Quote: 

Be George Washington: Beck's 'Challenge for a Year' 

See it Here . . . 

Greetings all,

Dr. Lynn Jensen and I met today with Representative Stan Saylor who is the Majority Whip, the number 3 position in the House leadership.  We presented ourselves as representatives of Docs4patientcare, and in my case, the Health Care Policy Director of the PA Coalition, who were not there to ask for higher physician reimbursement or other special dispensation, but rather to offer our insights and expertise in health care delivery.  We further explained that we also wanted to voice our strong objection to Pennsylvania establishing an ObamaCare compliant exchange.  Lastly as an introduction, we told Representative Saylor that our effort to convince the legislature of the error of Pennsylvania implementing an ObamaCare compliant exchange was a shared endeavor and belief with many grass roots organizations across the state, and a shared opinion with all of the premier conservative national and stated-based conservative think tanks including Heritage Foundation, CATO, Commonwealth, and Mercatus Center.

We began by outlining the underlying cost drivers of unsustainable health care expenditure growth and that ObamaCare not only fails to address those causes but in fact adds to them.  We also described to Representative Saylor that ObamaCare tramples on individual health care freedom, individual rights, and on Pennsylvania state sovereignty.  Lastly we outlined the grossly inaccurate claimed financing of ObamaCare, and why in fact it will incur trillions of dollars of unfunded liability.

Representative Saylor by this point had expressed multiple times his and the unanimous or nearly unanimous Republican memberships' opposition to ObamaCare.  We then pointed out to him that his professed disapproval of ObamaCare was inconsistent with state establishment of an ObamaCare exchange.  Specifically that such action undermines Pennsylvania's legal action against the inidividual mandate that is soon to be considered by the Supreme Court, .  We further explained that forcing the feds set up the exchange that would provide additional standing for further 10th amendment litigation to slow or even stop implementation of ObamaCare. 

Next we argued that the state establishing the exchange give PA little if any true control or flexibility with the exchange, and that any nominal flexibility mitigates none of the malignant consequences of ObamaCare.  We additionally pointed out that the push to establish the exchanges was coming from the big insurance companies who would benefit from the increased regulation and decreased competition resulting from the exchange, gaining access to hundreds of billions of dollars of federal deficit spending for the ObamaCare premium support; and from the consultants and software vendors who would construct the exchanges with tens of millions of Pennsylvania taxpayer dollars.

To his consternation, we related to him that if the Pennsylvania Republican legislature moved ahead with the exchange, they would deservedly receive much of the blame for the malignant outcomes of ObamaCare that would become evident as more of its provisions kicked in.

We concluded out meeting urging him to take the lead in passing a resolution formally rejecting the feds invitation for PA to set up the exchange and to return any exchange federal grant money.  Lastly we encouraged him and the Republican legislature to move ahead with market based health care reform that would actually promote health care security and affordable health care insurance; and with legislation to establish a health care insurance safety net to replace the current financially unsustainable Medicaid program that provides wholly inadequate care.  We referred to him to the American Legislative Exchange Council's State Legislators Guide to Repealing ObamaCare for specific legislative measures to consider.

Action Item:  Contact Representative Saylor by calling his Harrisburg office at 717-783-6426 and/or emailing at ssaylor@pahousegop.com urging him to reject the feds invitation to do their ObamaCare dirty work, and to resist the big insurance and consultant special interest by formally saying no to Pennsylvania setting up an ObamaCare compliant exchange and by returning any federal exchange grant money.  Urge him to take further legislative to slow or stop ObamaCare in Pennsylvania, and to move ahead with true health care reform that promotes health care insurance security and affordability, and a viable health care insurance safety net to replace the broken Medicaid system.

If you would, after taking action please post the action you took on Stop ObamaCare in Pennsylvania.  HIt "like" when you visit.

We can and we will stop ObamaCare in Pennsylvania!

Nick Pandelidis

The following outlines the argument against the exchanges.  Would be useful if and when you visit your PA representatives.

Pennsylvania Established ObamaCare Compliant Exchange Implications

HC costs ramification and causes

Uncontrolled health care cost growth increasingly threatens the financial well-being of individuals and families and small and large businesses, and the fiscal solvency of local, state, and federal governments.

The underlying cost drivers include the 3^rd party payer system, private and public, that disconnects the utilizer of health care services from the payment of those services. It is not insurance in the usual sense but rather a prepayment financial arrangement that promotes overutilization and discourages transparency of cost and quality.

Other significant cost drivers include decreased beneficial market competition forces by injudicious insurance regulation, medical malpractice litigation abuse, and the federal tax policy that promotes employer provided insurance over individually owned insurance. That tax policy not only increases costs because employees have fewer choices and therefore less competition for policies, but this misguided tax rule also causes higher rates of uninsurance since policies are tied to a particular employer and are not portable.

Evils of ObamaCare

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and its 150 new boards and agencies will bureaucratize, regulate, and ration American healthcare to the great detriment of patients, the profession of medicine, and our country.   PPACA will fully realize the bureaucratic nightmare, erosion of physician and patient freedom of choice, and violation of the physician-patient relationship that has been progressively imposed by the 3rd party payer system over the last 20 years.

Government bureaucrats will determine "essential" health care benefits, and doctors and hospitals will have to comply with hundreds of new reporting rules to demonstrate government defined "quality". Beginning in 2015, a "qualified health plan" is allowed to contract with physicians and other medical providers "only if such provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as the (HSS) Secretary may by regulation require."

ObamaCare "reform" fails to address the underlying drivers of uncontrolled health care cost growth but rather contributes further to them. It expands the detrimental 3^rd party system. The law increases health care insurance mandates and regulations that will eliminate all but the largest insurers, will decrease completion, and will lead to higher costs and lower quality. Further ObamaCare provides no substantive tort reform or eliminate the harmful federal tax treatment of individually purchased insurance.

Despite hundreds of billions of dollars of economic strangling new taxes and untenable cuts to Medicare, ObamaCare will result in trillions of dollars of new unfunded liability. Although based on estimates of 19 million persons entering the federally subsidized insurance exchange markets, in fact that number likely to be 3 or 4 times higher. Further federal Medicaid liability will increase by 2 or 3 fold as the numbers of persons qualifying for Medicaid swell. The individual states will also bear new Medicaid liability.

Why state establishing ObamaCare exchanges is a terrible idea

In setting up the exchange or even accepting federal grant money to investigate the exchange confers acceptance and apparent legitimacy to the awful ObamaCare legislation. Moving ahead with the exchange additionally undermines Pennsylvania's argument to the Supreme Court.   Judge Vinson, reflecting on his decision in Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, notes "the severity of that injury [from the PPACA] is undercut by the fact that at least eight of the plaintiff states have represented that they will continue to implement and fully comply with the Act's requirements.

ObamaCare's required reporting to the IRS and Treasury Department, taking over health insurance regulation, and new program and regulatory costs constitute substantial infringement of state sovereignty. In considering the federalism implications of ObamaCare, HHS determined those implications to be 'substantially mitigated' because PPACA 'does not require States to certify an Exchange.' Therefore, when a state chooses to establish an exchange, it voluntarily surrenders its sovereignty.

The concept of exchange suggests promotion of competition with resultant lower costs and higher quality for health care insurance. In fact, the ObamaCare exchanges will be highly regulated and lead to fewer insurance providers and less competition; in turn leading lower quality and higher cost. The cost of running the exchange will add on to the increased costs.

Direct unfunded costs to the states include the cost of running the exchange and the associated bureaucracy. Consultants and vendors of information technology (IT) are swarming the states, urging them to invest in IT to enable Obamacare exchanges. In addition, Pennsylvania will bear a portion of the cost for new enrollees into Medicaid. From the Pennsylvania taxpayers' point of view, it makes no difference whether that cost translates into higher federal taxes, higher state taxes, or more expensive health care insurance. Further, these costs will exacerbate the already challenged state budgets and will have to result in other state programs and services.

The fact that an exchange is state-run does not diminish federal control by one iota. There is nothing that a federal exchange can do that the federal government cannot also force a state-run exchange to do through regulation. Whatever exchange is established must be approved by HHS and any flexibility promised to the states can be eliminated by regulatory pronouncement without recourse. State established ObamaCare exchanges are only as flexible as federal law permits. But all this 'flexibility' essentially allows is the creation of a state and federally-controlled market where the state determines which insurers participate and which plans and coverage are available. In reality, states will only be able to tinker at its edges, or seek minor concessions from Washington.

The exchanges will be a large and powerful new government bureaucracy that administers Obamacare's mandates, subsidies, regulations and rationing including: Determining subsidy levels for insurance for private insurance products; verifying income eligibility and tax credit and cost-sharing subsidies by sending information from applicants to the IRS; verifying exemptions from the ACA individual mandate requirement by sending information from applicants to the IRS; and certifying that an individual is exempt from the individual mandate to purchase coverage due to affordability or other exemptions permitted under the ACA.

