In Harry Reid's "Reid Report" dated October 1, 2009, Harry almost broke his arm patting his own back for his supposed accomplishments. Below is the text of his report. While we read his egotistical blathering, we couldn't help but ponder the following issues: (1) why would the other 49 states want to pay for Nevadans to have superior Medicaid provisions when they won't be getting the same thing? (2) Harry only decided to fight for Nevadans when he saw his poll numbers sinking in Nevada; before that, Nevadans were convenient doormats on which he could wipe his feet. We're not this stupid, Harry. (3) where is all this extra money coming from at a time when the fed is selling and then buying back their own bonds? Those are just the first things that came to our minds; there are probably many more things below to make our heads explode.
Dear Fellow Nevadan:
Some outside our state have criticized my work to ensure that we pass a health insurance reform bill that is good for Nevada. Last week, I successfully fought for changes in the Finance Committee bill that would send Nevada full federal funding for people added to the provision that would expand Medicaid in our state. Under this deal, federal Medicaid dollars flowing into Nevada will increase by more than 30 percent while the state will only have to increase its funding by 1.6 percent. In the course of their attacks, one Republican even acknowledged that I am leveraging my position as Majority Leader to deliver for Nevada. “And so the Majority Leader did exactly what a Senator, I would think, would do,” said Senator Alexander (R-TN). “[Reid] introduced an amendment, or proposed an amendment to the Senate Finance Committee and said take care of Nevada.” I make no apologies for helping those who are hurting the most in Nevada and I will continue looking for opportunities to help Nevada families weather the current economic storm.
I was also pleased this week to announce that millions in Economic Recovery funds are headed to Nevada for law enforcement and green job creation. These funds will create jobs while diversifying our economy and keeping Nevada safe. With our state suffering from an unprecedented budget crisis, unemployment over 13 percent and the highest foreclosure rate in the nation, I’m pleased to announce this money, which will bring much needed help to Nevadans. That’s what’s at the heart of the economic recovery package, helping those who are hurting. That’s also what the entire health care debate, and my job is all about - looking out for Nevadans in need.
HARRY REIDUnited States Senator for Nevada
Thursday, October 1, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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. 
"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?
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.
"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 http://www.newsmax.com/
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.
Sunday, September 20, 2009 7:16 PM
By: John O. Edwards http://www.newsmax.com/
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 www.hotair.com
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.
posted at 3:55 pm on September 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey at www.hotair.com
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
D.U.M.P.R.E.I.D.
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.”
Busted.
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:
Decidedly
Unhappy
Mainstream
Patriots
Rejecting
Evil-mongering
Incompetent
Democrats
Political
Action
Committee
...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.”
Busted.
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:
Decidedly
Unhappy
Mainstream
Patriots
Rejecting
Evil-mongering
Incompetent
Democrats
Political
Action
Committee
*****
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
"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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)