Thursday, September 24, 2009

To The Congress... Are You Crazy?

We received the following in an e-mail last week.

Thanks to GM Roper for forwarding an email that inspired this post:

The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to get it right; it is broke.
Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right; it is broke.
The "War on Poverty" started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked and our entire country is broke.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to get it right; they are broke.
Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right; it is broke.
Trillions of dollars were spent in the massive political payoffs called TARP, the "Stimulus", the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009... none show any signs of working, although ACORN appears to have found a new victim: the American taxpayer.
And finally, to set a new record:

"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took good dependable cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit for Congress' generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on failed experiments.
So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that "services" you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system?20% of our entire economy?

With all due respect,

Are you crazy?

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Dancing With the Enemies

Earlier today, Barack Obama spoke at the United Nations and threw both the United States and Israel under the bus. According to the president, America is no greater than any other county and Israel illegally occupies areas of Pakistan.

"The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. And nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks over a constructive willingness to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and its right to exist in peace and security," Obama said.

He also said, "The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation, one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations. So with confidence in our cause and with a commitment to our values, we call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people so richly deserve. "

Is this the change people voted for?

Since politics is so depressing, let's talk dancing. The Dancing With the Stars season started this week. There are some train wrecks (Ashley Hamilton and Chuck Liddell) and there were some stars (Aaron Carter, Mya, Joanna Krupa). There are those with potential (Melissa Joan Hart, Donny Osmond, Mark Dacascos, Natalie Coughlin) Tonight is elimination night. Let's hope that the train wrecks are removed first.

Monday, September 21, 2009

It's Come To This

Obama Plans Internet Grab: FCC to Embrace 'Net Neutrality'
Sunday, September 20, 2009 7:16 PM

By: John O. Edwards

Since the Internet took root as a mass communications phenomenon in the mid 1990s, a quiet war has raged in Washington over the extent to which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would regulate the new medium.

Until, now the Internet has been largely self-regulated, and the FCC has taken a hands-off approach.

But that could change dramatically soon if the Obama administration has its way.
During the weekend, press reports revealed a stunning development: The Obama administration will announce Monday that the FCC would propose new rules to embrace what it calls "Net Neutrality."

Obama's new Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will use a speech to the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank, to announce the FCC proposals, according to those reports.

On the face of it, Net Neutrality appears to be a popular and fair proposal.
Genachowski will "propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks," according to the Associated Press.

The FCC rules "would bar Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. or AT&T Inc., from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks," according to the AP.

But critics contend that the proposals are nothing more than a backdoor way for the FCC to tighten federal control over the Internet by beginning with the regulation of Internet service providers.

The battle lines over Net Neutrality have formed along partisan and ideological lines, with some exceptions.

During the presidential campaign, Obama said he would embrace Net Neutrality — a cause championed by Google and other Silicon Valley companies that don't want large Internet service providers denying or controlling their access to Internet users.

But Republicans have largely opposed Net Neutrality, suggesting self regulation has worked well.
The previous FCC chairman, Bush appointee Kevin Martin opposed Net Neutrality. He suggested it was not needed.

Conservatives see Net Neutrality as a power grab that will benefit big Internet players such as Amazon and Google while stifling smaller competitors.

The libertarian CATO Institute, in a 2004 policy analysis concluded: "The regulatory regime envisioned by Net Neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential 'gaming' of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general."

Democrats in Congress have pushed for such controls in the past without success. In 2006 House Democrats offered an amendment to make Net Neutrality law, but the motion failed.
At the time Republicans warned of efforts to control the Internet.

"I want a vibrant Internet just like they do," Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said during the 2006 House debate over the issue. "Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it . . . I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet."