The feds will not be eager to step in with their own exchanges. Not only do they lack the capacity; due to goof-ups in the law, they lack even the authority to create and operate the exchanges. Specifically, the PPACA fails to provide funding for federal exchanges, and even more seriously, it doesn't authorize payment through them of the insurance subsidies at the heart of Obamacare. The Obama administration is offering financial inducements to Pennsylvania to create exchanges because the administration knows that every new exchange helps them shield the law from Congress, the courts, and the American people.

The majority of citizens oppose implementation of ObamaCare and that opposition will grow as more of ObamaCare's harmful effects become evident. Why would Pennsylvania state government want to promote implementation on the behalf of the federal government, actively establishing the exchange and then take then appropriately share the blame for its consequences?

What Pennsylvania should do to actually resist implementation of ObamaCare (From American Legislative Exchange Council's "The State Legislators' Guide to Repealing ObamaCare)

First, Pennsylvania should refuse to set up the exchange and return any federal exchange grant money.

The Pennsylvania legislature should pass ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act. This statute prohibits any person, employer, or healthcare provider from being compelled to purchase or provide health insurance; protects the right of a person or employer to pay directly for lawful healthcare services; protects the right of a health care provider to accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services, and protects the existence of a private health insurance market. Passing this act would strengthen Pennsylvania suit against ObamaCare's individual mandate and would provide standing for further 10^th amendment litigation for individuals harmed by the mandate when it goes into effect.

Additional legislation to block ObamaCare in Pennsylvania would include: Introducing a resolution supporting repeal of ObamaCare to send the repeal message to members of your state's congressional delegation; enacting a moratorium on ObamaCare rulemaking which will allow your state to focus its limited regulatory resources on core functions of government; and introducing legislation authorizing your state to seek a federal waiver of ObamaCare's medical loss ratio requirement which will help your state delay implementation of this provision until 2014.

While taking action to oppose implementation of ObamaCare in Pennsylvania and protect our commonwealth's citizens from the harms of ObamaCare and defend its sovereignty, state action should go further and advance true health care reform. Promoting health insurance security, affordable health care insurance, and a health insurance safety net for the poor addresses the health care cost crisis at the state level and is absolutely consistent with our 10^th amendment rights.

Health care financing reform legislation should include: Establishment of a high risk insurance pool for persons with pre-existing conditions to provide access to affordable insurance; provision of safeguards against and reviews of recession of health care coverage; interstate agreements to purchase insurance across state lines; review of and decreasing the number of coverage mandates to allow selling of basic, more affordable insurance; promotion of high deductible policies associated with health savings accounts; compelling of cost transparency of medical goods and services; tort reform; and assistance for the poor to purchase and utilize health insurance including high deductible policies and HSAs. In addition, the legislature should pass a resolution supporting elimination of the federal tax policy that disadvantages those who would buy health insurance on their own, and send that resolution to Pennsylvania's congressional members.

Summary

Pennsylvania establishing an ObamaCare gives little or no actual significant state control of the exchanges and does considerable harm to the commonwealth and its citizens including: Promoting and entrenching ObamaCare and all the entailed harmful provisions; relinquishing Pennsylvania sovereignty rights; and missing opportunities to establish standing for further litigation to prevent implementation of ObamaCare.

If the Pennsylvania government establishes an ObamaCare compliant exchange they will deservedly receive a share of the blame and of citizens' anger for the harm this misguided legislation will cause.

The Pennsylvania legislature should rather take specific and powerful action to prevent ObamaCare in the commonwealth, including refusal to establish an exchange for the fed and returning of federal exchange grant money. The legislature should further work on and pass legislation to truly address the health care insurance cost crisis hurting our economy and threatening the financial wellbeing of individuals and families, small and large businesses, and our local and state governments.

Scenarios

Scenario #1: Pennsylvania government establishes an ObamaCare compliant exchange

• Pros:
  • Nominally gives PA some control and flexibility for the exchanges but that minor flexibility rests on the regulatory pronouncements of HHS and does not mitigate in the least the harm done by ObamaCare
  • Cons:
    • Promotes and entrenches ObamaCare and all its entailed harmful provisions including the health, prosperity, and freedom of the Commonwealth's citizens and the state's already challenging fiscal condition
    • Relinquishes state sovereignty
    • Lost opportunity to obtain standing for further litigation to stop ObamaCare
    • Pennsylvania government would be doing the feds dirty work and would rightfully incur the blame and anger of the Commonwealth's citizens for the harm done by ObamaCare

Scenario #2: Pennsylvania government takes deliberate action to oppose establishment of an exchange

• Pros:
  • Resists implementation of ObamaCare and its entailed harm and gives further opportunity to establish standing for further litigation to slow, mitigate, and even potentially stop ObamaCare in Pennsylvania.
  • Protects Pennsylvania's sovereignty and its citizens' rights
  • Cons: ?

Scenario #3: Pennsylvania government takes deliberate action to oppose establishment of an exchange, and passes state-based true health care financing reform legislation

• Pros:
  • Same as in scenario #2
  • Establishes additional standing for 10^th amendment-based litigation opposing ObamaCare
  • Addresses the critical health care financing issue dragging down our economy and the threatening the wellbeing of Pennsylvania's individuals and families, small and large businesses, and local and state governments.
  • Cons: ?

We need your help to stop a serious threat to the Internet. 

The House's Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Senate's PROTECT IP Act would censor the Internet and create massive legal uncertainty and regulation for websites like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook -- not to mention killing emerging mobile and social startups before they get off the ground. SOPA's regulations leave any website with user-contributed content -- that's pretty much all of social media -- no choice but to pre-screen their site's content for copyright violations, effectively killing them. Court orders may even require DNS providers to block certain websites. Who decides what's infringing, and which sites you can and can't visit? The Federal Government.

Read More & Sign The Petition Here . . . 

If you see a story that you believe would be useful and important to our readers, simply respond to this email with a link and a brief description of why it is important.  (Even if it may be obvious)

Dear Patriot,

Next TJC meeting, Sunday, February 12^th, 7pm at the Temperance House, 5 South State Street, Newtown, PA.  We are having this meeting on Sunday due to our speaker's travel schedule.  We are very pleased to present Belgian and European Member of Parliament Filip Dewiner.  Mr. Dewinter is the leader of the Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) Party in Belgium.  A champion of freedom, sovereignty and national self-determination, Mr. Dewinter will present on the "Defense of the West" and what this means for both Europe and the United States. 

All the best,

Jeff McGeary

Hey All,

Please spread the word on this panel discussion and consider attending.  As per earlier emails, implementing an exchange in PA is de-facto acceptance of ObamaCare. Other states have refused to implement the exchanges in keeping with the spirit of total resistance.  Nick Pandelides is leading the fight for our side and is on the panel.

There will be more coming out shortly on next steps that individuals and groups can do lobby Harrisburg and exert public pressure to have Pennsylvania's collaboration with ObamaCare ended.  You can follow developments on the following facebook page

http://www.facebook.com/stopobamacarepa

The Lehigh Valley COALITION for Health Care Reform presents:

Everything You Wanted to Know About: 

Creating a Health Insurance Exchange in PA

(but didn't know who to ask) 

WHAT:  Debate on the Creation of a Health Care Exchange in PA,                

as mandated by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)   

WHEN:  6:30 - 8 p.m., Wednesday, February 1, 2012  

WHERE:  Ground Floor Meeting Room, Bethlehem Area Public Library

                11 W. Church St., Bethlehem, PA 18018  

WHO:  Panelists include:  

Nick Pandelides, M.D., Vice President, PA Chapter, Docs 4 Patient Care            

Ralph Schmeltz, M.D., Immediate Past President, Pennsylvania Medical Society             

(Additional panelists may participate.)  

ADMISSION:  Free, but space is limited, so please RSVP.  

RSVP:  register at:   www.Meetup.com/Lehigh-Valley-Coalition-for-Health-Care-Reform  

LIVE STREAMING VIDEO: www.ustream.tv/channel/coalition-for-health-care-reform   

THE ISSUE:  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandates that small businesses and individuals must purchase health insurance and obtain government insurance subsidies through state-based federally regulated health insurance exchanges beginning in 2014.  States which do not design and administer federally compliant exchanges will default to a federal system.  A recent PA Insurance Department announcement that a state-based exchange will be created in PA has generated controversy.  Supporters say an exchange designed and administered in PA will serve Pennsylvanians better than one controlled by the federal government.   Opponents say it is inconsistent for the Commonwealth to institute provisions of the PPACA while engaged in the constitutional challenge against the law.  Our experts will present both sides and answer questions to help YOU decide.

The Lehigh Valley COALITION for Health Care Reform is a non-profit, non-partisan grassroots coalition of concerned citizens and health care professionals committed to educating the public about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and other measures and policies impacting America's health.

http://www.meetup.com/Lehigh-Valley-Coalition-for-Health-Care-Reform

Weekly News From Philadelphia ZOA

Shabbat Shalom!

