GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE BY NEXT THURSDAY?

Public option or no public option. It really doesn't matter, because the whole bill is a Trojan Horse. Somehow, someway, someday any government run health care bill will eventually be amended to a single payer plan, and then they own you and control another 1/6 of our economy. That's in addition to the enormous, major businesses the government owns now.

There's 'something fishy' afoot, and both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Mouthpiece Harry Reid realize there's just too much opposition to get their health care through on its own, and reconciliation has its own particular backlash.

That means the possibility of sneaking through health care reform as an after-the-fact amendment, to a little known or uncontested bill, is not a stretch. If they do this, against the majority of the American people, and in such an unethical, underhanded manner, it will be the largest step towards dictatorial rule in the history of our nation.

The Heritage Foundations speaks again in its inimitable wisdom:


Government-run Health Care By Next Thursday?
September 30, 2009

The Washington Post front page blares today: “Prospects for Public Option Dim in Senate.” Don’t believe it. Yes, the Senate Finance Committee did vote down two amendments that each would have added a government-run insurance plan to the committee’s health care bill. But two key Democratic Senators who voted against Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s (D-WV) public plan, Sens. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Tom Carper (D-DE), voted for Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) version.

According to an independent analysis of Senate Democrat public statements on the public option, that raises the number of Democrats on record supporting a public option from 47 to 49. Moreover, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairmen of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, told the liberal “Bill Press Radio Show” yesterday that Democrats “comfortably” have the remaining votes to reach 51 and pass a public plan once the debate moves to the House floor.

But what about Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus’ (D-MT) claim yesterday that, “No one has been able to show me how we can count up to 60 votes with a public option.” That may be true, but it is also irrelevant. The question is not whether Democrats can muster 60 votes to pass Obamacare; they only need 51 votes to do that. The only time the number 60 will be relevant is when the Senate votes on whether to end debate and vote on the final bill. This is a separate question. We can see Senators from red states like Ben Nelson (D-NE), Blanch Lincoln (D-AR), and Kent Conrad (D-ND) voting against an amendment creating a public option. But voting with Republicans against their party and against their President to support a Republican filibuster? That would take a lot of courage. It would guarantee that these Democrats would face fierce opposition from their leftist bases back home. Just ask the left’s new whip for the public option, Michael Moore. Speaking to women’s groups and unions in Washington, DC, yesterday, Moore warned:

To the Democrats in Congress who don’t quite get it: I want to offer a personal pledge. I – and a lot of other people – have every intention of removing you from Congress in the next election if you stand in the way of health care legislation that the people want. That is not a hollow or idle threat. We will come to your district and we will work against you, first in the primary and, if we have to, in the general election.

Moore is, of course, the perfect spokesman for the public option. He is in Washington promoting his new film “Capitalism: A Love Story” in which Moore argues that “Capitalism is an evil, and you can’t regulate evil.” A more succinct summation of theory behind the public option does not exist. While supporters of the plan, including the White House, insist that the purpose of the public option is to bring “choice and competition” to the health care, nothing could be further from the truth. As Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Anthony Weiner (D-NY) Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein, and Noble Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman have all candidly admitted, the public option is nothing more than a Trojan horse for a single-payer, government-run health care system. Moore even told Rolling Stone magazine this summer:

If a true public option is enacted — and Obama knows this — it will eventually bring about a single payer system, because the profit-making insurance companies won’t be able to compete with a government run plan and make the profits they want to make.

So just how close are we to being inflicted with the Obama/Moore dream of anti-capitalist, competition-free, government-run health care? Closer than many realize. Multiple sources on the Hill have told The Foundry that as early as next week, the Senate could be debating Obamacare. Senate Majority Leader Reid has stated an intention to take the HELP Committee product and merge it with the Senate Finance Committee markup that is expected to be over by this Thursday or Friday. Their plan is to proceed to a House passed non-health care bill to provide a shell of legislation to give Obamacare a ride to the House and then straight to the President’s desk.

THE SECRET MEDICARE CUTS

Seniors are becoming more and more aware of how much this government run health care bill will hurt them by robbing Medicare and the money seniors have paid into it over their lifetime. It's their hard earned money, paid to the government to set aside for health care of their choice.

Because of greedy government, Medicare is on shaky ground with highway robbery on the horizon. A high percentage of seniors use Medicare Advantage, which will be the sacrificial lamb if this goes through. RedState writes further:


The Secret Medicare Cuts
Posted by Dan Perrin, September 29, 2009

Republicans are in possession of a letter which asks: Where are the secret Medicare cuts going to come from?

Given that both Rasmussen and the AP polls have come up with the same answer: 59% of seniors are opposed to ObamaCare, the draft letter below has greater significance for Seniors than just the political implications for the Democrats.