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

The Election is Lost, Harry

Rasmussen: Reid in deep trouble in Nevada
posted at 3:55 pm on September 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey at

Has anyone noticed how quiet Harry Reid has been on pushing ObamaCare? Reid has let Max Baucus (D-MT) take the public lead in pushing for health-care reform and has limited himself mostly to general statements of support for industry reform. Rasmussen’s new polling in Nevada shows why. Reid trails both of his potential Republican challengers, and has gone under water on favorability in his state: In what is currently a difficult political climate for Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid trails two potential Republican challengers seeking to unseat him as he faces reelection next year in Nevada.

The first Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of the 2010 race shows Sue Lowden beating Reid by 10 percentage points, 50% to 40%. Lowden is chairwoman of the Nevada Republican Party and the preferred candidate of the Republican party establishment.
GOP hopeful Danny Tarkanian beats Reid by seven points, 50% to 43%. Tarkanian is a former basketball player for the University of Nevada-Las Vegas and the son of a legendary college basketball coach.

The Senate Majority Leader has a big problem at home with his image. Only 45% have a favorable opinion of Reid, while a solid majority of 54% view him unfavorably. Voters were more than twice as likely to view him strongly unfavorably (42%) as strongly favorably (20%), pointing to a big, big problem in getting re-elected in 14 months.

Part of the reason is ObamaCare. The overhaul of the health-care system is as popular in Nevada as it is nationwide, opposed by 52% of Nevada voters and supported by only 45%, exactly what the lastest numbers show nationwide. Fifty-one percent say it will make health-care worse, and 74% say it will lead to higher taxes on the middle class. Reid’s leadership in the Senate makes him responsible for those outcomes, and it has made him unpopular at a very bad time.

But just as with the Democrats nationwide, the independents are the key. In the Rasmussen poll, independent voters pick Lowden over Reid by a whopping 3-1 margin, 62%-20%. Reid doesn’t do much better with independents against Tarkanian, losing that matchup 65%-29%. Reid loses every age demographic and almost every income demographic against Lowden.

Generally speaking, when an incumbent drops below 50% support, the challenger has a good shot at winning. Getting back to 50% support would be a miracle for Reid. It won’t happen while Obama pushes ObamaCare.

Monday, September 14, 2009


There is word of a pending lawsuit against a political action committee whose goals are to make sure Harry Reid does not get re-elected in 2010. Below is an excerpt from an e-mail we received regarding this lawsuit (it has not been filed with the courts yet).

...the Ghost Complainer complains that on that “public communication” we did not use “the full name” of the political committee. He complains that the disclaimer reads “Paid for by Dump Reid PAC,” using “an abbreviated version” of “Political Action Committee” rather than the full name “Dump Reid Political Action Committee.”


It sure appears they got us on that one – as stupidly trivial and bureaucratic as it may be.

Or do they?

You see, we erroneously, for the sake of time and space, didn’t simply use an abbreviated version of “Political Action Committee.” Indeed, the entire “DUMP REID PAC” is an acronym. We didn’t just use an abbreviated version of “Political Action Committee.” We used an abbreviated version of the ENTIRE committee name:













We usually don't post language on this blog that could be deemed inappropriate, but we couldn't resist posting the picture below taken at one of the 9/12 rallies this past weekend.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Universal Healthcare - Another Welfare Service

"We don’t believe that anyone, no matter how well intentioned, should be allowed to do for a man what he can do for himself. We need to grow—and we don’t grow by letting others do something for us that we can and should do for ourselves.

"While others, including governments, may be willing to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, true sacrifice for others is an eternal and celestial principle of gospel growth and cannot be abdicated if we want to receive the blessings promised."
Junior Wright Child, “‘Welfare Is the Church’: A Conversation with Junior Wright Child,” Ensign, Sep 1973, 68

"Freedom has been defined as “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.”Are we doing all that we should to preserve freedom wherever we live? Since the dawn of time, the Lord has desired that His children would be free to exercise their agency and choose the path they would follow."
Shirley D. Christensen, “‘I, the Lord God, Make You Free’,” Ensign, Feb 2006, 26–29

"Some of our politicians hold up the Canadian and British nationalized health care systems as models for us. You can bet that should we ever have such a system, they would exempt themselves from what the rest of us would have to endure.