Please join us for our next Quarterly Meeting, Wednesday, Feb. 29, at 7:30 p.m., at Temple Beth Hillel/Beth El, 1001 Remington Rd., Wynnewood, PA. Guest  speaker to be announced. The meeting is free and open to the public.

*             *             *

We are thrilled to be able to bring to Philadelphia Pamela Geller, a modern-day Jewish superheroine who via her Web site, "Atlas Shrugs" (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/); speeches; articles; and books alerts us about the dangers of militant Islam and its accomplices who threaten the U.S., Israel and Western Civilization - and she fights back. Come hear her no-nonsense observations and advice. Her topic: "The March of Muslim Extremists:  Implications for America, Israel and the West and How To Stop It In Its Tracks." Geller's talk will take place on Monday, March 19, at 6:45 p.m., at the Jewish Community Services Building, 2100 Arch Street, Philadelphia. Tickets are $10, free for students. Call us at 215-338-9188 or email us at zoa@netreach.net for tickets.

Today, our college graduates face the highest unemployment rates in history.

American 15-year-olds rank 35th out of 57 industrialized countries in math and literacy.

Americans shouldn't rank 35th in anything!

Join Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Dick Morris and other special speakers Saturday, January 28 for a free town hall to "Restore American Exceptionalism" at 2:00 p.m. at the The Hershey Lodge (325 University Drive) in Hershey. Reserve your free tickets here (http://schoolchoicehershey.eventbrite.com/)!

Let's work together to support the future workforce of America.

Don't miss the chance to ask Dick Morris and our other speakers your questions, Saturday, January 28.

GENERAL ADMISSION IS FREE -- BUT you must reserve your free tickets here (http://schoolchoicehershey.eventbrite.com/)!

Restoring American Exceptionalism is not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. It's an American issue -- our future depends on it! I hope to see you there!

Sincerely,

Jennifer Stefano

Pennsylvania State Director

Americans for Prosperity Foundation

www.putkidsfirst.org (http://www.putkidsfirst.org/)        

Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) is a nationwide organization of citizen-leaders committed to advancing every individual's right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFPF believes reducing the size and intrusiveness of government is the best way to promote individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFPF educates and engages citizens to support restraining state and federal government growth and returning government to its constitutional limits. AFPF is more than 1.8 million activists strong, with activists in all 50 states. AFPF has 34 state chapters and affiliates. More than 90,000 Americans in all 50 states have made a financial contribution to AFP or AFP Foundation.

For more information, visit http://www.americansforprosperityfoundation.com 

On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:34 PM, WILLIAM SPICHER <billsells4u@msn.com> wrote:

Patriots,

 
Things are really  starting to heat up in this campaign to get Sam to the US Senate. We are now looking for volunteers to help us in Chester County, particularly in the northern and northeastern areas of the county. We need people to help get petitions signed, hand out literature in the neighborhoods, work the polls on election day, hold home meetings when Sam is in the area, and who knows what else will come up. Could you please send this out to your group to see if anyone would like to help. They can contact me directly either by email or by phone. Thanks for your help. Looking forward to seeing you at the victory party.

DEAR PATRIOTS,

THERE WILL BE NO JANUARY Valley Forge Patriots Tea Party MEETING !!!

The 2012 election is one of the most important in the history of the USA. Two contests which are very important are the Presidential race and the election of a Senator from PA. In order to allow our membership to learn more about those competing to replace Senator Bob Casey.

The Valley Forge Patriots are hosting a

US Senate Candidate Forum on Feb.3^rd 2012

The participants will be Sam Rohrer, Marc Scaringi, Tom Smith and Steve Welch

The forum will be held at the Franklin Commons on 400 Franklin Ave.in Phoenixville from 6:00PM to 8:00 PM. There is plenty of free parking. Food (pizza, chili, etc) and soft drinks will be available. Food service will start at 5:30PM. Attendance is free (donations welcome).

Please RSVP to www.meetup.com/VFP-TeaParty09/ 

For more information www.vfpatriots.com/ 

Nullify Now! Philadelphia

LISTEN LIVE TO REPATRIOT RADIO

"BETTER THAN EVER"

(all times are eastern)

Friday 10-11pm "Veterans' Weekly Forum" - Rich Davis and David Bellavia   

The Case Against Obamacare: Health Care Policy Series for the 112th Congress

For Tea Parties, this can be used as basic ammunition for letters to the editor, columns for your local news outlet, handouts at public events, emailing the pdf to our elected reps as well as to members, friends and neighbors.

This appears to be an excellent resource; let's make use of it.

Lou Flanagan

The General Wayne Tea Party

The first contests in the race for the Republican nomination are just around the corner. To better inform you, we looked beyond the rhetoric to the candidates' actual records on the issues important to families.

This voter guide outlines candidate stances on issues that are important to the family. We researched the candidates' statements and votes on the ten issues that best give voters an understanding on if the candidates match your values. Please use this resource as you think about who you would like to see be the nominee to challenge President Barack Obama.

Download the free guide and be sure to share this resource with your friends and family before the 2012 primary season begins next month.

A values voter is an informed voter.

Sincerely,

Tony Perkins
President

GLOBAL INTERNET VOTING FIRM BUYS U.S. ELECTION RESULTS REPORTING FIRM -

Read more: 

RedState Morning Briefing

For January 20, 2012

1. Perry Drops Out. Endorses Newt. Will Campaign and Serve.

Sources close to both campaigns tell me that the Governor and Speaker have spoken and Governor Perry will endorse Newt Gingrich. But it will go beyond that.

I'm told reliably that Governor Perry will head up a 10th Amendment project for Speaker Gingrich to rally Governors and state legislators toward a plan of devolving power from Washington. This project will include helping shape the Republican platform for the general election, something small government conservatives have been concerned about.

2. Rick Santorum Won Iowa

By 34 votes, Rick Santorum won Iowa. For the past two weeks we have heard Mitt Romney was the first non-incumbent to win both Iowa and New Hampshire. Wrong!

The Des Moines Register reports Rick Santorum won. More troubling for the Iowa GOP, the GOP reports it will never have a completely accurate vote count because the votes in some precincts have gone missing.

The only thing that can be said for sure is Rick Santorum is the real winner.

If Newt Gingrich now wins South Carolina, we are in for a heck of a ride.

3. Devolve Transportation Spending to States

One of the numerous legislative deadlines that Congress will be forced to confront this session is the expiration of the 8th short-term extension of the 2005 surface transportation authorization law (SAFETEA-LU). With federal transportation spending growing beyond its revenue source, an imbalance between donor and recipient states, inefficient and superfluous construction projects popping up all over the country, and burdensome mass transit mandates on states, it is time to inject some federalism into transportation spending.

Heritage Hotsheet

Experts on the Day's Hottest News

Items for January 15, 2012

 Start a rumor:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is the only person known to have had extensive plastic surgery to make himself look uglier. Sick to death of being admired for his beauty and not his economic brains, Tim "Baywatch" Geithner (as he used to be known) paid over $259,000 to have his face surgically re-constructed to resemble that of the sniggering cartoon character Beavis (from Beavis and Butthead). This lends a poignant twist to his nomination last year as one of People magazine's top 50 beautiful people. Originally, this was ascribed to the fact that Geithner's brother is a vice president at People. In fact, however, it was a tribute by those who remembered just how crazily handsome Geithner used to be. Geithner, however, has no regrets. "The way women used me-it was disgusting. I was nothing more than a piece of meat to them."  

Poll shows most small businesses fear health care law 

A new poll from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce reveals an increasingly frustrated small business community worried about the impact President Obama's health care law may have on their bottom line.

Nearly three-quarters, or 74 percent, say the new law is causing an impediment to job creation.  

Read More . . . 

Gingrich Slams CNN for Marriage Question, Gets Ovation 

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich drew at least two standing ovations just moments into the final South Carolina GOP presidential debate tonight when he criticized CNN moderator John King for opening with "trash," and accused the liberal media of attempting to protect President Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.

King began the two-hour debate from the North Charleston Coliseum with a question on accusations by Gingrich's ex-wife, Marianne, that the former speaker had asked her for permission to have an "open marriage" after she learned he was having an affair with his current wife, the former Callista Bisek.

"As you know, your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News and another interview with The Washington Post and this story has now gone viral on the Internet. In it she says that you came to her in 1999 at a time when you were having an affair. She says you asked her, sir, to enter into an open marriage. Would you like to take some time to respond to that?" asked King.

"No, but I will," snapped Gingrich, who was visibly angered by the question. "I think the destructive, vicious negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate with a topic like that."

Read More . . . 

* VIDEOS * TODAY'S HOT PICKS *  

U.S. May Release Senior Taliban Terrorists

Steve Emerson 

Israel and U.S.: No-Kidding Red Lines

Setting Strategic Limits 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. 