Dick Morris discusses the policy implications for seniors:

“The latest poll by Scott Rasmussen not only shows national opposition to Obamacare rising - now it is 41-56 against - but also shows the elderly moving against it even more strongly, by 33-59, or almost 2:1.

And well they should! Three-quarters of ObamaCare is to be financed by slashing $500 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years. That comes to an 8 percent cut. Next year’s total Medicare spending, for example, will be about $500 billion by itself, so this is like having one year without Medicare at all! Obama’s fatuous claim that the cut will not affect care for the elderly is specious, as any thinking person would realize. We have gone through previous incarnations of those who wanted to slash Medicare and pretended that it would not affect the elderly. Newt Gingrich tried to sell this act of alchemy in 1995, and the elderly didn’t buy it then and aren’t buying it now!

It is obviously impossible to cut Medicare reimbursement without slashing the time doctors spend with patients. It is equally obvious that you cannot cover 30 million new patients without more doctors and nurses. And the Medicare cuts in doctors’ fees will, of course, cause a decrease in the number of medical professionals. Investors Business Daily conducted a poll in September that showed that 45 percent of all doctors said they would seriously consider retiring or closing their practices if the Obama bill passes. A larger number will likely refuse to treat Medicare patients. Indeed, current law provides for a 21 percent cut in Medicare fees to doctors next year and a 6 percent cut the year after. The new $500 billion in cuts are on top of these reductions! What kind of medical care do we expect our elderly to receive when the doctor they visit is getting $35 or $40 for seeing them!”

The draft letter reads, in part:

We do know that around $113 billion from reductions in entitlements will come out of Medicare Advantage, meaning that 10.2 million seniors on this program will not be able to keep the coverage they currently have.

But this leaves roughly $227.6 billion — a good chunk of the remainder of the $4-500 billion — consisting of unspecified Medicare cuts coming from reductions in payments to providers or subject to the determinations of a 15-member panel.

There are two competing dangers to these secret cuts, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive:

The first is that these Medicare unspecified cuts will lead to “rationing by underpricing.” Even accepting vague promises that benefits and eligibility will not be slashed, this leaves one central possibility: price reductions to the point at which providers fail to deliver services to Medicare recipients.

The New York Times admitted this, in an editorial Sunday morning attacking all Senate “Republicans” when it stated, with respect to “cuts in payments to hospitals and other health care providers” which would cause them to cease to serve Medicare patients: “If true, that is a problem that Congress will have to address in the future.”

If this bill, in fact, is going to cause seniors to lose access to doctors, hospitals, and services they now enjoy –- or to face “rationing by underpricing” -– that is a problem we need to face NOW.

The second possibility is that the “secret cuts” are illusory -– and that this bill will become a deficit engine which will irrevocably destroy the American economy.

Either or both of these contingencies is enough for us to pause a minute before cramming this bill down the throats of the American people in order to “make history.”

Finally, we believe that the Senate Finance Committee deserves legislative language -– and a CBO score based on legislative language.”

I wonder how many Seniors know that an unelected commission will be cutting their Medicare?

WHAT WILL BE OUR ECONOMIC TRAJECTORY?

The one hope America has of getting out of this economic disaster is winning in 2010 and again in 2012. But, one step at a time.

America has been consumed with their busy daily lives, assuming the government would take care of itself. It appears America has learned a hard lesson, and we now have a government spending us into oblivion, and taxing us to pay for it.

We need to stop the spending, lower taxes, and let the free market bring us back "from the brink". Dick Morris describes his vision for our future:


COMING: THE ECONOMIC "W"
by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann, September 29, 2009

What will be our economic trajectory? How will we do as we come out of the recession of 2008-2009?

There are those foolish optimists who predict a "V" shaped recovery - the swift crash will be followed by a buoyant surge. Others, more sober, believe in a "U" - the crash will gradually ease and slowly be followed by gradually increasing growth. Pessimists see an "L" - the crash will be followed by a long period of stagnation and no growth.

I believe a "W" is more likely. Foreign stimulus (e.g. China) will rekindle export markets for American manufacturing and government lending will start the housing industry. But consumer demand, which accounts for 70% of America's growth, will continue to be stagnant in the face of high unemployment and lingering fears. The rebound will be short-lived and followed by a further downturn, the second part of the "W".

But this second dip will be accentuated by inflation. We will face, not the stagflation of the 70s, but depressflation, negative growth and high inflation simultaneously. Unfortunately, the policies that would cure one condition will only worsen the other one. The low interest rates and economic stimulus necessary to kindle growth will exacerbate inflation while the high rates that would cure price increases would depress the economy further.

