.  The time it takes for half identical Parent radioisotopes to decay into their Daughter Elements is known as a Half-Life. 

Many of these Half-Lives are said to be hundreds of millions of years--which brings us to our first major assumption.  Since no one has every lived for hundreds of millions of years to test and observe such decay, it is impossible to say, with any level of certainty, that the actual Half Life is xxx million years.  So, assumption #1 is that they know the time of these Half Lives.

Assumption #2 is that they know the original ratio of Parent to Daughter elements.  For radiometric dating to work, you have to know where you started from to where you are now and then measure that span by factoring in "known" Half Lives and thereby deriving an age.  If you don't know where you started from, then you must assume.  Therefore, the radiometric dating methods do not being with viable, provable observation.

Assumption #3 is that they know, for certain, that radio active decay rates have remained constant.  Again, without being around to observe such decay rates, we can only assume they have remained constant. 

Unless these assumptions are made, radiometric dating is nothing more than faulty at best.  If we make these assumptions, then we are leaving the world of the testable and the observable and therefore, we leave the world of science.

With this, I can't accept the notion that the death of the dinosaurs was caused by something we can't prove.

Reagan on the 50?

Patrick McHenry, R-NC, has proposed that we change our 50 dollar bill from picturing Ulysses S. Grant with our 40th President, Ronald Reagan.  I think this is a fantastic idea (although putting Reagan on the penny would get him more face time under the Obama economy.)  Well, the LA Times is reporting distaste with this idea.  (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/03/nation/la-na-reagan-fifty3-2010mar03) Democrat Brad Sherman said we should have a currency that unites us.  As Rush Limbaugh said, what is less uniting about winning 44 states and then 49 states in two elections?!  Other people have also expressed their disdain because of their love for Grant - seeing Grant's accomplishments more meaningful for the nation than Reagan's.  Oh really?!  Well, once again, we will let the eyes of history be our judge.  Let's list the accomplishments of both and see just whose are more meaningful.

Many historians would probably argue that the Civil War being won by the Union is more important than the Cold War being won.  So, the Civil War ends and what are the results?  We stay together as a nation and we have some important Amendments added to the Constitution (13th, 14th, and 15th).  The Cold War ended with an end to the strangle of Communism that Russia had on Europe it also made America safe and secure as Russia couldn't contend with Reagan's military.  See, we lose the Civil War and the nation is just cut in half.  We loose the Cold War and the nation no longer exists.  The rest of Reagan's accomplishments speak for themselves.  And, these are just a few of the many during his Administration.  We truly can say, as Reagan did, "Not bad...not bad at all."

Let's honor Reagan with a fitting tribute.  The mechanism of economics is supply and demand, but the mechanism of transaction, which ultimately drives supply and demand, is money.  In honor of a great economy Reagan allowed to happen, let's put him on the 50 dollar bill!

Obama Urges Taunting Of Talk Radio On Health Care

The Obama Reich can't get enough of health care.  After telling the Republicans at the summit meeting that if the American people don't want it, we'll just push it through anyway, Obama is now deploying a new tactic.  He is afraid that the message isn't getting heard because of talk radio.  (When, it is quite the opposite: the message is being heard.)  So, Obama has created a webpage that encourages health care supporters to call these talk radio shows and be armed with talking points.  These talking points are designed to hit the talk radio audience in a spot they are perceived as not having - their emotions.  Let's take a brief minute and examine these talking points.  (Go to http://radio.barackobama.com/ for the list)

1.  For most Americans, their health care plan covers too little and costs too much. Far too many people delay or even skip the care they need because they simply can’t afford it.

Covers too little?  Costs too much?  According to http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/26/health-care-reform-simple-explanation-updated/ 60% of Americans get their health insurance through work.  These people are not buying their coverage.  Their company is buying the coverage and the employees are able to take advantage of the coverage through small deductions from their pay checks.  So, this "most Americans" is whom?! 

Allow me to translate "covers too little" - if you don't get EVERY service, visit, test, etc. covered, then you don't have the right coverage.  Allow me to translate "costs too much" - if you have to pay for your health care, then it costs too much.  These Democrats are once again just trying to get the federal government into the driver's seat of the American society. 

The notion of "too many people skip care" because they "can't afford it" only seems to exist in these talking points/tv ads.  Many ILLEGAL immigrants are getting the health care they need, free of charge.  Well, not free of charge, it came out of my pay check!