America: The Center-Right Nation

Yoram Ettinger

Charles Manson Energy

Paul Driessen 

Leftists, Islamists to March on Jerusalem

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report 

Today's Hot Topics

We choose, you peruse. 

Haditha: Where Are They (the Accusers) Now?

Diana West 

Poll Shows Immigration Worries Most Americans

Immigration News Update 

Deadly Neglect: Apathy and Denial vs. Act of God

by Dr. James "Jim" Blair, Col Ret, Army AMEDD

Smearing Gingrich

By Jacob Laksin
The media manufactures a phony racism charge.
Read more »
 

Fact Check: Why Rick Perry Is Right About Turkey

By Daniel Greenfield
Does a brutal regime that occupies the territory of an EU member state and supports terrorists really belong in NATO?
Read more »
 

Killing Keystone

By Rich Trzupek
Lies from the president as elite radicals nix jobs for struggling blue-collar workers.
Read more »
 

Big Government vs. the Internet

Putting the Party Before People - Part 1
Jan 19, 2012 12:00 pm

Congressmen Call Obama's Decision on Keystone Foolish and Extreme
Jan 19, 2012 10:35 am

Obama's "Forced" Keystone Decision Rejects Jobs, Energy, and Logic
Jan 19, 2012 10:19 am

A Triple-A Headache
Jan 19, 2012 02:15 am

Iran, the U.S. and the Strait of Hormuz Crisis
Jan 18, 2012 11:38 am

Edible Microchips, Biometric Identity Systems And Mind Reading Computers
Jan 18, 2012 11:15 am

Allen West to President Obama: Please Don't Play the Race Card in 2012
Jan 18, 2012 10:27 am

Oil and Gas Services Avoid Geopolitical Risk: John Stephenson
Jan 18, 2012 10:05 am

America is the world's home base for Christianity and champion defender of Israel.  Islamization in America is therefore a direct threat to the worldwide security of Judaism and Christianity and the traditional American values cherished by millions of Americans.  See foot note 3 below for some passages from the Qur'an that espouse intolerance for Christians, Jews and non-Muslims.

When the liberal media assaults people who try to defend American values against Islamization their attacks:

*    Legitimize groups like CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations).
*    Validate Islam with their Sharia law code of conduct.
*    Include misrepresentations that are intended to impugn our credibility.
*    Employ name calling tactics that scare other people from speaking out.
*    Produce a hostile climate that elected officials may want to avoid.

The left has gone after companies that advertised on Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and other conservatives.  The lefts' attacks against advocates on our side have had a chilling impact on commentators who would otherwise speak freely about the truths of the Islamic code of conduct called Sharia (note 1) and Caliphate (note 2) .    

Consider the following three examples of how The Tampa Tribune has dealt with Florida Family Association's efforts to oppose Islamization in America.
 
First, the Tampa Tribune columnist Joe Henderson began his column in response to Florida Family Association's opposition to the show All-American Muslim with "It's easy to dismiss David Caton as a gasbag, divider, zealot or even a hatemonger."  Click here to read his full article. 

Second, consider the difference between the Tampa Bay Time's (formerly St. Petersburg Times) and The Tampa Tribune's January 10th report regarding Florida Family Association's efforts which challenged a school board for allowing CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) officials to instruct students about Islam, Sharia and Human Rights.  The Tampa Bay Times headline "Florida Family Association's David Caton protests Muslim speaker's visits to Hillsborough School" accurately reports the facts.  Click here to read full report.  The Tampa Tribune headline "CAIR chief says criticism rooted in misconceptions" appears to an apologetic defense for CAIR.  Click here to read The Tribune article. 

Third, The Tampa Tribune reporter who first called Florida Family Association in May 2011 about the organization's report regarding the alleged honor killing of Fatimah Abdallah was more concerned with finding out who told the organization about her death than he was with the incident itself.  The reporter spent about half his time on questions involving how Florida Family Association discovered the death of Fatimah Abdallah rather than on the facts that were revealed.  The lack of facts reported by The Tampa Tribune is bore out in The Tampa Tribune article.  Compare The Tampa Tribune report with the St. Petersburg Times report.  The St. Petersburg Times (now The Tampa Bay Times) article clearly provides much more facts on the case.

We can no longer sit back and allow the liberal media to attack people who speak out against the threat of Islamization and act as an apologist for CAIR.  

Florida Family Association will target more liberal newspapers if this effort is successful.

The following companies advertised on The Tampa Tribune web site on January 18, 2012: AAA, American Signature Furniture, Argosy University, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Capella University, Florida Hospital, Hojo Monitor, MetroPCS, Experian - Mortgage Rates Experts, Prius Toyota, State Farm, TD Bank - Mercantile Bank, Turbotax, Unique Air Services and Weightwatchers.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to the companies that advertised on The Tampa Tribune web site on January 18, 2012.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the "Send Your Message" button.  Because opponents try to use our email system to send opposing messages we NO longer allow for changes in the wording of the subject line or message of the email prepared for you to send to advertisers.

Please click here to send your email to the companies that advertised on The Tampa Tribune web site on January 18, 2012.


Footnote 1.  Sharia law is the Islamic code of conduct which in many cases advocates behavior that conflicts with American laws.  Such conflicts include:  polygamy (a man may marry up to four wives), pedophilia (wives as young as 12, Muhammad's bride Ayesha was 9), genital mutilation of women to force submission, honor killing of barren, divorced, rebellious women and killing of infidels (martyred unbelievers with a special emphasis on Jews and Christians.)

Footnote 2.  Caliphate is the worldwide dominion by an Islamic sort of emperor called Caliph who is charged with enforcing Sharia law on all inhabitants.

Footnote 3.  Passages from the Qur'an which appear to order Muslims to fight those who do not believe in Allah.

Qur'an 9:29  Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Sahih Muslim 30 Muhammad said:  I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

Sahih Muslim 4366 "I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims."

Surah 9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Qur'an 9:73 O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.

Qur'an 9:111  Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed.

Qur'an 9:123 O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness.

FACEBOOK.  We added the Facebook Like key so that you can share Florida Family Association articles with friends.  Simply go to floridafamily.org, select the article page you want to share and click the FLike key at the top of the page.  Make sure that you are on the article page that you want to share with your friends when you click FLike.  The article will post to the top of your Facebook WALL page.  Click on the SHARE or RESHARE link for that article in your Wall page to share with friends. 

Thank you for your support.

If you have difficulty loading the above link please click here or go to http://floridafamily.org/issues.php and locate this issue on the main floridafamily.org web site.

Floridafamily.org 

To Unsubscribe:  Click Here to UNSUBSCRIBE

      Email: ffa@floridafamily.org

Florida Family Association, Inc.  P.O. Box 46547, Tampa, FL 33646-0105  Telephone 813-264-5888

Ron Paul: Wrong on the Taliban  

by Andrew McCarthy 

Gingrich Goes for Gold

Editorial of The New York Sun  

The call by Newt Gingrich for the creation of a commission on gold to examine how America can return to a system of hard money is a step forward for him and the Republican Party as we go into the most formative months of the campaign. The former speaker issued his call at Columbia, South Carolina, at a policy forum on American global leadership. He used the phrase "hard money" to speak of a gold standard of the kind the Founders of America had in mind. It would mean, he said, "you can't just hide from your problems. You've got to solve them."

Mr. Gingrich's call is the most clarion yet among a Republican field that has been dancing around this issue since the start of the campaign. We're delighted - thrilled - to see it, because we have been stressing the centrality of the monetary issue since before this campaign began. Let us say, though, that our country is way past the point where we need another commission. A commission,...

Read the whole entry »

At Least 34 People Killed in Syria

Monitors Are Unable to Quell Violence 

By NADA BAKRI, NYT

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Violence surged in Syria on Tuesday as activists reported that at least 34 people had been killed in several towns and cities across the country, including six soldiers who had defected and three members of the security forces.

The bloodshed, a marked increase even for an uprising that has proved to be among the most violent in the Arab world, came despite the presence of monitors from the Arab League. The deaths underlined the grim trajectory of a conflict that shows little likelihood of a diplomatic breakthrough.

The monitors were sent last month after Syria signed an agreement calling for an end to a government crackdown against protesters, the withdrawal of all military vehicles from the streets and the release of all political prisoners.

In the northern province of Idlib, near the Turkish border, a roadside bomb struck a minibus, killing at least eight passengers, according to the opposition...

Read the whole entry »

Muslim Gangs Drug and Rape Children All Over The UK

Posted by Bill Levinson: kiddie diddling jihadist rape apes turn their amorous attention to little girls, like Mohammad's wife Aisha. "White girls are easy meat," they say, but the issue is not white versus "Asian" but rather civilized people versus Musloid savages.

Muslim Gangs Drug and Rape Children All Over The UK 

Click here to view the embedded video. 

