More Occu-Mom Gems

You may recall the Occupy Wall Street mother who used her children to barricade a door, but this Occu-Mom trumps that insanity by far.  This Portland mom decided to place her 4 year-old daughter on railroad tracks.

Here's to you, Time Magazine's "Person of the Year"! Bring on the lunacy!


~Gee

Barney Frank, Leading Contributor to the 2008 Financial Crisis, RETIRES!

Finally.

Good riddance to bad rubbish! The man who was once romantically involved with the high-level Fannie Mae executive who helped develop the lending programs that ultimately led to the total breakdown and collapse of the subprime mortgage market and fueled the economic explosion that we are still suffering through is officially retiring.  After receiving campaign contributions from the failing subprime giants, it's no wonder that Frank defended their existence and denied their financial problems until their collapse, claiming the problems were “exaggerated.”

Mass Media & OWS, take note: You want accountability for the current economic problems, here’s your man.

~Gee

Occupy Wall Street for Dummies

Chapter 1: 
Stock Market for Dummies

Chapter 2: The Profile of an Occupy Wall Street Protester

Claiming that because they’ve been metaphorically, ah…poo’ed on by banks and corporations their whole lives, protesters are resorting to strange means to prove their point. A point. Any point. We know they must have a point, but aside from being anti-stormtrooper / anti-police / anti-business, no one is sure what that realistic point is ...or even what their overall goal is with these protests. Nonetheless, after weeks of protests, an overall image of the Occupy Squatter group is emerging, and what does that look like? 

Note: I've included links to news articles or YouTube videos on each of the points I mention as proof that this isn't just an over-generalization based on one or two random stories, but rather is the consistent, reoccurring theme of the nationwide group as a whole. Occupiers who don't want to be associated with such filthy, violent anarchists would do well to disassociate themselves from the group entirely.

Affinity for Public Urination / Defecation

• ….in public @ Zuccotti Park
• …on police vehicles in NYC
• …on banks in Eureka, California 

Unsanitary Diseases & Infestations

• …lice in Portland 
• …tuberculosis in Atlanta 
• …ringworms and scabies in Occupy Santa Cruz 
• …Michael Moore in Oakland 

Dead Bodies

• …in Vermont
• ... in Oakland
• …another dead body in Salt Lake City

Exceptions to “Rule #1: NO VIOLENCE”

• …but it’s OK to pelt rocks and glass bottles at the police 
• …or knock over little old ladies down the stairs
• …and use their kids as human shields
• …oh, yea, theft and rape are a couple of their loopholes too 

Clearly, the only thing that’s rampant in the camps are diseases, filth, and a surprising lack of personal hygiene, common sense, and common decency.

~Gee

Occupy DC Mom Uses Kids to Barricade Door

...and she doesn't regret it either.

These Occupy Squatters have a deranged sense of reality, if they think they can show up around various cities in large numbers, once again displaying either A.) their complete ignorance in the permitting process, and/or, B.) their complete disregard for the Rule of Law and double standard for the bureaucratic they force upon other groups.  They incite violence when the police show up to disperse the unlawful mob and then act indignant when the police begin to use force to remove them.

Take this Occupy DC Mom, for example:

Sure, Martin Luther King, Jr. encouraged bringing kids, pregnant women, and grandparents to protests -- but does she honestly think that bringing Grandma to the protest is the same as throwing Grandma under the protest bus?  

I can think of a few other groups who like to employ the same tactics... the terrorist organization Hamas and violent Palestinians hoping to eradicate the Jewish population off of this planet.  They use kids as human shields too. 

Any responsible parent would have brought their child to the protest and then removed them from harm's way when the scuffle started.  No, instead this woman dumped them right on the front line and used them as decoys to further her cause.

With her tribute to MLK, Jr., she envisions herself, no doubt, as some patriotic civil rights warrior, defending injustices worthy of the 1960's movement. The irony is, however, that instead of participating in a peaceful, directed movement worthy of history books, she's gotten herself involved with a bunch of mis-directed miscreants more akin to the Black Panther Party.

Peaceful protests?  Clearly not. 