2.  The plan the President laid out includes the largest health care tax cut for middle class families in history and makes coverage more affordable for tens of millions of families and small business owners and expands coverage to over 31 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

Federalizing 1/6 of our economy is not a tax cut for the middle class!  Health care costs are high because we are in desperate need of TORT reform.  Frivolous lawsuits against doctors cause doctors to have more mal-practice insurance.  To pay these premiums, they need to have more income.  Therefore, health care costs MUST increase.  If you want health care to be more affordable - bring us TORT reform!  Nationalizing health care only deals with the symptom (and very poorly at that). 

Secondly, it is said that over 31 million Americans who are uninsured would now have coverage expanded to them.  This is prime territory to cause a Lib to jump ship and go to another point.  Here is the poignant question:  What is the reason for being uninsured?  Is it because when the poll was taken, many were in between insurance plans and have since gotten insurance?  Is it because those who used to have work coverage lost their benefits due to tax increases and increased federal regulations on businesses?!  According to http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/38/12/1.2.full about half of this number are just in and out of coverage - shopping for lower rates, changing jobs, etc.  So, that takes our number to 15 million uninsured.  What is interesting is that unemployment has been at 10%.  10% unemployment equals out to be about 15 million people.  (http://cbs11tv.com/national/unemployment.10.percent.2.1299266.html) So, it would seem to reason that if we fix unemployment, we fix the number without insurance.  Companies, however, are afraid to hire because any profits gained are in the cross-hairs of Obama.  What's the point of making profit just to have it taken away?!  Exactly, there is no point - therefore, there is no point in hiring any new workers.

3.  This plan will give millions of Americans new choices in health insurance by making coverage more affordable, ending the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, putting power in the hands of consumers instead of insurance companies and providing one of the largest tax cuts in history while also reducing our national deficit.

This is the most asinine group of words I've ever read.  Pre-existing conditions exists as a way to KEEP COSTS LOW!  I sell life insurance.  We can offer term plans for pennies on the dollar per thousand because of requiring great health.  If an insurance company is forced to take on ALL risks, premiums will go UP!!  How else is the insurance company going to pay for the claims that will be hobbling in day after day?!  Secondly, this puts the power in the consumer's hand??  The power is already there!  If you don't like the health coverage you have, then go down the street and buy from someone else!  You decide where your dollar is spent, not the insurance companies.  And, thirdly, this will reduce our national deficit?!  How does government spending reduce our deficit?  Obama has already taken our deficit, sorry libs, well past your coveted Bush deficit.  You honestly think Obama is worried about the national deficit?! 

 

4.  Reform couldn’t be more urgent – just this month consumers in California were told their premiums could go up as much as 39 percent.

Then go buy from someone else!  What about tax rates that just went up because you let the Bush tax cuts expire?  Don't patronize us about reform because rates are increasing.  IF WE HAD MORE OF OUR MONEY, WE'D HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR BETTER HEALTH INSURANCE!

 

5.  Too many in Washington are now saying that we should delay or give up on reform entirely, but Americans understand the stakes for our economy and our lives, and we want action

 

Americans do NOT want this bill!  Even Obama at the health care summit said he would just ram it through if he didn't get the cooperation he wanted.  Too many in Washington are out of touch with their voting base and come November, they will be out of touch with Congress.

 

Don't back down from these guys!  Hold their feet to the fire!

Black History Month Part 6: The Good Part

I’d like to close out Black History Month on a positive note - in a few short days, it will be over! Come Monday, we will get back to normal history and end a month of celebrating segregated information and racism. The best part of Black History Month is March 1st.

We are Americans. Let’s truly live Dr. King’s dream where the content of our character stands center stage rather than what color our skin is. By the way, that is what a Conservative sees. We see the character of a person. Liberals are focused on the “minority groups” – groups they’ve created.

Now, Black by popular demand, here are a few quotes from Dr. Walter E. Williams

Equality before the general rules of law is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty that can be secured without destroying liberty. It is an equality that neither requires nor assumes people are in fact equal. Our attempt to make people equal in fact by rigging law to produce equal results destroys civility and generalized respect for the law. Government cannot create an advantage for one person without simultaneously creating a disadvantage for another.

Democracy and liberty are not the same. Democracy is little more than mob rule, while liberty refers to the sovereignty of the individual.