*** PENNSYLVANIA ACTION ALERT! ***     SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR REP. SWANGER'S
"AMERICAN AND PENNSYLVANIA LAWS FOR
PENNSYLVANIA COURTS"     by Lisa Piraneo, Director of Government Relations

As you may know, Pennsylvania State Representative, RoseMarie Swanger introduced House Bill 2029, legislation reaffirming the consideration of "American and Pennsylvania Laws for Pennsylvania Courts."

This common-sense proposal protects Pennsylvanians' individual constitutional rights from foreign laws or legal doctrines where the application of those laws/doctrines would violate those constitutional rights. No particular foreign law is singled out. The proposal applies to them all.

It's that simple.

But as simple and common-sense as Rep. Swanger's bill may be, there are still those like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) who seek to stop her protective measure dead in its tracks. Ms. Swanger has patriotically said that she is willing to confront the critics of her bill-and further that she is "not afraid to stand up for our country and our rights and freedoms." In fact Rep. Swanger feels that it's her duty as a Pennsylvania elected official to do so.

If only we had more like her in our state and federal legislatures!

It is critical that Rep. Swanger's office hears support from Pennsylvanians on this constitutional rights issue. The voice of the grassroots is what is needed to move important legislation like HB 2029 forward and into law!

Can we count on you to take a few moments today and let her hear from you? Please send your written message of support to Rep. Swanger (PLEASE NO PHONE CALLS) either via e-mail: rswanger@pahousegop.com; Facebook: Facebook.com/RepSwanger;

As always, thank you for all of your efforts. You ARE making a difference!    

REMEMBER, YOUR VOICE COUNTS!
IF EACH OF US DOES JUST A LITTLE, TOGETHER WE CAN
ACCOMPLISH A LOT!

January 19, 2012

 

How we wish it weren't so, but the facts are clear. Numerous articles and columns, including the one by Barry Rubin (below), document how the Obama administration is sidling up to the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is not only affecting our foreign policy vis a vis countries like Egypt. It's also affecting our domestic national security apparatus, as we'll show you in an upcoming email. "Troubling" does not adequately define what is happening.

  This resource will arm you with the facts and documentation you need to understand why the MB is such a threat and who its front organizations are in the U.S. Not only will you be informed, but you can share this with others who don't yet understand exactly what we're up against here!

Obama Supports the Muslim Brotherhood-Muslim Brotherhood Sees Weakness

  By Barry Rubin
  Not only is the Obama Administration, as I've written for the last year, favoring radical Islamist forces-despite the fact that these are anti-Western, pro-terrorism, building dictatorships, and openly antisemitic and anti-Christian-but now even the establishment media is admitting it.

A friend of mine said, "Oh, they are probably saying that the Brotherhood is sounding radical publicly but privately reassuring U.S. officials that they are moderate."

"No," I replied. "That's the old way of doing things when it was important to be, or at least to pretend to be, somewhat balanced. Now they say that the Brotherhood sounds moderate both publicly-ignoring all evidence to the contrary-and privately. Those who disagree are merely Republicans trying to defeat Obama in the election, and so should be ignored. The mass media today in such matters is worse than our worst nightmares of a decade ago."

And so for the first time in U.S. history an American government, to the applause of the vast majority of the mass media, is backing an anti-American authoritarian movement. Here's how the New York Times explains it:

"The Obama administration has begun to reverse decades of mistrust and hostility as it seeks to forge closer ties with an organization [the Muslim Brotherhood] once viewed as irreconcilably opposed to United States interests."

Any serious foreign policy analyst should see three red flags in this paragraph:

First, of course the U.S. government must deal with Egypt's government but that doesn't mean it should publicly proclaim that the Brotherhood is a nice group and give what amounts to an unconditional endorsement of it.

Indeed, the Obama Administration and media are using a cheap trick. They confuse the proper, responsible policy of dealing with those in power wihile doi ng something quite beyond that: a self-destructive policy of rushing to insist that sworn enemies of freedom and the United States are really nice guys and there's no problem with having them in power.

As I've written before, it's possible to elect a dictatorship. The Egyptian people have a right to do so but that doesn't mean the West should like it.

Doesn't anyone remember that the Obama Administration has been apologizing for all the bad regimes America supported in the past? Now Obama is using the exact same argument: claiming that we must be nice to them because they are in power. What's the difference between that and the historic relationship to the Mubarak regime? At least Mubarak supported U.S. interests. These people don't. They have openly supported murdering Americans, especially in Iraq!

In 1979 an Islamist revolution occurred in Iran. The United States quickly recognized that new regime and tried to be buddies with it. We all know how that worked out.

Second, why should the burden of reversing "decades of mistrust and hostility" be exclusively on the United States. Doesn't the Brotherhood, which benefits from U.S. engagement, need to do that also or even beforehand? Why is there no conditionality here, no hint that the Obama Administration or New York Times understands how hostile the Brotherhood has been and continues to be? If the U.S. president won't demand a quid pro quo (something in exchange for his concessions) who is going to look after U.S. interests?

Third, by saying the Brotherhood was "once viewed as irreconcilably opposed to United States interests" the author suggests this is no longer true. We know that the Obama Administration thinks the Brotherhood has changed. Yet there is no evidence in terms of deeds, ideology, or statement made in Arabic that the Brotherhood has done so.

Thus, Obama has given away all U.S. leverage and assets beforehand, just as he did by announcing a year ago, during the revolution's opening days, that he would be happy to accept a Muslim Brotherhood government.

So the Brotherhood's moderation is assumed. The science is settled; the debate is over.

"The reversal also reflects the administration's growing acceptance of the Brotherhood's repeated assurances that its lawmakers want to build a modern democracy that will respect individual freedoms, free markets and international commitments, including Egypt's treaty with Israel."

Wow, yes that's it. The Obama Administration believes what the Brotherhood says and not what has been said by Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others including many moderate Egyptians. No one has bothered to look at the actual radical record of Brotherhood lawmakers in the last parliament! Obama has chosen his friends and he's on the wrong side.


(Continue reading article HERE)
 

White House Keystone Cops, Continued 

Posted: 19 Jan 2012 10:51 AM PST

(Steven Hayward)

I can't add much to John's indignation about the economic illiteracy of Obama's craven decision to block the Keystone pipeline, but I can note how it is also environmentally stupid.  First, even if you've drunk double-shots of the climate change Kool Aid, blocking the Keystone pipeline not only won't have any effect on greenhouse gas emissions, it will actually increase them, along with environmental risks generally.

Why?  Simple: Canada will now ship their oil to China by tanker, which will involve higher greenhouse gas emissions from shipping that you'd wouldn't have by sending it to us by pipeline.  Second, instead of importing 1 million barrels of day of oil by pipeline from Canada, we'll substitute that million barrels by importing it by tanker from the Middle East and Africa, thereby doubling the shipping-related greenhouse gas emission over the pipeline option.*

Second, Canada is going to ship out their oil from a northern latitude port in British Columbia.  Shipping oil by tanker has a spill rate about six times higher than spills from offshore oil rigs or pipelines.  You'd think after the ExxonValdez environmentalists would be able to calculate the simple risk tradeoff here involving a northern cold water port, except that environmentalists believe in a sentimental world without tradeoffs.  (I like the Wall Street Journal's turn of phrase this morning about environmentalists making Keystone "a station of the green cross."  Yup, that about nails it.)

Third, anyone think China will refine the oil the same way as the U.S.?  That is, do you think China will use their Canadian-sourced oil with the same emission reduction requirements for conventional air pollutants as we do?  Yeah, me neither.

Finally, let's have a look at the data on oils spills from pipelines in the U.S. and all sources.  As with air travel, automobile fatalities, and other mass risks, the long-term trend of oil spills from tankers and pipelines alike has experienced a long-term declining trend.  According to research by Dagmar Schmidt Etkin, the leading researcher on oil spill statistics, between the decade of the 1970s and today, average annual oil spill amounts from all sources (oil well blowouts, tanker accidents, refinery spills, rail transit accidents, etc.) fell 77 percent, and spills from pipeline accidents fell 70 percent (see Figure 1).  (See Analysis of U.S. Oil Spillage, API Publication 356, August 2009.)

Figure 1: Average Annual Petroleum Industry Oil Spillage by Decade

The environmental risk of pipeline spills is also overblown.  A break in an ExxonMobil oil pipeline on July 1 of last year near Billings, Montana, released about 1,000 barrels of oil into the Yellowstone River and deepened the controversy over Keystone.  The EPA reported that its water pollution sampling of the affected area of the river found "no petroleum hydrocarbons above drinking water standards in that region," while its air pollution tests finds that "there continues to be no public health concerns resulting from the release of oil into the river."

That sure doesn't fit the disaster narrative.

* I note even the Washington Post editorial board sees it our way:

Without the pipeline, Canada would still export its bitumen - with long-term trends in the global market, it's far too valuable to keep in the ground - but it would go to China. And, as a State Department report found, U.S. refineries would still import low-quality crude - just from the Middle East. Stopping the pipeline, then, wouldn't do anything to reduce global warming, but it would almost certainly require more oil to be transported across oceans in tankers.