~Gee

Occupy Michael Moore: His opulent lake estate (Re-Posted from The Michigan View)

Here's an excellent post from Henry Payne of The Detroit News that I'm re-posting here:

Torch Lake, Michigan- The Michigan View.com has snapped exclusive pictures of millionaire film-maker Michael Moore's 10,000-square foot summer mansion on Torch Lake in Northern Michigan. It is a pad right out of Robin Leach's "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" with a sprawling lakefront facade that looks out over the lake's deep, azure waters that have attracted America's very rich for decades.

And like Moore's primary address on the gold-lined streets of Park Avenue, Torch Lake is long way from the grimy turf of Oakland, California City Hall and Zuccotti Park where One Percenter Moore poses as a spokesman for the Occupy Wall Street movement.

From Torch Lake to Charlevoix to Bay Harbor on Lake Michigan, northern Michigan's lake region is where the successful come to relax. Fellow Moore celebrities like Bruce Willis, Madonna, and Tim Allen all have homes here. As do corporate execs that Occupy despises: Big Three millionaires like ex-Chrysler Chairman Bob Eaton, and Auto mogul Bill Schuiling and boat-magnate John Winn among them. 

But calling Moore's lake property a "home" would be an understatement. This is a manor. A Kennedy compound. An ostentatious, big-foot show of wealth. 

Flint-native Moore bought the original 2,500 square foot home, local real estate sources say, then gobbled up two surrounding lots to expand his massive estate. Antrim County public records (see nearby) show the property in the name of Moore and his wife, Kathleen Glynn, and lists its taxable value at nearly $1 million. Local real estate agents estimate the real value of the 7,500-12,000 square foot compound at $2 million (see an overhead view at BigGovernment.com here).

A Michigan View survey of the area (see nearby photos) finds an exclusive community of homes and boat slips with housing values ranging from to $500,000 to Moore's high-end $2 million. The film maker's millions that have come in part from sweet subsidy deals that Occupiers decry as payoff to the politically-connected rich. In 2010 Moore received a $1 million handout from the Michigan government to make his anti-One Percenter movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story."But Moore hardly needs to take money from the pockets of this state's 99 Percenters, One of his previous movies, Fahrenheit 9/11, has made $222 million alone.

"I'm saying that we do not have a complete democracy if the economy is not a democracy," Moore told CNN in 2009 in denouncing the same special interest tax handouts he has taken. "(Corporations) think the richest one percent should be calling all the shots, should be buying the politicians, making the decisions." 

Moore's hypocrisy is a perfect fit for a confused Occupy movement that boasts support from Big Labor, millionaire musicians and spoiled Harvard kids. The film-maker rallied the crowd in front of Oakland City Hall in California by urging them to expand their protests to leafy suburbs like Oakland's middle-class Walnut Creek. "That's where all the money is, right?" he said.

Actually, Torch Lake is where the money is. In addition to taxpayer subsidies, Moore's wealth comes from multinational corporations like Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment - a subsidiary of Sony - that distributed Fahrenheit 9/11 on DVD. 

As Occupy Detroit and other encampments get curfewed out of America's inner cities, they should look to squat to the wealthy estates of Northern Michigan. Call it Occupy Michael Moore.

From The Detroit News: http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php?blogid=3576#ixzz1dnBE5IIU

What's New in the World of Anarchy (a.k.a. The Occupy Wall Street Movement)?

The Occupy crowd continues to plague the urban streets of America. Occupy Portland's infested with lice, Occupy Eureka in California is defecating on local banks, and even the homeless population of Sacramento wish the Occupy movement would just clear off.

America's Real Bullying Crisis - Liberal Scare Tactics

This week CNN has been hosting a series of specials on "America's Bullying Crisis" addressing the supposed problem of young students and children terrorizing each other in the playgrounds and at schools.  My initial response is to laugh and shake my head, especially when I see the straight-faced Anderson Cooper dishing out ridiculous statistics like: "fifty-six percent of all children are bullies, or victims, or both."  

Surely there must be issues of greater importance in the world than excessive coverage of kids testing the boundaries of social interaction and competition? 

I can think of a few topics that seem slightly more newsworthy, like the failed Iranian terrorist plot, our nation's current unemployment rate, or even how billionaire Warren Buffet's company, Berkshire Hathaway, has compiled around one billion dollars in back taxes over the past decade. 