"There's a cure for our health care problems. That cure is not to demand more government but less government. I challenge anyone to identify a problem with health care in America that is not caused or aggravated by federal, state, and local governments. And, I challenge to show me people dying on the streets because they don't have health insurance."
Walter E. William, Liberty versus the Tyranny of Socialism

"In recent years, we have allowed Congress to fund numerous federal agencies. While these agencies may provide some needed services and protection of rights, they also encroach significantly on our constitutional rights. The number of agencies seems to grow continually to regulate and control the lives of millions of citizens.

"What many fail to realize is that most of these federal agencies are unconstitutional. Why are they unconstitutional? They are unconstitutional because they concentrate the functions of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches under one head. They have, in other words, power to make rulings, enforce rulings, and adjudicate penalties when rulings are violated. They are unconstitutional because they represent an assumption of power not delegated to the executive branch by the people. They are also unconstitutional because the people have no power to recall administrative agency personnel by their vote."
Ezra Taft Benson

Yes It Can!

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Getting To the Truth

The information below is from an article in the Wall Street Journal.

Obama is trying to overhaul health care without being able to tap into widespread public unhappiness. Nearly nine out of 10 Americans say they have coverage—and large majorities of them are happy with it. Of the 46 million uninsured, 9.7 million are not U.S. citizens; 17.6 million have annual incomes of more than $50,000; and 14 million already qualify for Medicaid or other programs. That leaves less than five million people truly uncovered out of a population of 307 million. Americans don't believe this problem—serious but correctable—justifies the radical shift Mr. Obama offers.

Let's see what that looks like in a pie chart:

It's just 2% of the population.

Just a few questions for you and your Congressperson to consider:
Do we really need a “trillion” dollar overhaul of the health care system?

Could a relatively simple approach such as “assigned risk” in automobile insurance be similarly applied to “citizens” who can’t otherwise qualify or afford health insurance?

Instead of nationwide, government run treatment standards and a large number of special interest provisions, should Congressional legislation focus on incentives to increase the supply of doctors and nurses and facilities, and incentives to increase the successful, low cost regional models (eg: Mayo Clinic; Northern CA Kaiser; Grand Junction Colorado fee-for-service approach)?

Shouldn’t Medicare and Medicaid reform focus on eliminating fraud and waste rather than challenging medical judgments and customary fees?

Why isn’t Congress considering comprehensive tort reform that shields medical practitioners from malpractice claims when they act in good faith with regard to patient care? (Seems to me we aren't going to attack unnecessary costs without doing what we can to remove the fear of making a mistake.)

Instead of getting into the health insurance business as a competitor, why doesn’t the government take steps to increase insurance company competitiveness by eliminating mandatory coverage’s and permitting marketing across state lines, with appropriate regulation to avoid bad products?

What about retaining or increasing tax incentives to keep employer contributions in the game...perhaps with better portability?

Let’s forget about political legacies and focus on defining the problem and thoroughly debating alternative solutions. Let’s take the time to get it right.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Harry Reid - Senate Majority Buffoon

Can Harry Reid be re-elected? As Nevadans our response would be a firm 'NO'. Opinions from other Nevadans we know would be the same as ours: Harry Reid is useless to Nevadans. He's more concerned with passing his partisan political agenda than he is with representing Nevadans. In fact, most Nevadans we know can't stand the guy.

He also seems to suffer from delusions. According to the below article from, Reid's "advisers believe he’s suffering in the polls because hundreds of thousands of new voters have moved into the state since 1998, when Reid last engaged in a fiercely competitive campaign."

Perhaps Reid and his advisers should visit Nevada some time, since that statement couldn't be further from the truth. We have been in Nevada for all of Reid's elections and his popularity among long-time Nevadans is very poor.