Suicide Watch, Continued 

Posted: 19 Jan 2012 10:45 AM PST

(Steven Hayward)

I'm having way too much fun re-reading James Burnham's Suicide of the West, and can't resist sharing a few more gems from this wonderful book.  Back in the 1960s we began to speak of "limousine liberals," the worst being those who supported forced busing to achieve racial integration but sent their own kids to exclusive and homogeneous private schools.  Today we have "Gulfstream liberals" who jet between their multiple mansions and hector us about our carbon footprint while excusing their own through bogus "carbon offsets."  Burnham had their number (page 190-191):

The more significant achievement of liberalism, by which it confirms its claim to being a major ideology, is its ability to handle the problem of guilt for large numbers of persons without costing them undue personal inconvenience.  This is does by elevating the problem to representational, symbolic, and institutional levels.  It is not necessary for me to go in person to the slum, jungle, prison, Southern restaurant, state house, or voting precinct and there take a direct hand in accomplishing the reform that will unblock the road to peace, justice, and well-being.  Thanks to the reassuring provisions of liberal ideology, I can go about my ordinary business and meanwhile take sufficient account of my moral duties by affirming my loyalty to the correct egalitarian principles, voting for the correct candidates, praising the activists and contributing to their defense funds when they get into trouble, and joining promptly in the outcry against reactionaries who pop up now and then in a desperate effort to preserve power and privilege.

A PolitiFact case study 

Posted: 19 Jan 2012 06:41 AM PST

(Scott Johnson)

We took a look at the phenomenon of political fact-checkers in "Who will fact check the fact checkers?" The post drew attention to Mark Hemingway's Weekly Standard cover story "Lies, damned lies, and 'fact-checking.'" Hemingway traced the rage for political fact-checking back to PolitiFact:

Launched in 2007, PolitiFact purports to judge the factual accuracy of statements from politicians and other prominent national figures.

 

A statement is presented in bold type at the top of the page, usually accompanied by a picture of the speaker. Off to the side is a "Truth-O-Meter" graphic depicting an old-school instrument gauge. The Truth-O-Meter displays a red, yellow, or green light depending on whether the statement is rated "true," "mostly true," "half true," "mostly false," "false." or "pants on fire!" (To drive the point home, on the website the "pants on fire!" rating is accompanied by animated flames.) Below the Truth-O-Meter is a short explanation from PolitiFact's editors justifying their rating.

 

The feature quickly gained popularity, and in 2009 the St. Petersburg Times won a Pulitzer Prize for PolitiFact, endowing the innovation with a great deal of credibility. "According to the Pulitzer Prize=winning PolitFact . . . " has now become a kind of Beltway Tourette syndrome, a phrase sputtered by journalists and politicians alike in an attempt to buttress their arguments.

 

If the stated goal seems simple enough - providing an impartial referee to help readers sort out acrimonious and hyperbolic political disputes - in practice PolitiFact does nothing of the sort.

Another Romney Financial Scandal 

Posted: 18 Jan 2012 06:02 PM PST

(John Hinderaker)

ABC News has decided to sit on what apparently is an explosive interview with Newt Gingrich's first wife. Why? ABC wants Newt to do well in Saturday's South Carolina primary. The story will come out eventually, of course, but not before Gingrich's attacks have weakened Mitt Romney, the eventual GOP nominee.

But ABC isn't just relying on killing news stories to subvert Romney's campaign. Today ABC made a positive contribution to President Obama's reelection campaign-one of countless such that we will see between now and November-with this headline: Romney parks millions in Cayman Islands. Take that, Mitt-what an image! Romney is a tax cheat who hides his fortune in the notorious Caymans. Right?

 01/19/2012

Thank you Mitt Romney

Jan 19, 2012 05:13 am | Coach Collins

By Ron Reale, staff writer

I don't like Mitt Romney. At all. I don't trust Mitt Romney. That said, I have to thank Mitt Romney.

Because of his capitalist connections with Bain Capital, we are able to watch (and identify) the anti-American socialists as they come apart at the seams. Through the attacks on Romney and his building and dismantling businesses for profit, we are watching the attempted rise of the Socialist European workers model. This is Obama's vision of America, this is the message his "occupier" groups have been created to spread.

These people have somehow come to believe that once you are hired, you cannot be fired. Years and years of government and union corruption and influence have turned them into worker trolls, ignorant of the workings or freedoms afforded by capitalism.

Is there any capitalist or free American citizen that understands the Constitution that actually believes that what anyone else earns is any of their ... Continue Reading:Thank you Mitt Romney

  read more

American Minute January 18

Jan 18, 2012 05:13 pm | Coach Collins

By Bill Federer, staff writer

One of the five greatest Senators in U.S. history, the State of New Hampshire placed his statue in the U.S. Capitol's Statuary Hall. His career spanned almost four decades, serving as Secretary of State for Presidents William Harrison, John Tyler and Millard Fillmore. His name was Daniel Webster, born JANUARY 18, 1782. From a New Hampshire farm, he attended Dartmouth College and became the highest paid attorney of his day. He fought the slave trade and negotiated the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, which set the nation's Northeast boundary. When South Carolina threatened nullification, he stated: "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!" Addressing the New York Historical Society, 1852, Daniel Webster stated: "If we and our posterity...live always in the fear of God and shall respect His Commandments...we may have the highest hopes of the future fortunes of our country....But if we...neglect religious instruction and authority; violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle ... Continue Reading:American Minute January 18

  read more

Wisconsin Democrats make Ian "**** The Troops" Murphy the face of their recall Walker effort

Jan 18, 2012 01:13 pm | Coach Collins

By Kevin "Coach" Collins

 The Democrats in Wisconsin will sink to any level to reestablish the union shakes down schemes cancelled by Governor Scott Walker's agenda. They will join with anyone who hates Walker even Ian Murphy an anti-American blogger from Buffalo who is a hero to the left. 

Murphy reminds the unbiased reader of the dweeb in school who stood up and spewed four letter words at the teacher to suck up to the "cool" kids. Now he is attacking America to suck up to leftist Democrats like State Senator Tim Cullen who will run against Walker if the recall petitions are in order.

Murphy became a hero to anti-American Democrats through his editorial, "**** The Troops" which must have made the gang in Madison swoon. Here are some of the things he wrote about the people who risk their lives for our safety and our American values. Remember this guy is a hero ... Continue Reading:Wisconsin Democrats make Ian "**** The Troops" Murphy the face of their recall Walker effort

 read more

If you wish to sell a house in 2013 and beyond  

haven't had time to research this but still worth the read. if its true then its another reason to get rid of Obama!

If you own a house....you must read this.  Here's yet another surprise buried in the Obamacare Bill.

http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home

The National Association of REALTORS is all over this and working to get it  repealed,  before it takes  effect.  But,  I  am very pleased we aren't the only ones who know about this ploy to  steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners.   How many REALTORS do you think will vote Democrat in 2012? 

Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it?  That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc.  When did this happen?  It's in the health care bill and goes into effect in 2013. 

Why 2013?   Could it be to come to light AFTER the 2012 elections?  So, this is "change  you can believe in"?  Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax.  If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200  tax.  

This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes.  Does this make your November and 2012 vote more important?

Oh, you weren't aware this was in the Obamacare bill?  Guess what, you aren't alone. 

There are more than a few  members of Congress that aren't aware of it either  http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home 

Dennis

Read more: 

Alexander's Essay - January 19, 2012

The Problem With Rich Republicans

"As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature." --Alexander Hamilton, 1788

A week before the unwarranted criticism of Mitt Romney's tenure at Bain Capital, I had a debate with a friend who is himself a successful venture capitalist. Our debate was about the rights and responsibilities that attend free enterprise capitalism.

I asserted that one of his partners, who amassed a great fortune from "payday loans," a particularly egregious form of usury akin to loan sharking but targeting mostly those with low income, had ethical and moral obligations associated with his wealth.

My friend feigned SHOCK that I would suggest such responsibilities exist, given my unmitigated support for free enterprise, my fervent defense of the accumulation of wealth and my condemnation of Leftist class warfare politics. He acted as if the mere mention of such obligations was tantamount to supporting Democratic Socialism.

Of course, his reaction framed a false dichotomy that often emerges when conservatives mention rights and responsibilities in connection with wealth. He knew better than to question my devotion to Liberty, including first and foremost, my advocacy for Essential Liberty and free enterprise as foundational tenets sustaining our Republic.

Indeed, there is an enormous difference between ethical and moral obligations according to the dictates of one's conscience, and Leftist endeavors to enforce their interpretation of those obligations through implementation of socialist economic policies, which inevitably result in trickle-up poverty. Those differences need to be elucidated, not obfuscated.