Yet, the more I think about it, the more bullying might actually be a legitimate topic of conversation -- just not in the way CNN imagines it. Consider Vice President Joe Biden's line of reasoning, for example, during a speech to gain support for Obama's jobs bill on his recent visit to Flint, Michigan this past week (video below):

According to Mr. Biden (emphasis mine)

In 2008, when Flint had 265 sworn officers on their police force, there were 35 murders and 91 rapes in this city,” the vice president said. “In 2010, when Flint had only 144 police officers, the murder rate climbed to 65 and rapes–just to pick two categories–climbed to 229. In 2011, you now only have 125 shields. God only knows what the numbers will be this year for Flint if we don’t rectify it.

In other words, America, pass this bill or rapes and murders will increase. Flashback to 4th grade recess, anyone? Give me your lunch money, or you'll be sorry! The media would have you believe that this "bullying" problem affects our youth, but they clearly do not understand the full implications of bullying to leave it as a childhood epidemic.

...which is why CNN invites puppets from Sesame Street as experts on addressing the problem. 

Little bullies grow up to be big bullies. Little children who don't get their way stomp their feet, slap classmates, and steal lunch money. Big bullies who don't get their way use fear tactics to scare the population into legislating the change they demand. In the adult world, bullying is known as political scare tactics (a.k.a. argumentum in terrorem or argumentum ad metum) and seems to be the reigning line of reason that liberals are currently using to get their way in the political world.

Pass this jobs bill or rapes and murders will increase.

Pass this environmental regulation or the oceans will rise and drown half our population.

Pass this stimulus package or our economy will blow up.
Pass this health care legislation or grandma will die of influenza.


It's a shame the "Worldwide Leader in News" can't make that connection to America's real bullying crisis.

~Gee

Liberal Temper Tantrums, with love from Madame Guillotine

Who knew that liberals are attempting to forge their very own modern-day replication of the French Revolution, right here in our own backyard?

We've got Roseanne Barr advocating be-headings of the rich, protesters provoking police with violence, rioters defecating on police vehicles, and even squatters ...er, copulating in broad daylight.

Side Note to the ladies at The View:  

Sorry, Whoopi, once again you've proven your complete ignorance for history by insinuating that these ridiculous, violent, and out-of-control riots are patriotic and American. There is nothing patriotic or American about the Occupy Wall Street group. Ever wonder, Whoopi, why history has come to remember the French Revolution as the "Reign of Terror"?  The violent upheaval of the French populous succeeded in obtaining their "liberty" by throwing the entire country into a state of chaos, fear and panic through violence and, oh, yea -- decapitating offenders.

People have the right in this country to a peaceful demonstration.  These lunatics, however, are once again proving themselves to be nothing more than a sick, angry mass mob.

~Gee

Liberal Temper Tantrums, With Love from Wisconsin

Here’s another gem of a story coming out of Wisconsin where liberals continue to show their true mass mob tendencies by attempting to create chaos and disorder instead of the peaceful, tolerant, co-existing they project themselves to be. 

While the media jumps at any far-fetched hearsay excuse to peg violence and hate on conservatives, the only thing these liberal protestors in Wisconsin are demonstrating is their continued child-like behavior of stomping their feet, throwing their toys, destroying public property, and literally gluing shut doors until they get their way. (I haven’t read it yet, but this is just one more reason I’m compelled to read Ann Coulter’s new book.  I think she’s on to something!)

Remind me again how these types of actions are “peaceful” and “accepting of change”? 

~Gee

The Cleansing Continues

Last night I had the opportunity to catch up with a friend, Schotzy, about the major political changes that Wisconsin has been undergoing since February, and we couldn't help but shake our heads over the sad realization that the nation has yet to hear about the great things going on there.


Has the media touched on the subject since the unions' collective bargaining hissy fits since February? Not really. After chatting with Schotzy about how excited we were regarding the huge political wins in Wisconsin, we decided that it would be a great refresher to examine where Wisconsin is now, so I got his permission to blog about our conversation, since despite the media's silence, we think it's newsworthy. Maybe the mass media will eventually think so too (and stop swooning about ridiculous "news alerts" highlighting how New York City residents are responding to an earthquake yesterday with its Virginia epicenter).