No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong

If we wish to be compassionate with our fellow man, we must learn to engage in dispassionate analysis. In other words, thinking with our hearts, rather than our brains, is a surefire method to hurt those whom we wish to help

President Obama could rise several notches in my book if he refused the Nobel Peace Prize, with a nice letter to the Nobel Committee that might read: Since you did not see fit to award Ronald Reagan, the U.S. president who did the most for world peace in this century, by peaceably shutting down the Soviet Union, I respectfully decline your offer

Suppose I hire you to repair my computer. The job is worth $200 to me and doing the job is worth $200 to you. The transaction will occur because we have a meeting of the mind. Now suppose there's the imposition of a 30 percent income tax on you. That means you won't receive $200 but instead $140. You might say the heck with working for me -- spending the day with your family is worth more than $140. You might then offer that you'll do the job if I pay you $285. That way your after-tax earnings will be $200 -- what the job was worth to you. There's a problem. The repair job was worth $200 to me, not $285. So it's my turn to say the heck with it. This simple example demonstrates that one effect of taxes is that of eliminating transactions, and hence jobs

Jobs Bill Misses The Mark

Yesterday, the Senate was giddy about passing a "jobs creation bill." The media has been proclaiming how even Republicans are jumping on board with this bill. They are making a big deal out of Scott Brown, R-MA, voting yes since he just got to Congress. But, let's slow down. What is this bill about?

This bill is supposed to be a $15 Billion job creation package. First, let's remind our good friends in Washington that the only jobs Congress can create are Government jobs. Congress cannot create jobs in the private sector. Their policies can hinder or encourage job growth in the private sector, but they are not the ones responsible for any new jobs. Now, Congress wants the credit for jobs creation because then Obama can take credit for it as well.

One of the focal points of this bill is that it frees any company that hires the unemployed from paying their 6.2% social security tax for 2010. If the company retains the employee for at least a year, they get a $1,000 tax break.

So, with less money going into Social Security, Congress will have to go after it somewhere else. And, that somewhere else will be from those who are already employed. Secondly, a $1,000 tax break?! Is that per new hire? And, by the way, companies don't pay taxes anyway - we pay them through their prices they set for their goods and/or services. So, giving a company a "tax break" would actually be giving us a tax break. But, a $1,000 tax break isn't a tax break. That's like letting the couch cushions fund your kid's allowance. If you want to encourage more corporate participation in the hiring game, then do something big. How about eliminate a lot of the taxes and regulations that are imposed upon them and that stifle their ability to be able to afford to hire additional help. Why not suspend and even eliminate the federal income tax - give people more of their money to spend in the economy. This is the real issue, folks. Giving companies "tax breaks" is only a symptom of the problem.

Jobs are created based on two simple things: Supply and Demand. If demand is higher than supply, then companies need to hire more workers to get supply back even with demand. If we had more of our own money to spend, demand would start to increase, companies would begin to hire more to meet the demand with more supply and two things ultimately happen: the economy is back on its feet and unemployment falls. Companies do not just arbitrarily decrease their work force. This bill suggests they do by virtue of it focusing on the corporations and their hiring practices. Jobs exist for one reason - a company needs to make money and they need workers to make supply to meet demand. If the demand isn't there, then the need for employees decreases. Companies are not going to keep an employee on the books at 20k/year or 30k/year just to get a 1k tax break. That's like the common practice of hanging on to a mortgage because of the tax write off. So, you send 10k to the bank in interest so you don't have to send 3k to the IRS in taxes?! (By the way, if your CPA suggests that you do that, then fire their sorry carcass and get one that can actually do math.) Frankly, this bill is insulting to private business.

The Government that has given us this economy and this deficit are now the ones who are going to fix it?! The Government that hates the private sector now are seen as their savior? Don't fall for it - these people want one thing only and that is full government control over business industry - and you take that to the bank...well, don't take it to the bank because they will be taxed more for the TARP money they've already paid back.

Middle Class Tax Cuts? You Lie!

I think this needs to be revisited. Earlier this month, Reuters reported that Obama's budget was full of back-door tax INCREASES for the middle class. The White House promptly grabbed Reuters by the crotch and demanded they pull the story. (So much for freedom of the Press). Reuters, with a backbone the consistancy of jello, pulled the story. But, what do you expect from the State-run media?! So, the story is only found on blogs at this point. (i.e http://www.thehotjoints.com/2010/02/02/reuters-does-story-on-obamas-backdoor-tax-increases-then-withdraws-it/). The portion I want to focus on is the actual tax increases for the middle class. Now, on Feb. 11th, 2010, Obama said he was going to be "agnostic" on tax increases. He was going to establish a "bi-partisan" group to investigate debt reduction proposals. This "bi-partisan" group is 60% Democrat and they are going to demand tax increases to fix the debt problem. Obama is going to play dumb and say "Well, uh, we've made progress, and un, the commission has worked hard, uh, and, they've determined, that uh, we need to increase taxes to pay for this debt." THE VERY DEBT YOU'VE CREATED! This way, he can say he didn't flipflop on his no taxes for the middle class promise. Come on, folks - his promises are about as pointless as Russian Roulet with a semi-automatic pistol. So, without further delay, here, again, is some insight to what will be coming down the pike to us middle class folk. Here is the story that wasn't protected under freedom of the press.