Sig Rogich, who is a big shot in Nevada (at least southern Nevada where he has a school named after him), said that Harry Reid needs to re-introduce himself to Nevadans. Wow, Sig, we aren't that stupid. We know him too well and we don't like what we see.

Below is the full article on Reid's re-election:

Friday, September 4, 2009

Government-run Healthcare Makes Us Sick

"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.” ~ Ronald Reagan

The following information was disseminated by the League of American Voters

Are Obama and his friends taking you as a fool?

You have to wonder what they really think about the intelligence of the American people.

Obama repeatedly has out-and-out lied about his healthcare plan.

Here are just 5 of the big whoppers.

Lie #1: 'You Keep Your Doctor, You Keep Your Insurer'

This is a complete fabrication.

Under plans Obama has backed in the House and the Senate, almost any business can opt their employees into the "public option" — the government health plan.

That means you could lose your insurer. And if your doctor is worth his salt, you'll lose him or her as well.

Why? Because great doctors probably will not want to get the very low rates the government will pay private doctors who are part of the new government system.

So, without your consent, you very easily could lose your insurer and your doctor.

Lie #2: The Elderly Will Not Face Rationing or Medicare Cuts

More baloney.

In fact, just last week, The New York Times, a very liberal and very pro-Obama newspaper, admitted that fears of rationing for elderly patients are "not irrational."

The truth is that Obamacare would send almost 50 million new patients to government care.

Who would pay for it. You would!

Seniors on Medicare will be the first hit.

Here's what the Times reported: "Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient."

This means that faceless bureaucrats will decide the type and quality of your care.

It is a very dangerous thing to give your life and well-being over to government bureaucrats!

Imagine if you or a loved one is older than 80 years and critically needs heart surgery.

Instead of getting the heart procedure, you or that loved one could be informed that you are simply too old.

We at the League of American Voters have been warning of this danger and have a powerful TV commercial exposing the risks to seniors.

You can see the ad by Going Here Now

Lie #3: There Will Be No "Death Panels."

More lies.

Sure, they don't call them "death panels" in the legislation, but that's what their job will be.

These committee members will set guidelines with which faceless bureaucrats will make decisions about you and your healthcare.

They will decide who lives and who dies. They decide who gets critical procedures and expensive medicines.

Again, according to the New York Times, the Democratic plans call for saving money by creating new oversight committees.

The Times says that Medicare and insurers would be expected to follow "advice from a new federal panel of medical experts on 'what treatments work best.'"

Again, this very liberal paper concluded: "The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life."

Expose the lies — Go Here Now.

Lie #4: The Obama Plan Contains Costs

Absolute nonsense.

The Obama plan will cost more than $1 trillion in new federal outlays, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

This past weekend, Sen. Joe Lieberman claimed that most of this cost comes from adding 50 million people, currently uninsured, to the government health system.

But as Lieberman pointed out, we just don't have the money to do this right now.

You can add only so many people to the government system by cutting medical care to seniors on Medicare and raising taxes.

Democrats clearly plan to do both.

Lie #5: Illegals Are Not Covered by Obamacare

President Obama has stated time and again that illegal aliens are not covered under his new plan.

Still, Democrats say they want to add almost 50 million uninsured. Yet almost one-quarter of these uninsured are illegal aliens.

None of the Democratic plans excludes illegal aliens.

In fact, when Republicans proposed an amendment to the House plan to block illegals from getting free government healthcare, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her minions soundly defeated the motion.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

What Could Go Wrong?

The following article excerpt is from Anyone else creeped out by the White House hiring a contractor to harvest information about Americans off the internet? What could go wrong?

"The White House is hiring a contractor to harvest information about Americans from its pages on social networking websites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube and Flickr.

"The National Legal and Policy Center, or NLPC, revealed the White House New Media team is seeking to hire a technology vendor to collect data such as comments, tag lines, e-mail, audio and video from any place where the White House "maintains a presence" – for a period of up to eight years.