As a reminder, back in February when Gov. Walker insisted that the state's budget be balanced, the Democrat strategy was:


1)  Stop the legislation from ever becoming law by fleeing the state..

2)  If #1 fails, take over the WI Supreme Court in the Jusitce David Prosser seat up for election and replace him with a far-lefty.

3)  Recall Republican senators and take back the state senate.

4)  Ride that wave to recalling Gov. Scott Walker.

5)  Ride that wave to wins in taking back the state house and holding onto Sen. Herb Kohl's seat in the 2012 election along with delivering the state to Dumbo...er, Oh-Bummer... er, Obama.

Well, how is that going?

1)  Failed.

2)  Failed.  Millions of dollars in Democrat and outside group funding wasted.

3)  Failed.  The Democrats won two seats, but Republicans still control the senate - despite tens of millions of dollars in Democrat and labor funding wasted.  (Total estimate of #2 and #3 is around $75 million from the left.  That's been a nice boost to the Scott Walker economy!)

4)  Momentum halted.  More and more news is coming out about how well the state finances and schools are doing with the new law.  Momentum will only continue to swing to the right.  Plus, the state Democrats depended on the national party for support in the recalls.  I've heard that nationals are reading the tea leaves as not favorable and don't want to waste even more money on it.  They're looking at #5 and really, really, really, REALLY want to hold onto that senate seat.

5)  See #4 above.

Now, what are the results?

On the surface, Democrats are claiming a win because they won two state senate seats.  To put their "win" in perspective though, the two seats they won were from a moderate Republican in a strongly Democrat district (La Crosse) and a Republican currently going through a messy divorce and whose wife was campaigning against him and claiming he was living outside his district with his mistress (he lost by a 51-49 split).  All for $75 million.  

But, what did they lose?  (besides the $75 million)


The top four donors to the Democrat party in WI were:

1)  Teacher's Union

2)  Public Employee Union

3)  Indian casinos

4)  Trial Lawyers

(Note: outside of #1, as I'm posting this, I don't have the exact order of the next three besides the fact that those are the top four.)


The collective bargaining law stripped the public unions from negotiating anything besides pay.  In addition, payroll increases were capped at the rate of inflation.  In other words, the only thing the unions can negotiate is basic pay, which has a reasonable cap. Considering that unions were also stripped of the power to automatically deduct the dues from people's paycheck so now they have to convince their lemmings to fork out the $1,000 on their own, where is the benefit for union members to paying the union $1,000 each year for a basic pay negotiation? 

Answer:  There is no benefit.

As a result, public employee union power is doomed.  They know it.  In addition to the article from JSOnline last week about the teacher's union cutting 40% of it's workforce, check out this article:

"Members of the Teaching Assistants Association representing University of Wisconsin-Madison graduate students voted by an undisclosed margin not to seek a formal election to keep their official status with the state, one of the group's top leaders said. 

The TAA was one of the most active groups during the massive demonstrations against Walker's legislation earlier this year. But co-president Adrienne Pagac said Monday that the law set a very high standard for achieving an election for which the union would have received little official power in return."

This law has cost Democrats two of their top four donors/propagandists/organizers right off the bat.  Done.  Finished.  See ya later.  Drive a stake in their hearts and burn the corpse to make sure they never come back for more blood.


For those of you who listen to Mark Belling on the radio over the internet, you may notice that parts of the above-mentioned analysis were from one of his radio shows, including the Top Four Donors and ideas on the disintegration of the Democrat machine.  He also mentioned that the #3 donor, Indian Casinos, have seen the writing on the wall.  During the recall elections, they gave very little money to help the Dems.  They know who is out of power with a very dismal future.  Chalk up another loss in the Democrats' Fab Four.  Only Big Trial Lawyers are left.

Final Score:

Democrat Gains:  2 weak state senators (but not control of the state senate itself) (for one year)

Democrat Losses:  $75 million and three of their top four top campaign donors and "get-out-the-vote" apparatuses.  (permanent)

Does it still look like the Dems came out the winners?