NEW YORK (Reuters.com) –The Obama administration’s plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year — effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.
The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 — though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year’s levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy — the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don’t itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

Reuter's pulled this story and promised a new story to run in its place a week later. No such story ever was ran.

Black History Month Part 5: The "Party of Minorities"

It is often proclaimed that Democrats favor minorities and Republicans are racists. However, is this true history or just another lie by the Left to try to steal more votes? History once again will shed light on this ignorant position. What preceeds below was taken from http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html so, all the research credit belongs to them. This is great information. Feel free to research it for yourself.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Franklin Roosevelt, the long time hero and standard bearer of the Democrat Party, headed up and implemented one of the most horrible racist policies of the 20th Century – the Japanese Internment Camps during World War II. Roosevelt unilaterally and knowingly enacted Japanese Internment through the use of presidential Executive Orders 9066 and 9102 during the early years of the war. These orders single-handedly led to the imprisonment of an estimated 120,000 law abiding Americans of Japanese ancestry, the overwhelming majority of them natural born second and third generation American citizens. Countless innocents lost their property, fortunes, and, in the case of an unfortunate few, even their lives as a result of Roosevelt's internment camps, camps that have been accurately described as America's concentration camps. Perhaps most telling about the racist nature of Roosevelt's order was his clearly expressed intention to apply it almost entirely to Japanese Americans, even though America was also at war with Germany and Italy. In 1943, Roosevelt wrote regarding concerns of German and Italian Americans that they t0o would share in the fate of the interned Japanese Americans, noting that "no collective evacuation of German and Italian aliens is contemplated at this time." Despite this assertion, Roosevelt did exhibit his personal fears about Italian and German Americans, and in his typical racist form he used an ethnic stereotype to make his point. Expressing about his position on German and Italian Americans during World War II, Roosevelt stated “I don’t care so much about the Italians, they are a lot of opera singers, but the Germans are different. They may be dangerous.”
Roosevelt also appointed two notorious segregationists to the United States Supreme Court. Roosevelt appointed South Carolina segregationist Democrat Jimmy Byrnes to the court. Roosevelt later made Byrnes a top advisor, where the segregationist earned the nickname “assistant president.” Byrnes was Roosevelt’s second choice behind Harry Truman for the VP nod in his 1944 reelection bid. Roosevelt also appointed segregationist Democrat Senator Hugo Black of Alabama to the court. Black was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan with a notorious record of racism himself.

Hugo Black: A former Democrat Senator from Alabama and liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice appointed by FDR, Hugo Black had a lengthy history of hate group activism. Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920's and gained his legal fame defending Klansmen under prosecution for racial murders. In one prominent case, Black provided legal representation to Klansman Edwin Stephenson for the hate-induced murder of a Catholic priest in Birmingham. A jury composed of several Klan members acquited Stephenson of the murder, reportedly after Black expressed Klan gestures to the jury during the trial. In 1926 Black sought and won election as a Democrat to the United States Senate after campaigning heavily to Klan membership. He is said to have told one Klan audience "I desire to impress upon you as representatives of the real Anglo-Saxon sentiment that must and will control the destinies of the stars and stripes, that I want your counsel." In the Senate Black became a stauch supporter of the liberal New Deal initiatives of FDR and a solid opponent of civil rights legislation, including a filibuster of an anti-lynching measure. Black led the push for several New Deal programs and was a key participant in FDR's court packing scandal. Roosevelt appointed Black, a loyal ally, to the U.S. Supreme Court. During the Senate confirmation of Black's nomination, the issue of his strong Klan affiliations caused a public controversy over his appointment. Following the confirmation Roosevelt claimed ignorance of Black's Klan past, though this claim was dubious at best. Black's first Senate election, which occurred with Klan support, had been covered nationally a decade earlier in 1926. Black's Klan affiliations were a well known part of his political background and recieved heavy coverage in the newspapers at the time of his appointment. On the court, Black became a liberal stalwart. He also continued his career of supporting racism by authoring the opinion in favor of FDR's Japanese internment program in the infamous Korematsu ruling.

Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV: Byrd is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and is currently the only national elected official with a history in the Klan, a well known hate group. Byrd was extremely active in the Klan and rose to the rank of “Kleagle,” an official Klan membership recruiter. Byrd once stated that he joined the Klan because it was effective in "promoting traditional American values" (Source). Byrd's choice of words speak volumes about his bigotry considering the fact that the Klan is a notorious hate group, and the racist "values" it promotes are anything but American. One of the earliest criticisms of Byrd's Klan ties came in 1952 when he was running for Congress. Byrd responded by claiming that he had left the Klan in 1943 while noting that "(d)uring the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." Byrd was lying, however, as he engaged in correspondence with a Klan Imperial Wizard long after he claims to have ended his ties with the hate group.