There is just too much debt out there and inflation is inevitable. The United States now borrows between 40 and 50 cents of each dollar it spends. The deficit has tripled since 2008. And, with all the world's governments following the U.S. into debt and deficit, governments cannot find enough lenders and have to print their own money, a sure portent of disaster.

Voters are getting that the cycle of deficit, debt, and inflation is the inevitable consequence of statist economic policies.

Germany's decisive turn away from the left in its national elections signals this sea change in political behavior. After a decade of drift to the left, voters have discovered their bearings and their senses just in time.

Not only did Germany's Social Democratic Party, the world's foremost socialist political organization, lose more than one third of its vote, but the free market Free Democratic Party grew by more than one third. Merkel, who had to govern in coalition with the Socialists, now can indulge her personal philosophy and form a conservative coalition to lead Germany out of the recession. Now, Merkel can, indeed, be the Thatcher of Germany.

The next shoe to drop will be in the United Kingdom where Gordon Brown and his discredited Labor Party trail the Conservatives by seventeen points. London must call for elections by June of 2010. Brown can delay the day of his party's reckoning until then, but it must come.

These conservative triumphs will set the stage for the American Congressional elections of 2010. It seems certain that Republicans will gain enormously although whether or not this surge will be enough to capture either or both Houses of Congress remains to be seen.

Voters get that an orgy of debt can lead to an orgy of inflation. What better nation to teach the world this fact of economic life than one whose nascent democracy was strangled in its cradle by the hyper-inflation of the 20s opening the door to Hitler's ascension to power?


Go to DickMorris.com to read Dick's columns!
Get his new book CATASTROPHE here.

The Politico Gets Played By ACORN

It has taken a long time, but finally the ugly truth is coming out about ACORN. Now the question is, can we stop the infestation of our White House. The more the public is made aware of how ACORN operates, its roots, and its tentacles, the better we can protect and preserve our White House.

Matthew Vadum at American Spectator has been doing a stellar job at researching and reporting this corrupt organization:


The Politico Gets Played By ACORN
By Matthew Vadum, September 29, 2009

One thing that journalists don't seem to get about ACORN is that it is a strange, complex creature with tentacles that reach into the highest levels of the United States government, the Democratic Party, corporate America, the labor movement, the nonprofit world, the media, foreign governments, and academia.

ACORN has a confusing structure and its network of who-knows-how-many taxpayer-funded tax-exempt nonprofit affiliates. As I've written ad nauseam, this is deliberate.

Understandably, given the complexity of the ACORN network, it is a constant struggle to educate my fellow journalists about ACORN.

The Politico's Ben Smith is a living case study showing what happens when sincere, well-meaning journalists write about something they do not understand.

ACORN, quite predictably, claims Patrick Gaspard who is now an extremely close advisor to President Obama, didn't work for it.

Smith just got played by ACORN -- big time.

I didn't publish all the evidence I have of Gaspard's ties to ACORN.

Here's a question for skeptics like Smith: If Gaspard isn't part of ACORN, why did he sign a letter to the editor of the Nation magazine (dated July 2, 2001) on behalf of ACORN affiliate the Working Families Party of New York? (In case you don't believe the party is part of ACORN read ACORN's website which states that in 1998, "ACORN members spearhead[ed] formation of the Working Families Party, the first community-labor party with official ballot status in New York state in more than 50 years.")

Lest someone accuse me of journalistic malfeasance, I produce the entire text of Lewis and Gaspard's letter to the Nation here:

New York City

■ Doug Ireland's offhand comments about the Working Families Party's role in the upcoming municipal elections in New York City were inaccurate and hurtful ["Those Big Town Blues," June 4]. He wrote that the WFP "could have played a role in recruiting Council candidates" but did not because the progressive unions took no initiatives and ACORN was distracted by its fight against the Edison Corporation.

Speaking for two affiliates of the WFP-ACORN and SEIU/1199-I say that this is dead wrong. We have been involved in a marvelous WFP-initiated process that has included scores of neighborhood and borough meetings, a remarkable series of interviews with more than 100 potential candidates, worksite presentations on the issues by WFP workplace captains, the ongoing recruitment of neighborhood captains and much more. We had more than 1,000 people at a WFP mayoral forum and have won concrete commitments on our living-wage bill from candidates across the city. Until the WFP, there was no group trying to pull together a community-labor-religious coalition to move ideas, people, money and energy in contests from Nassau County to Niagara Falls.

The WFP slate for this year's city elections will have more union members, community activists and progressives than any slate in memory. We hope Nation readers will vote for, work for and send money to all the WFP endorsed WFP endorsed candidates for primaries and the general election.

BERTHA LEWIS, ACORN, WFP

PATRICK GASPARD, SEIU STATE COUNCIL, WFP

[emphasis added]

Understanding ACORN's family tree takes time and a great deal of perseverance but after studying ACORN intensively for more than a year, I think I have a handle on how it works.