WI will be swinging from a leans-Democrat state to a leans-Republican state for the foreseeable future.  This is a huge loss for Democrats as they need WI for national elections.

~Gee (thanks, Schotzy, for your contributions as well!)

For All The Conservative Ladies Out There...

For too long since the women's rights movement has our society decided that "women's rights" only means the freedom to leave the household and join the workforce as equals. True freedom for women is our right to decide whether to work or stay at home -- or accomplish both.   

Why should women idealize the strength in Hillary Clinton but be shunned for respecting Sarah Palin's pro-life stance? Can anyone opposed to Sarah Palin really explain why they dislike her beyond "she's too pretty"?  Is it because she thinks she can see Russia from her home state of Alaska?  (Never mind that it wasn't Palin who made that ridiculous statement -- it was the writers of SNL personified by Tina Fey.)  What validity is there behind the media's dislike of Michelle Bachmann?  

With all of those blatant biases in mind, it is very refreshing and encouraging to see a positive spin on conservative women in ELLE fashion magazine. 

~Gee

Independence Weekend Quote of the Day - Saturday, July 2nd

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." 


~George Washington

Independence Weekend Quote of the Day - Friday, July 1st

‎"Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases." 


~John Adams

Illegal Immigrant Sob Story: A Challenge to Our Government to Uphold the Law?

Today the New York Times posted yet another immigration sob story but this time with a new twist: the brave, heroic illegal immigrant protagonist is none other than the article’s author and employee of the New York Times! (Cue the pounding, screeching, emphatic horror music!)

It’s true, apparently this article was written by a man, a Mr. Jose Antonio Vargas, who claims he is not only an employee of the NYT but also an illegal immigrant who just happened to just wake up and decide to “come out” by admitting his status as an undocumented worker… oh yes, my pun is intended, considering he does actually narrate about his homosexuality somewhere around page 3, so correction: Mr. Vargas admits his identity as a gay undocumented, illegal immigrant working for the NYT.  My apologies.

I admit, having recently read the media’s recent debaucle involving the scammed identity of that gay, kidnapped blogger girl in Damascus, I’m still a little leery of this man’s immigration and employment status with the NYT.

If he does exist, his article is bold. It’s shocking. It’s controversial and relevant to the mainstream media’s agenda.  Beyond that though, it’s nothing more a drawn-out admission of illegal activity!  In fact, his disclosure admits his repeated failure to not only turn himself in as an illegal immigrant but also reveals his failure to rectify the situation by applying for legal status or returning to his native homeland.

I think this author is expecting a pat on the shoulder for being “brave,” but I’m pretty sure it’s just sheer stupidity. He seems intelligent enough given his multiple (supposed) encounters with the law and years spent lying about his immigration status to know that his confession should have some ramifications.

Aside from the fact that true bravery would have involved him turning himself into the local authorities (instead of just blogging about his life and waiting to see if our system isn't so broken that someone actually comes to catch him), he has now just given the Feds a perfect excuse to come after his employers under violation of Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A) with 5 years in jail and a fine of $250,000 dollars... Though, I’m sure we can all place solid bets on whether any federal authorities will follow up with the New York Times on the legal ramifications of their knowingly employing an illegal immigrant.

I’ve read sob stories before.  Those weepy, mopey, cry-me-a-river narratives that just drag the reader along in some sappy attempt to get the reader so misty-eyed that their reasoning skills are fogged up worse than a windshield on a rainy morning are beyond obnoxious. (Hey, that guy likes bacon cheeseburgers too; he must be just like me!) They appeal to our pity, but that line of logic just doesn’t pass when we’re dealing with solid facts on real issues… like the real, tangible problems and consequences of illegal immigration.

If I tottered over to Germany and demanded a job because I was “hard-working” and just aching to live the German dream without any paperwork (which, of course, means driving a BMW down the autobahn while trying not to get any schnitzel sauce on my lederhosen), the Germans would tell me to take a hike.