"'The contractor shall provide the necessary services to capture, store, extract to approved formats, and transfer content published by EOP (Executive Office of the President) on publicly-accessible web sites, along with information posted by non-EOP persons on publicly-accessible web sites where the EOP offices under PRA (Presidential Records Act) maintains a presence,' the posting states."

The rest of the article is at this link:

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

September 8 - New Public School Holiday

President Obama is now going to talk directly to our children. On September 8 he will address the entire public school system. After the speech, teachers are encouraged to have a class discussion as to the meaning of Obama's speech and what they can do to help the president. As Van Jones, Obama's self-proclaimed Communist green czar, stated, they feel it is best to start indoctrinating the children so they grow up believing in the socialist/communist ways that Barack Obama and his czars espouse. Well, September 8 seems to mark the beginning of the indoctrination. Seems like a good time to keep your kids home from public school and enjoy quality family time, perhaps while studying the U.S. constitution.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Don't Let the Door Hit You, Harry...

The following article was in the editorial pages of the Las Vegas Review Journal on Sunday, August 30. We were both planning to do everything in our power to help the campaign of whomever runs against Harry Reid in 2010 (at this point, Danny Tarkanian seems to be that candidate). However, Harry seems to be doing a good job of ensuring his own retirement from Congress. Keep it up, Harry. We'll be able to use our efforts for other political causes.

SHERMAN FREDERICK: Enough is enough, Harry Stop the childish bullying

This newspaper traces its roots to before Las Vegas was Las Vegas.

We've seen cattle ranches give way to railroads. We chronicled the construction of Hoover Dam. We reported on the first day of legalized gambling. The first hospital. The first school. The first church. We survived the mob, Howard Hughes, the Great Depression, several recessions, two world wars, dozens of news competitors and any number of two-bit politicians who couldn't stand scrutiny, much less criticism.

We're still here doing what we do for the people of Las Vegas and Nevada. So, let me assure you, if we weathered all of that, we can damn sure outlast the bully threats of Sen. Harry Reid.
On Wednesday, before he addressed a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Reid joined the chamber's board members for a meet-'n'-greet and a photo. One of the last in line was the Review-Journal's director of advertising, Bob Brown, a hard-working Nevadan who toils every day on behalf of advertisers. He has nothing to do with news coverage or the opinion pages of the Review-Journal.

Yet, as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: "I hope you go out of business."

Later, in his public speech, Reid said he wanted to let everyone know that he wants the Review-Journal to continue selling advertising because the Las Vegas Sun is delivered inside the Review-Journal.

Such behavior cannot go unchallenged.

You could call Reid's remark ugly and be right. It certainly was boorish. Asinine? That goes without saying.

But to fully capture the magnitude of Reid's remark (and to stop him from doing the same thing to others) it must be called what it was -- a full-on threat perpetrated by a bully who has forgotten that he was elected to office to protect Nevadans, not sound like he's shaking them down.

No citizen should expect this kind of behavior from a U.S. senator. It is certainly not becoming of a man who is the majority leader in the U.S. Senate. And it absolutely is not what anyone would expect from a man who now asks Nevadans to send him back to the Senate for a fifth term.
If he thinks he can push the state's largest newspaper around by exacting some kind of economic punishment in retaliation for not seeing eye to eye with him on matters of politics, I can only imagine how he pressures businesses and individuals who don't have the wherewithal of the Review-Journal.

For the sake of all who live and work in Nevada, we can't let this bully behavior pass without calling out Sen. Reid. If he'll try it with the Review-Journal, you can bet that he's tried it with others. So today, we serve notice on Sen. Reid that this creepy tactic will not be tolerated.
We won't allow you to bully us. And if you try it with anyone else, count on going through us first.

That's a promise, not a threat.

And it's a promise to our readers, not to you, Sen. Reid.

Sherman Frederick ( is publisher of the Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.