In a letter to the Klan leadership (Source) dated 3 years after he purported to have ended his ties with them, Byrd wrote "I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state. The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd continued his racist diatribe "It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union" and followed with a request for assistance from the hate group's leadership in "rebuilding the Klan in the realm" of West Virginia.

Byrd's racism extends far beyond his Klan membership. In a letter he wrote on the subject of desegregating the armed forces, Byrd escalated his racist rhetoric to an appalling level. In the letter, Byrd vowed that he would never fight in an integrated armed services noting "(r)ather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds" (Source).

Byrd's racist opinions have shown their ugly face in his behavior in the Senate. Byrd led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, according to the United States Senate's own website, filibustered the legislation to the bitter end appearing as one of the last opponents to the act before a coalition of civil rights proponents led by Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen invoked cloture so that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could pass. At the time, Byrd was in the the midst of a 14 hour and 13 minute filibuster diatribe against the key civil rights measure (Source). Throughout the 1960's, Byrd was was one of the staunchest opponents to civil rights in the U.S. Senate. Byrd’s racist history drew attention recently when he went on national television and repeatedly used the n-word, one of the most vicious racial slurs in existence, in an appearance on national television. Byrd uttered the slur on Fox News Sunday with Tony Snow on March 5, 2001. Despite the appalling nature of the remark, it went largely ignored by the mainstream media and the self appointed "civil rights" leadership. Whereas a similar remark by anyone other than a leading Democrat Senator would assuredly prompt the likes of Jesse Jackson to assemble protest rallies demanding resignations, the Jackson crowd was eerily quiet following Byrd's remarks, issuing only low key suggestions that Byrd should avoid making such bigoted remarks.

In a sickening recognition of Byrd's appalling political career, the national Democrat party has done nothing but embrace the West Virginia senator with leadership roles and practically every honor imaginable. To this very day the Democrats call former Klansman turned U.S. Senator Robert Byrd the "conscience of the Senate." They have embraced him as their party's central pillar in all ways possible. Byrd has been reelected more times than any other Democrat senator, has served as a Democrat in Congress, a Democrat State Senator in West Virginia, and a Democrat State Delegate in West Virginia. Democrats have made repeatedly elected Byrd into their national party leadership and into the U.S. Senate leadership. He became secretary of the Senate Democrat Caucus in 1967, and Senate Democrat Whip in 1971. The Democrats elected former Klansman Byrd as their Senate Majority Leader from 1977-1980 and as their Senate Minority Leader from 1981-1986. Byrd was again elected Democrat Majority Leader from 1987-1988. Democrats made Byrd the chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee and President Pro Tempore of the Senate from 1989 until the Republicans won control of the Senate in November 1994. Following the defection of Jim Jeffords in June 2001, the Democrats again made Byrd the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and elected him to the highest ranking office in the Senate: the President Pro Tempore, a position which also put this former Klansman 4th in line for the presidency. Byrd lost his position when Republicans retook the Senate in late 2002, but continues to serve as one of the highest ranking members of the Democrat Senate leadership today.

Senator Ernest Hollings, D-SC: Hollings is liberal Democrat Senator from South Carolina who is also notorious for his use of racial slurs. He rose out of the Democrat Party's segregationist wing in the 1960's as governor of South Carolina. While in office as governor, Hollings personally led the opposition to lunch counter integration in his state. The New York Times reported on March 17, 1960 that then-governor Hollings "warned today that South Carolina would not permit 'explosive' manifestations in connection with Negro demands for lunch-counter services." According to the article, Hollings gave a speech in which he "challenged President Eisenhower's contention that minorities had the right to engage in certain types of demonstrations" against segregation. In the speech Hollings described the Republican president as "confused" and asserted that Eisenhower had done "great damage to peace and good order" by supporting the rights of minorities to protest segregation at the lunch counters.
Governor Hollings' support for segregation continued throughout his term and included his attendance at a July 23, 1961 meeting of segregationist Democrats to organize their opposition to the civil rights movement. Hollings was one of four governors in attendence, all of them Democrats. The others included rabid segregationists Orval Faubus of Arkansas and Ross Barnett of Mississippi. The New York Times reported on the meeting, noting that among the strategies discussed were using the segregationist White Citizens Council organization to mobilize political opposition to desegregation.