I don’t want to hear illogical sob stories woefully reminiscing about long-lost descendants who came to this country 200 years ago on a boat as *gasp* an undocumented immigrant.  That system might have been A-OK for groups of people who came here 250 years ago to literally fend for themselves with no government assistance or subsidies. Unfortunately, fast forward to the 20th and  21^st centuries, and our country now has larger social obligations that require accountability.  Yes, these social obligations, when funded by the U.S. taxpayer, are beholden to regulation and documentation for the protection of the citizens of this country.

Our education, health insurance, social security and retirement and other systems - our government now is responsible for dishing out numerous free lunches, free health care, free retirement packages, free cell phones, free laptops, free educations, and any other free luxury you can think of to those citizens who can’t otherwise get them by their own means.  Furthermore, our law system is designed to protect the rights and benefits of said citizens.  It’s hard enough staying accountable to the citizens of our own country without having to worry about the stragglers wandering in from the rest of the world.

Note: when I refer to “citizens,” I refer to the actual legal, Constitutional definition, not Mr. Vargas’ loose, heartfelt, brotha’-from-anotha’-motha’ interpretation implying that anyone who believes in “hard work, self-reliance, love of [our] country” is a citizen of the U.S.

Therefore, my question is: what is Mr. Vargas’  true purpose in writing this article?

Sure, he’s managed to completely disregard all the hard-working immigrants, who spend their hard-earned resources, time, and money to obtain citizenship the legal way, but just spitting on their American Dream certainly couldn’t have been his goal.  After all, he seems so nice. So hard-working. So honest.  (Gosh darnit, I just really want to like him.) 

No, that can’t be his reason, especially considering that Mr. Vargas questions what will happen next. What will the consequences be, he wonders? In fact, he even goes out of his way to specifically mention that no names have been changed – that all information is verifiable.  He’s taken no effort to conceal either his or the identities of those around him, claiming: 

All the people mentioned in this article gave me permission to use their names. I’ve also talked to family and friends about my situation and am working with legal counsel to review my options. I don’t know what the consequences will be of telling my story.

Here’s another can of worms for you to consider: whose identity has Mr. Vargas effectively stolen for all these years if all of his documents, including his social security papers, are fake?

This article is a challenge: a challenge to the public, a challenge to authorities, and a challenge to the Department of Homeland Security.  Mr. Vargas is flaunting his illegality for the world to see.  Will the federal government take action or shirk its constitutional responsibility to the citizens of this country? Will it turn a blind eye to the laws that have been broken both by Mr. Vargas and the New York Times?

Like it or not and whether intentionally or unintentionally, laws have been broken.

Reason, justice, and the rule of law dictate that corrective action will be taken, but instinct tells me otherwise.

~Gee

Quiz Yourself: How Informed Are You on Current Events?

Think you know what's going on in America today?

This test shows that a majority of Americans don't follow current events and don't know what's going on.  With such a high percentage of our population displaying blatant apathy toward the issues that affect their daily lives, it is no wonder that our politicians take advantage of the population's ignorance on issues.

You can test your knowledge and find out how you rate, but... the real question is:  how can we ever restore this country and return power back into the hands of the people, if the people just don't know what's going on (and don't care)? 

~Gee

Gee's Budget Proposal 2011

Ok, so I haven't yet been able to find any links to the transcript of Obama's speech from last night, but I found some snippets that I cut and pasted together from various news articles and commentary pieces....and then re-worded to see how Obama's proposal sounds when it's addressed on an individual (or small family) scale.

I figure, if his "increase taxes and spend more to get out of debt" budget plan works at the government level, then surely it should work for my personal finances too.

Again... I don't have his whole speech, but I think the quotes I did find encapsulate Obama's plan pretty well:

My fellow Americans: 

My household faces serious economic troubles.  Even after our economy recovers, I will still be on track to spend more money than I take in throughout this decade and beyond.  That means I’ll have to keep borrowing more from companies like Capital One.  And that means more of my paycheck will go toward paying off the interest on all the loans I keep taking out.  By the end of this decade, the interest I owe on my debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion. Just the interest payments. 

Some people would have me reduce my credit card spending.  A 70 percent cut in fine dining, a 25 percent cut in Amazon.com purchases, a 30 percent cut in vacations…cuts in massages and hair products.  That’s their proposal.  These are the kinds of cuts that tell me I can’t afford the America that I believe in and, I think, you believe in. 