What obligations are associated with wealth? Post Your Opinion

The failure of socialist doctrine was evident long before the word "socialism" became part of the common lexicon. In 1766, for example, Founder Benjamin Franklin wrote in "Management of the Poor," "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

Unfortunately, that lesson is lost on the Left today, as they endeavor to undermine the authority of our Constitution by replacing Rule of Law with rule of men, and enacting economic policies that are anathema to Liberty.

That notwithstanding, like it or not, ethical and moral obligations are irrevocably linked to our vocations, including those that produce great wealth. How we respond to these obligations will, in large measure, determine whether our Republic can transcend the "Fatal Cycle of Democracy": From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to courage; From courage to Liberty (Rule of Law); From Liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage (rule of men).

Though my friend's investment partner has the legal right to make as much money as he can on "payday loans," that does not exclude ethical and moral questions regarding how he makes his money and to what benefit or detriment of others. He is free to make and dispense with his wealth as his conscience prescribes, as we all should be. He is also free to insulate and isolate his conscience from the overarching ethical and moral dictates that inform the consciences of most Americans. He is free to justify that disconnect with all manner of rationalizations, as too many very wealthy people are predisposed to do. But those freedoms have inescapable consequences both for the individual and our country.

Too often, conservative leaders, both elected and in policy organizations, hide from mentioning wealth-related obligations for fear of offending those who butter their bread. But the average donation in support of The Patriot Post from our grassroots countrymen is less than $50 -- so we are not beholden to a few wealthy donors, not that having such donor support would influence our message one way or the other.

I believe that conservatives fail to acknowledge the moral and ethical responsibilities related to material wealth at great peril to Liberty.

Is the aggregation of wealth threat to Liberty? Post Your Opinion

So, first, who are "the rich"? That subjective opinion varies widely across our nation, for everyone has more than someone.

Barack Hussein Obama, in his classist rhetoric, claims that couples earning more than $250,000 per year and individuals earning more than $200,000 are rich. In reality, however, a lifestyle that most people consider "rich" -- living within gated communities; owning multiple homes; commuting in private aircraft, boats and expensive autos; recreating with other rich and famous folks (Obama's lifestyle) -- requires a much higher income and substantial net worth.

Of course, a well-kept secret is that there are plenty of rich on the Left, and because of the seductive nature of wealth and its influence on those who hold it, I believe they have wealthy conservatives badly outnumbered. Inheritance welfare liberalism, like welfare liberalism and dependence upon the state, has produced generations of Useful Idiots. In terms of their foundational character, liberals who are dependent on inherited wealth and welfare recipients who are dependent on the state for their sustenance never embraced self-reliance as the essential ingredient of a free society.

Unfortunately, too often there is little that distinguishes the Leftist rich from most of ours, other than the fact that limo-liberals are burdened with the hypocrisy of holding great wealth while advocating socialist policies for everyone else. For the elitists on the Left, wealth is evil only when in the hands of those who hold opposing philosophies and worldviews.

So, what are the implications if Mitt Romney, a rich white guy who amassed millions as a venture capitalist, wins the Republican nomination?

Well, presidential elections tend to be decided by Independent voters in the gap between Republicans and Democrats, and that is truer than ever in this election. Thus, it is important to understand that the concentration of wealth in America concerns a much broader cross section of voters than just Leftist occupiers. According to reputable polling firms, a substantial majority of Americans are concerned about the aggregation of wealth, particularly of the "Wall Street" variety.

Obama and his Leftmedia sycophants have succeeded in elevating this conflict above many other political issues.

The recent criticism of Romney's role at Bain Capital is a strawman, a classist proxy target for Obama if he opposes Romney. The fact is, neither Bain Capital nor Romney were, or are, heartless leveraged buyout liquidators. Romney has his faults, but he is no "vulture capitalist" as Rick Perry labeled him.

What concerns me more about Romney is that 26 of the 29 members of Congress who received the largest contributions from Bain executives since 2000 were Democrats. Indeed, Bain executives were major supporters of Weiner, Franken, Kerry and Kennedy. Of course, most of the money flowing from Wall Street to Washington supports Democrats.

Romney has thus far politically capitalized on his fortunes made at Bain by rightly claiming his business experience is a substantial qualification for the office of president. However, he needs to frame his wealth in the context of the obligations incumbent upon it. Unfortunately, to date, he has avoided doing so.

What does Romney need to say about his wealth? Post Your Opinion

There are legitimate concerns about the implications of wealth aggregation on Liberty, and the only way to defuse those concerns is to address them directly.

Obama's compulsory socialist solution for addressing those concerns was outlined by Karl Marx: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Historically, however, it is the voluntary Christian context for wealth that is most compatible with Liberty. Long before the tyranny of statist Marxism emerged, a far superior framework for the ethical and moral obligations connected to wealth was outlined in the Gospel according to Luke, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be expected; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

It is that context to which Romney subscribes, with the subscript of the Book of Mormon. That he should make plain and do it now.

Obama's classist rhetoric on economic disparity has been very effective, and will be central to his political strategy in the upcoming general election. Like a cruise ship captain who detours from the authorized course, Obama's detour from the course of Liberty and free enterprise authorized by our Constitution, with the help of Leftists and Republicrats in Congress, will sink our ship.

If Romney is the nominee, he must boldly distinguish the moral and ethical obligations of his wealth within the framework of Liberty as "endowed by our Creator," opposed to Obama's socialist agenda. Romney's accumulated wealth is his "Achilles' heel." Romney will grease the skids for Obama to win the class warfare debate unless he frames that debate now.

Regardless of individual net worth, virtue related to wealth is shaped not so much by what we own, but by what owns us. I hope Romney has demonstrated great virtue through an outstanding record of generosity. If not, then I hope enough Independents are prepared to vote against Obama, regardless of who is on the Republican ticket.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Libertas aut Mortis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

Republican Presidential Candidates Embrace Medicare Premium Support

Last week in New Hampshire, Republican presidential candidates touted the benefits of a Medicare premium support system - the approach to entitlement reform embraced by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and The Heritage Foundation.

Ryan's recent partnership with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) helped thrust the idea of premium support back into the national spotlight. Their bipartisan framework represented a breakthrough on Capitol Hill after liberals spent much of the year making false charges about Ryan's plan.

Given the misleading information about premium support, let's first take a moment to explain what it is. Heritage's Bob Moffit and Kate Nix put it this way:

Under premium support, Medicare would become a real insurance program, not merely an outdated mechanism to reimburse specific services. Receiving fixed financial assistance to offset the cost of health insurance would permit seniors to choose the health plan that works best for them, rather than being locked into a federally defined benefits package and forced to pay a second premium for supplemental private insurance to cover Medicare's gaps.

Pressed by NBC's David Gregory about Ryan's plan and the premium support model, the GOP candidates voiced approval for the approach.

Read the candidates' remarks on The Foundry >>

January 19, 2012


  newt's ex-wife drops a bomb   
The speculation about what Newt Gingrich's ex-wife Marianne told ABC News was burning up the Internet last night. Today, we know a bit more as ABC News has released a clip from the two-hour interview. Does this interview change the way you feel about the candidate? Watch the clip HERE.

  NYC BOMB PLOT EXPOSED ON 'REAL NEWS'
GBTV's "Real News from The Blaze" premiered last night. One of the powerful stories in the debut program focused on a little-known Che Guevara plot to blow up popular tourist locations in New York City. You can see a free clip of this segment from the new daily program that is going to turn the network news business on its side HERE.

  GOP SAYS SANTORUM WON IOWA AFTER ALL   
The day after the Iowa Caucuses, Mitt Romney was celebrating a narrow, eight vote victory. A recount and review of the caucus votes has changed the results from Iowa. The GOP is now stating that Rick Santorum was the official winner. Find out how this impacts the distribution of delegates HERE.

  RICK PERRY DROPS OUT OF THE 2012 RACE BEFORE TONIghT'S DEBATE
Despite a strong showing in the most recent debate, Rick Perry has withdrawn from the race to be the Republican Presidential candidate. Watch his official statement and see who he endorsed HERE.

was the u.s. hit by economic terrorists?
The 2008 financial crisis was one of the worst ever seen in America. But, was the meltdown of the financial system just a natural occurance, or was it a well-planned attack designed to bring our capitalist system down? Learn about the evidence that points to the answer "yes" HERE.  

Thursday, January 19, 2012

To: Friends & Supporters

From: Gary L. Bauer


COUNTDOWN TO VICTORY: 292 DAYS TO THE 2012 ELECTIONS


The Error Of Inevitability

For weeks we have been told that Mitt Romney was the inevitable nominee. We were told that the race would be over after South Carolina, after Romney had accomplished an historic feat in sweeping the first three early voting states -- Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. How things can change in a day!

First, news broke this morning that Romney did not win Iowa by eight votes after all. Senator Rick Santorum has been declared the certified winner of the Iowa caucuses. Official recounts put Santorum ahead of Romney by 34 votes. That is an incredible accomplishment given how dramatically Senator Santorum was outspent.