In more recent years Hollings, a senior Democrat senator, has made disparaging racial remarks and slurs against minorities. Senator Hollings, who was a contender for his party's presidential nomination in 1984, blamed his defeat in the primaries by using a racial slur against Hispanics. After losing the Iowa Straw Poll, Hollings stated "You had wetbacks from California that came in here for Cranston," referring to one of his opponents, Alan Cranston. A few years later Hollings reportedly used the slur "darkies" to derogatorily refer to blacks. He also once disparagingly referred to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition as the "Blackbow Coalition," and called former Senator Howard Metzenbaum, who is Jewish, "the Senator from B'nai B'rith." Hollings gained international criticism for his remarks about the African Delegation to the 1993 Geneva GATT conference, where he crudely remarked "you'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva." Hollings was also the Governor of South Carolina who raised the confederate flag over the state capitol in the early 1960's in what was considered at the time to be an act of defiance to civil rights. The press ignored Hollings and his role in the flag issue at the same time the political correctness police were smearing George W. Bush during his campaign after Bush correctly remarked that the flag was a state issue to be decided upon by South Carolina and not the national government.

Jesse Jackson: Jackson was the featured prime time speaker at the 2000 Democrat Convention. Jackson has a history of using anti-Semitic slurs and derogatorily calling New York City “Hymietown.” Jackson, a prominent self proclaimed "civil rights leader," is himself guilty of the same bigotry he dishonestly purports to oppose.

Dan Rather: Rather, the well known television anchor for CBS, is also a liberal Democrat who has spoken at fundraisers for the Democrat party in the past. The notoriously left wing reporter appeared on the Don Imus radio show on July 19, 2001 where he was interviewed about his long term refusal to cover the Gary Condit (D-CA) scandal involving an affair with a missing intern despite the scandal's national prominence. Rather noted on the air that CBS had basically forced him to cover the story that was on every other network and on the front page of all the major newspapers, all this after Rather avoided it for months. Rather stated on the air, refering to CBS, that "they got the Buckwheats" and made him cover the Condit scandal. The term "Buckwheat" is considered an offensive racial stereotype that stems from an easily frightened black character named "Buckwheat" on the Little Rascals comedies. It is widely regarded as a racial epithet and has long been condemned as an offensive stereotype by several civil rights organizations. In several past incidents (see here and here) the use of the epithet "Buckwheat" has recieved condemnation by the NAACP, Al Sharpton and other left wing organizations. These left wing organizations and personalities have demanded that other media personalities be fired over using the epithet, and even staged a protest at a school over the mere allegation that the racist stereotype had been used by a teacher. Yet these same liberal groups have, to date, remained completely silent now that one of their own, Dan Rather, is guilty of using the same offensive racial stereotype they have condemned elsewhere on a national radio show. It's just more proof of how the left wingers who cry the loudest with accusations of racism against others turn a blind eye when somebody of their own left wing ideology is the undeniable culprit of a blatantly racist act or statement!

Cragg Hines: Hines is one of the most rabidly partisan DC based Democrat editorial columnists to work for a major newspaper, and he makes no attempts to hide it. To Hines, pro-lifers are "neanderthals," as is often the case with those who differ in opinion with him. Ironically, Hines, a columnist who regularly touts himself as an enlightened progressive, is also known for racial remarks and religious intolerance. He attacked Senator Jesse Helms in an August 26, 2001 editorial with not only the usual liberal name calling, but also with a racial epithet. Hines used the racial slur "cracker" to attack Helms. He used the epithet not only within the article's text, but he even included it in the piece's title. In a sense of heavy irony, Hines' article accused Helms of bigotry for, among other things, opposing liberal policies like affirmative action. He didn't seem to object to himself for his own bigotted language in the same article. Hines has also drawn heavy criticism from Catholics including a letter to the editor from the former President of the U.S. Catholic Bishop's Conference for his seemingly agenda-driven criticisms of Catholicism and its religious leaders, often based on little or no historical evidence, which he has expressed in numerous editorial columns.