Therefore, my budget plan for 2011 includes maxing out my credit card and making minimum payments on the interest of my debt, because I shouldn’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where I forfeit investments in myself.

I believe that any other plan paints a vision of our future that is deeply pessimistic.  It’s a vision that says if my clothes tear and my high heels wear out, I can’t afford to fix them and buy more. If I am a bright young American who has the drive and the will but not the money to go to Disney World, I can’t afford to go. 

To meet my fiscal challenge, you will need to make reforms.  You will all need to make sacrifices. My employer will need to give me a raise.  But, rest assured, I do not have to sacrifice the America I believe in.  As long as I’m in charge of my finances, I won’t. 

Sure, I will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in purchases I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments I need to grow.  I’ll invest in Save the Whale campaigns and buy new energy-efficient appliances (even though the ones I have are less than 3 years old).  I’ll invest in a new car, better cable TV and broadband access.

I will do what I need to compete and I will win the future.  

~Gee

Expose George Soros - Sign the Petition

For several years, left-wing billionaire George Soros has called for a reorganization of the global economic system, claiming even back in 2009 in a Japanese op-ed article that "reorganizing the world order will need to extend beyond the financial system and involve the United Nations." 

While Soros financially backs groups like MoveOn.org, ACORN, and more than 1,200 other organizations in the hopes of destroying the American economy by creating a "global sheriff," the media continually turns a blind eye to one key factor:  the United States was founded on principles of liberty and sovereignty from other ruling nations. The United States is not and should never be the global socialist Utopia that Soros envisions.

However, unless the media stops laying the tracks for Soros' global plans, our nation will surely face the loss of liberty as we have never seen before.

In an effort to expose Soros' plans to destroy the American economy in favor of a overarching global regulator, The Media Research Center has a petition available for citizens demanding the media tells the truth about his plans.

From the MRC Action petition website:

George Soros is bad for America, and the media aren’t saying a word. That’s why the Media Research Center -- the nation’s foremost liberal media watchdog has launched its national “Demand the Media Tell the Truth About George Soros” petition -- alerting the public, and holding the liberal media accountable for their active participation in Soros’ anti-American plans in bringing our nation down.

Click here if you'd like to sign the petition!

~Gee

The Politics of Pre-Existing Conditions

Throughout President Obama’s tenure in office, we’ve heard a lot of talk about pre-existing conditions.  The public has been inundated with studies and polls attempting to sway opinion in favor of eliminating these alleged hurdles to obtaining quality health insurance.  We’ve heard from politicians, statisticians, and pundits, but who can remember hearing from anyone personally affected?

I’ve been particularly interested in the passage of ObamaCare precisely because of its implications for pre-existing conditions.  Last Tuesday, a U.S. government study reported that as many as 129 million Americans under age 65 face rejection or higher premiums from insurance companies due to pre-existing medical conditions.  Arguments have ensued that this number is inflated and not reflective of reality.  Frankly, I’m not sure whom to believe.  That pre-existing conditions are a real problem affecting Americans cannot be denied, but what’s the real story?  Who is talking to those people whose lives have been drastically altered by their insurance company’s decision to deny benefits, or who have been unable to obtain credible coverage at all?

You see, I’m one of those unfortunate “statistics” who fell through the cracks of the health insurance industry as we know it.  When I was in college and covered by my father’s health care plan – a top-notch union negotiated plan, no less – a congenital condition with which I was born necessitated a series of reconstructive surgeries.  Because I obtained employment with a small business that did not provide health insurance, I continued coverage through my father’s insurance plan on a COBRA policy.  At the end of this 3-year period, I sought to purchase an individual plan. 

The obstacles my family and I faced along the way to obtaining individual coverage were virtually insurmountable.  We were met with a plethora of mis-information, discrimination, and rejection.  The companies that denied my applications informed me of my “rights” under HIPAA to purchase an adjustable-rate policy that would not contain riders, but the cost would vary month-to-month starting from $500 - $700.  This was neither realistic nor how the provisions regarding pre-existing conditions in HIPAA were meant to facilitate increased access to coverage.