After Romney's predictable win in New Hampshire, his own "backyard," the fight turned to South Carolina. Again Romney appeared poised to emerge on top of a divided field. But Newt Gingrich has been surging in the polls. Yesterday he got a nod from Sarah Palin, and this morning Texas Governor Rick Perry dropped out and endorsed Gingrich. A new Rasmussen poll finds Gingrich leading Romney in South Carolina by two points.

My point is simply this: Let's not cut this process short. There is a very real possibility that instead of Romney going 3 and 0, each of the top contenders will have won one state -- Santorum in Iowa, Romney in New Hampshire and Gingrich in South Carolina.

Or if my guy, Senator Santorum, surges as he did in the last 48 hours before the Iowa vote, he would have two victories to Romney's one. By the way, Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, also endorsed Santorum today, as have an increasing number of pro-family leaders.

We know one candidate won't drop out until the bitter end -- Ron Paul. And I don't think it would be a good thing for the Republican Party to have an extended contest in which Ron Paul is the only name on ballot after ballot amassing delegates to the convention by default, as the only alternative to Romney.


Media Meddling

Just as Newt Gingrich is starting to gain traction, ABC News is set to air an interview tonight with Marianne Gingrich, his second wife. According to reports, she levels some stunning allegations and concludes that he "lacks the moral character to be president."

Newt Gingrich has admitted to a troubled marital history. In a 2007 interview with Dr. James Dobson, Gingrich admitted to marital failings and "periods of weakness" that he was "not in any way proud of." Nevertheless, I suspect this is still news to many and seeing Marianne Gingrich and hearing her side of the story could influence many votes on the eve of the South Carolina primary.

There is also a debate tonight on CNN. Will the issue be brought up? Will conservative voters in South Carolina extend some grace to Gingrich? Will they side with Santorum? Or will Mitt get his momentum back? We will find out Saturday night.

But the media's attention to Gingrich in this instance is just one more example of how deeply big media is in the back pocket of the American left. When Bill Clinton was impeached, the media rushed to defend him from Republican extremists who were supposedly trying to criminalize his personal life. But the issue was perjury and obstruction of justice.

John Kerry was divorced too, but the media never put his ex-wife on national television. It was reportedly widely known among many "journalists" that John Edwards was not faithful, but they ignored the story and left it to a tabloid to report the truth.

The New York Times did not fail to report rumors of an alleged affair between John McCain and a lobbyist. The Times eventually had to settle a defamation lawsuit as a result. We have yet to see Barack Obama's college transcripts, but somehow the media got a copy of Rick Perry's. The list goes on.

I know this is a difficult issue for Christians. Of course we want our leaders to be men and women of strong moral character and neither party has a lock on virtue. But the left-wing media have become willing mouthpieces of the Democrat Party, eager to expose every flaw in any conservative candidate, while hiding the sins of liberals.

My friends, we know there are no sinless candidates on the ballot and I fear we will see more of these "revelations" throughout this campaign. Please do not let the media's hatchet jobs and hit pieces demoralize you and keep you away from the ballot box. Be discerning and be active!


Reaction

Your reaction to yesterday's item about Barack Obama blocking construction of the Keystone XL pipeline was intense. It was a shocking decision that caught many of the president's media cheerleaders off-guard as well. Consider these editorials from two leading national papers.

From the Washington Post:

"On Tuesday, President Obama's Jobs Council reminded the nation that it is still hooked on fossil fuels, and will be for a long time. 'Continuing to deliver inexpensive and reliable energy,' the council reported, 'is going to require the United States to optimize all of its natural resources and construct pathways (pipelines, transmission and distribution) to deliver electricity and fuel.'

"It added that regulatory 'and permitting obstacles that could threaten the development of some energy projects, negatively impact jobs and weaken our energy infrastructure need to be addressed.' Mr. Obama's Jobs Council could start by calling out ... the Obama administration. ...

"We almost hope this was a political call because, on the substance, there should be no question. Without the pipeline, Canada would still export its bitumen ... but it would go to China. And, as a State Department report found, U.S. refineries would still import low-quality crude -- just from the Middle East. ... Finally, pipeline skeptics dispute the estimates of the number of jobs that the project would create. But, clearly, constructing the pipeline would still result in job gains during a sluggish economic recovery."

From the Chicago Tribune:

"Keystone should be approved. This is a good project. It will give us energy and give us jobs. You want stimulus? This is a $7 billion deal to be done with private-sector funding. ...

"Blocking construction of the Keystone pipeline became the No. 1 objective of the green lobby, which raised concerns that construction and operation would pollute aquifers and destroy wildlife habitats. There just isn't much evidence for those threats, though. Pipelines are the safest way to transport oil. The designers of this particular pipeline engineered it with lavish safeguards. ...

"Obama made a decision that will deny the U.S. a reliable source of oil. Note that Canada has never threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz. Obama made a decision that will cost the U.S. good jobs. He seems to think those jobs will still be there when he gets around to making a decision on the pipeline. But they may well be gone for good."

Today's Headlines:  Thursday, January 19, 2012

Iowa GOP Chairman: 8 Iowa Precincts 'Just Weren't Able' to Submit Their Vote Totals

Obama Nixes Job-Creating Pipeline 11 Months After Launching Plan With Canada to Boost Growth on Both Sides of Border

One Mexican State Bordering The US Was Deadlier Than All of Afghanistan Last Year

Please make a much-appreciated donation to the Media Research Center. We pledge to make every dollar count. 
Romney, Other 2012 Hopefuls, Back Keystone XL Pipeline That Obama Rejected

Obama Blames Republicans, Hides Behind His Own State Department, in Rejecting Keystone Pipeline
  Final Count in Iowa: Santorum up 34 Votes over Romney--8 Precincts Will Never be Counted  

Gingrich's Aversion to Shari'a Stems From His Concern About 'Stealth Jihad'

Romney: Gingrich Taking Credit for Job Creation Is Like Al Gore Taking Credit for the Internet

House GOP Freshmen to Harry Reid: 'Man Up, Get in the Ring' and Pass a Budget

Activist Group Pushes Video to 'Train' Educators How to Teach 6-12 Year-Olds About Gays and Lesbians

Gingrich Calls His Plan the 'Mitt Romney Flat Tax'

Evangelical Group Scores With 'John 3:16' Ad During Broncos-Patriots Game

Obama to Campaign in 5 States Following State of the Union Speech

ABC News to Air Interview with Gingrich's Ex-Wife Just Before Critical SC Primary

COMMENTARY:

Time to Purge the Republican Party
By Ben Shapiro
The Republican Party is about to nominate Mitt Romney because it is a party in crisis. Instead of focusing on the cheating husband - Barack Obama - Republicans are idiotically focusing on their internal differences.

New Jersey's Conservative Renaissance
By Alan Caruba
It was quite a sight. The Republican Governor of New Jersey strode into the cavernous legislative chamber in the Trenton statehouse, filled mostly with Democrats, and proceeded to receive one round of applause after another.

NEWSPAPER ROUNDUP:

Cranston florists refuse to deliver roses to RI atheist in prayer banner case
Government survey finds that 20 percent of Americans suffer from mental illness
Gingrich: I'd like Palin in my administration
Fed pushes for government action to help revive housing
Occupiers take a break from protesting to marry
Newt Gingrich on ex-wife: 20-year-old story
WHO: Abortion rates are higher in countries where the procedure is illegal
While Romney skips 'personhood' forum, his rivals tout their prolife credentials
Bill Clinton: MSNBC is 'our version of Fox'
David Axelrod to lead new political institute
GOP poll: Mitt Romney leads Obama in 5 of 6 swing states
Where is Casey Anthony? Spotlight shines on heavily guarded Palm City church

Obama for America 2012 TV AD - The Facts About President Obama's Energy Record

Yes, the phrase "secretive oil billionaires" is actually in the ad.

The Real "Che"

Mercedes Benz made a bizarre decision to feature mass murderer Che Guevara in a series of commercials for their luxury cars. Nothing screams luxury like a violent Marxist revolutionary who executed countless people in cold blood, right? Since Hollywood actually thinks Che is cool and some sort of freedom fighter, "Real News from The Blaze" decided to set the record straight on Che. Check it out on GBTV HERE and tune in to "Real News from The Blaze" every night at 7pm ET on GBTV!

Being George Washington Challenge

If you've read Glenn's book on Washington you probably understand just how hard it is to be that kind of man. The traits he is known for-honesty, courage and honor-did not come naturally to him, he worked hard at them every day. It's often said that it takes 30 days to form a habit.  We're going to put that to the test.  Each month for the next year Glenn will challenge himself and his audience to become better citizens and human beings one small step at a time. The first challenge for the month of January? Diligence. Diligence means "persevering application"-and what better to start a new year out with than that? Get the details on your first challenge.