Al Sharpton: Sharpton, a perrenial Democrat candidate and one of the rumored candidates for the Democrat's 2004 presidential nomination, has a notorious racist past. Sharpton was a central figure who fanned the 1991 Crown Heights race riot, where a mob shouting anti-semetic slurs murdered an innocent Jewish man. Sharpton also incited a 1995 protest of a Jewish owned store in Harlem where protesters used several anti-semetic slurs. During the protests, a Sharpton lieutenant called the store's owner a "bloodsucker" and declared an intent to "loot the Jews." A member of the protest mob later set fire to the store, resulting in the death of seven (source).
Representative Dick Gephardt, D-MO: Gephardt, the former Democrat Minority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, gave several speeches to a St. Louis area hate group during his early years as a representative. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Gephardt spoke before the Metro South Citizens Council, a now defunct white supremacist organization, during his early years as a congressman. Newsmax.com further reported that Gephardt had openly asked the group for an endorsement of his candidacy during one of his many visits with the organization. Gephardt has long avoided questions about his past affiliation with this group.
Andrew Cuomo: Cuomo, Bill Clinton's former Housing Secretary and a prominent Democrat political player in New York, was tape recorded using racially inflamatory rhetoric to build opposition to a potential Democrat primary opponent while speaking to a Democrat group. Cuomo stated that voting for his rival for the New York Democrat gubernatorial nomination Carl McCall, who is black, would create a "racial contract" between Black and Hispanic Democrats "and that can't happen." Upon initial reports, Cuomo denied the statement but later a tape recording surfaced. Cuomo later dropped out of the race for governor (source).
Lee P. Brown: Brown, Bill Clinton's former drug czar and Democrat mayor of Houston, engaged in racist campaigning designed to suppress Hispanic voter turnout during his 2001 reelection bid. Brown faced challenger Orlando Sanchez, a Hispanic Republican who drew heavy support from the Hispanic community during the general election. Two weeks prior to the runoff, Brown's campaign printed racist signs designed to intimidate Hispanic voters. The signs featured a photograph of Sanchez and the words "Anti-Hispanic." The signs drew harsh criticism from Hispanic leaders as their message was designed to intimidate and confuse Hispanic voters. Around the same time the signs were being used, Brown supporter and city councilman Carol Alvarado made a series of racially charged attacks on Sanchez, implying a desire to see the supression of Hispanic voter turnout in the runoff. Brown staffers also went on record claiming that Sanchez was not a true Hispanic. The racist anti-Hispanic undertones of Brown's reelection bid were so great that liberal Democrat city councilman John Castillo, himself Hispanic, retracted his endorsement of Brown in disgust and became a Sanchez supporter in the final week of the campaign. Following the harsh condemnation of the racist signs and tactics, Brown purported that his campaign was removing them even though many still lingered around Houston up until the election. When election day came along, Brown placed more of the racist signs at polling places, despite his claim to have stopped using them. The large campaign billboard style election day signs featured, in Spanish, the word "Danger!" on them followed by Sanchez's name with a large red circle and slash through it. The signs identified the Brown campaign as their owner on the bottom. Brown's racially charged reelection effort barely squeeked by Sanchez on election day, winning 51% to 49% following a series of racially motivated advertisements in which the Brown campaign appealed to the fear of black voters by invoking images of the gruesome lynching death of James Byrd, Jr. and by attempting to pit them against Hispanics. While Brown had the audacity to declare himself a mayor for all people and all ethnicities at his victory party, many in Houston fear the racial wounds inflicted by his campaign will take years to heal.
Mary Frances Berry: Berry is the Democrat chair of the US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR). She purports herself to be an "independent" in her political affiliation in order to hold her job on the civil rights commission where partisan membership may not exceed 4 for either party, but is in fact a dedicated liberal Democrat who openly supported Al Gore for president and has given a total of $20,000 in personal contributions to the Democrat Party, Al Gore for President, and other Democrat candidates over the last decade. Berry is an open racist who is affiliated with the far-left Pacifica radio network, a group with ties to black nationalist causes. Berry once stated "Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them," indicating that she believes the USCCR should only look out for civil rights violations against persons of certain select skin colors.
Billy McKinney: Former Democrat State Representative Billy McKinney of Georgia, who is also the father of former Democrat congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of the same state. During his daughter's failed 2002 reelection bid, McKinney appeared on television where he blamed his daughter's difficulties on a Jewish conspiracy. McKinney unleashed a string of anti-semitic sentiments, stating "This is all about the Jews" and spelling out "J-E-W-S." McKinney lost his own seat in a runoff a few weeks later.

The Democrat Party and the Ku Klux Klan: Aside from the multiple Klan members who have served in elected capacity within the high ranks of the Democrat Party, the political party itself has a lengthy but often overlooked history of involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. Though it has been all but forgotten by the media, the Democrat National Convention of 1924 was host to one of the largest Klan gatherings in American history. Dubbed the "Klanbake convention" at the time, the 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York was dominated by a platform dispute surrounding the Ku Klux Klan. A minority of the delegates to the convention attempted to condemn the hate group in the party's platform, but found their proposal shot down by Klan supporters within the party. As delegates inside the convention voted in the Klan's favor, the Klan itself mobilized a celebratory rally outside. On July 4, 1924 one of the largest Klan gatherings ever occurred outside the convention on a field in nearby New Jersey. The event was marked by speakers spewing racial hatred, celebrations of their platform victory in the Democrat Convention, and ended in a cross burning.
II. Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Movement:
A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement.

Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including: - Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia - J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton - Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act. - Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame - Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore
The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:
- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama - Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas - Holland and Smathers of Florida - Russell and Talmadge of Georgia - Ellender and Long of Louisiana - Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi - Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina - Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina - Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee - H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia - R. Byrd of West Virginia.

Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.
It took the hard work of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Upon breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republican Dirksen took to the Senate floor and exclaimed "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!" (Full text of speech). Sadly, Democrats and revisionist historians have all but forgotten (and intentionally so) that it was Republican Dirksen, not the divided Democrats, who made the Civil Rights Act a reality. Dirksen also broke the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Eisenhower.

Outside of Congress, the three most notorious opponents of school integration were all Democrats: - Orval Faubus, Democrat Governor of Arkansas and one of Bill Clinton's political heroes - George Wallace, Democrat Governor of Alabama - Lester Maddox, Democrat Governor of Georgia.

The most famous of the school desegregation standoffs involved Governor Faubus. Democrat Faubus used police and state forces to block the integration of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The standoff was settled and the school was integrated only after the intervention of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Even the Democrat Party organization resisted integration and refused to allow minority participation for decades. Exclusion of minorities was the general rule of the Democrat Party of many states for decades, especially in Texas. This racist policy reached its peak under the New Deal in the southern and western states, often known as the New Deal Coalition region of FDR. The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Herndon declared the practice of "white primaries" unconstitutional in 1927 after states had passed laws barring Blacks from participating in Democrat primaries. But the Democrat Parties did not yield to the Court’s order. After Nixon v. Herndon, Democrats simply made rules within the party's individual executive committees to bar minorities from participating, which were struck down in Nixon v. Condon in 1932. The Democrats, in typical racist fashion, responded by using state parties to pass rules barring blacks from participation. This decision was upheld in Grovey v. Townsend, which was not overturned until 1944 by Smith v. Allwright. The Texas Democrats responded with their usual ploys and turned to what was known as the "Jaybird system" which used private Democrat clubs to hold white-only votes on a slate of candidates, which were then transferred to the Democrat party itself and put on their primary ballot as the only choices. Terry v. Adams overturned the Jaybird system, prompting the Democrats to institute blocks of unit rule voting procedures as well as the infamous literacy tests and other Jim Crow regulations to specifically block minorities from participating in their primaries. In the end, it took 4 direct Supreme Court orders to end the Democrat's "white primary" system, and after that it took countless additional orders, several acts of Congress, and a constitutional amendment to tear down the Jim Crow codes that preserved the Democrat's white primary for decades beyond the final Supreme Court order ruling it officially unconstitutional.

Hispanics in South Texas were treated especially poorly by the Democrat Party, which relied heavily on a system of political bosses to coerce and intimidate Hispanics into voting for Democrat primary candidates of choice. Though coercion is illegal, this system, known as the Patron system, is still in use to this day by local Democrat parties in some heavy Hispanic communities of the southwest.

The next time Democrats take to the national airwaves to dishonestly accuse Republicans of racial hatred, remember who the historical record up until this very day points to as the real bigots: The Democrat Party. In all possible ways, the Democrat Party is built around the pillars of ultra leftists, many of whom are known participants in racism and/or affiliates of racist hate groups. Consider the Democrat Party of today's heroes and leaders:

- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrat icon and orchestrator of Japanese Internment - Ex-House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, former affiliate of a St. Louis area racist group - Ex-Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd, former Ku Klux Klansman known for making bigoted slurs on national television - Rev. Jesse Jackson, Democrat keynote speaker and race hustler known for making anti-Semitic slurs - Rev. Al Sharpten, Democrat activist and perennial candidate and race hustler known inciting anti-Semitic violence in New York City - Sen. Ernest Hollings, leading Democrat Senator known for use of racial slurs against several minority groups - Lee P. Brown, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat mayor of Houston who won reelection using racial intimidation against Hispanic voters - Andrew Cuomo, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat candidate for NY Governor who made racist statements about a black opponent. - Dan Rather, Democrat CBS news anchor and editorialist known for using anti-black racial epithets on a national radio broadcast - Donna Brazile, former Gore campaign manager known for making anti-white racial attacks. Brazile has also worked for Jackson, Gephardt, and Michael Dukakis.

The simple truth is that the Democrat Party's history during this century is one closely aligned to bigotry in a record stemming largely out of the liberal New Deal era up until the modern day. Bigots are at the center of the Democrat party's current leadership and role models. And in a striking display of hypocrisy, many of the same Democrats who dishonestly shout accusations of "bigotry" at conservatives are practicing bigots of the most disgusting and disreputable kind themselves.

Also check out these references:
http://nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=401
http://newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/democratic-racism/2008/02/25/id/323000

You'll enjoy this one. Note at the end the poor attempt to recover from this statement.