Of the numerous health insurance companies to which I applied, only one was willing to insure me, and that policy contained riders for my congenital condition as well as other health issues for which I’d sought treatment in the past.  In other words, this company was willing to cover treatment for anything except the conditions for which I required care. 

To be fair, I didn’t entirely blame the insurance companies.  If I was on the other end of the stick, I’d have a few qualms about insuring a high-risk applicant too.  Yet, I had no lapse in coverage.  I had not acquired health problems through poor diet, lack or exercise, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, or other behavioral risk factors.  I just had the simple misfortune of being born with a condition that required care, and as a result had been – for all intents and purposes – blackballed in the industry. 

This anti-big-government, pro-states rights conservative admittedly leapt out of her seat when she learned of ObamaCare’s provisions regarding pre-existing conditions.  Even as I unilaterally condemned this massive expansion of government, the affront to individual liberties through compulsory conscription into ObamaCare in the name of the “Commerce Clause,” and the potential probable bankrupting of small business (and our nation), I had to acknowledge ObamaCare would in some regards help me.

As conservatives in Congress have mounted an attack aimed at repealing ObamaCare and 26 states have filed lawsuits against the federal government, I couldn’t help but wonder if it was the federal government’s responsibility to overhaul the industry simply because some unknown percentage of the population undeniably needs intervention and regulation.  The Constitution-abiding conservative in me quickly answers no, but the private citizen who has been forced to pay hundreds of dollars out-of-pocket for x-rays knows reform is long overdue and absolutely necessary, especially for those employed by small businesses.

According to most polls, most Americans are generally content with their healthcare options; despite the riders on my policy, I, too, must admit I have access to the best healthcare in the world (an opinion reinforced by a recent trip to Europe).  Gallup polls show this country has not reached a consensus on ObamaCare – 46% of Americans support Republican led efforts to repeal the law, 40% are in favor of the law as it was written, and 14% are ambivalent.  It’s little wonder the nation is so divided.  None of us, including Mrs. Pelosi, knows precisely how the bill’s passage is going to affect our wallets or the health insurance marketplace, so we rely on imprecise statistics and economists’ predictions, hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.

Following the passage of ObamaCare, many large companies announced that the costs of providing health care to their employees would necessarily skyrocket: AT&T, $1 billion; Verizon, $970 million; Deere & Co., $150 million; Boeing, $150 million; Caterpillar, $100 million; Prudential Financial Inc., $100 million; and Lockheed Martin, $96 million.  Moreover, there have been numerous conflicting studies concerning how much the implementation of ObamaCare will increase the federal deficit, but nearly all agree that it will increase.  

Though my struggles with insurance have been great, I have been blessed in several regards – the riders on my policy were not for life-threatening conditions, and I have family who would give their last dime to ensure I received necessary medical treatment.  Others with similar obstacles haven’t been so fortunate.  There are many in this country whose stories are not unlike my own, and whether they number in the hundreds or millions, their stories matter.  Those who denounce recent statistics as “liberal propaganda” need to remember there are faces and names behind numbers.

While I applaud this administration for bringing pre-existing conditions and other deficiencies in the healthcare system to light, I do not believe ObamaCare, as the law is currently written, is the panacea liberals hyped.  Even as I wrestle with the question if health care is a basic human right or a privilege, I know the answer to my own dilemma is not to impose a mandate on someone else or bankrupt the country for the sake of “fairness.”  That’s precisely the lack of personal responsibility that’s wrong with this nation – from Wall Street charlatans down to those able-bodied persons who pilfer social security disability benefits.  

I don’t begin to have the prescription for what ails the insurance industry, but ObamaCare surely isn’t it.  Real reform can be achieved without removing the American citizen from the decision-making process regarding his / her health care, and it can certainly be done so while adhering to the Constitution and free-market principles – by allowing individuals to purchase health care coverage across state lines – to name one.  For those facing pre-existing conditions, centralized control of health care in the hands of Washington bureaucrats and the HHS is simply more of the same lack of choice and competition that allowed insurance companies to implement these restrictions and will surely result in lesser personal freedoms than we currently enjoy.  Don’t give Washington the very power insurance companies banded together to divest from us.