The part relevant to our story here today goes like this:

*The Working Families Party of New York is an affiliate of both ACORN and SEIU Local 1199, according to current ACORN chief organizer Bertha Lewis and her protégé Patrick Gaspard.

In other words, the Working Families Party is ACORN. There may be fine legal distinctions, they may file disclosure documents with different government agencies, but they are one in the same. I've been saying this for the past year and it's gratifying that people are finally listening.

Incidentally, the letter to the editor also reveals that SEIU Local 1199, which no one denies Gaspard used to work for, is also apparently an ACORN affiliate. At least that's what the wording used by Lewis and Gaspard suggests.

The oneness of the Working Families Party and ACORN was put on display last fall for all of America to see when WFP co-founder and current ACORN chief organizer Bertha Lewis appeared in a video endorsing Barack Obama for president of the United States.

Here's the video:

I wrote about this Obama endorsement from Bertha Lewis, the Working Families Party, and ACORN at NewsBusters.

ACORN identifies its affiliates as ACORN affiliates when it is convenient and claims the same entities are not ACORN affiliates when it is not. This game of nonprofit musical chairs is standard operating procedure at ACORN whenever things get hot. ACORN's friends at the Huffington Post and Media Matters for America have done the same thing with Project Vote, which Obama worked for. They say Project Vote may be an ACORN affiliate now but it wasn't way back when President Obama worked for it.

This is what ACORN does. It's good at it. Whenever ACORN gets in trouble it cries "racism" and "voter suppression" and its critics run away with their tails between their legs. This sort of subterfuge isn't working anymore now that the American public saw how ACORN really operates in the undercover illegal alien sex slave sting operation videos so brilliantly conceived and executed by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles.

ACORN has been engaged in a campaign of deception about its SEIU affiliates, Local 100 headed by ACORN founder Wade Rathke and Local 880 headed by ACORN bigwig Keith Kelleher who happens to the husband of Madeline Talbott. Talbott, you may recall, is a radical agitator whose close personal ties to President Obama are extensively documented. Here's just one tidbit from National Review Online.

ACORN scrubbed its website of references to SEIU 100 and 880 earlier this year. Why would ACORN do that?

As for Wade Rathke, he is a brilliant man. Those who know him say his intellect rivals that of Thomas Jefferson, or so they've told me.

Rathke isn't known for making errors of fact. Errors of judgment, sure, as in the case where he covered up his brother's $948,000 embezzlement from ACORN for eight years, but not facts.

Pretending to be a senile old man, the ACORN founder just issued a "correction" of an old blog post that raises more questions than it answers. After all the trouble he caused for the ACORN network, it was the least he could for the network that still employs his wife, Beth Butler, and reportedly his two children.

Ya gotta help your friends -- and your family.

(For background information on ACORN, please see the November 2008 issues of Foundation Watch and Labor Watch, two monthly newsletters I edit at Capital Research Center.)

Matthew Vadum is a senior editor at Capital Research Center, a Washington, D.C. think tank that studies the politics of philanthropy.

BAUCUS'S CORNERSTONE

The mendacity of people in congress these days is quite alarming. Government run health care has become a personal battle, and it's 'no holes barred'.

Washington DC politicians have nothing less than their own monuments in their sights, and it's all about them, with our fearless leader as their example. "We the People?" -- Who the heck is that?

Government is the problem, not the solution.

Baucus is a prime example, as described in American Spectator:


Baucus's Cornerstone
By Philip Klein, September 29, 2009

"Rome wasn't built in a day," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said Tuesday afternoon. He made the statement over the course of arguing that he could not support the creation of a government-run plan, because it could not get 60 votes in the Senate.

"My top priority is getting this across the finish line," Baucus said.

He encouraged liberals to recognize that the important thing was to get something passed now, to lay a "cornerstone" that could be built on. As a historical example, he noted that when Social Security was first passed Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935 he argued that the legislation was just a start.

Now, if liberals refuse to back any proposal that does not include a government plan, Baucus said, they would fail to lay a cornerstone.

Thus Baucus unintentionally made the argument that conservatives have been trying to make repeatedly -- that is, what we have to consider is not only what is in legislation as it is currently written, but also the infastructure that it would put in place, allowing future lawmakers to expand the role of government further.

Even with the so-called "moderate" proposal of Sen. Baucus, we'll end up with a bill that significantly expands Medicaid, forces individuals to purchase insurance or pay a tax, makes people purchase government-designed insurance policies on a government-run exchange, and creates a new tax-exempt class of insurers that would have access to government money to finance start up costs. That's quite a cornerstone to build on.


Philip Klein is The American Spectator's Washington correspondent.

WHAT THE BAUCUS BILL WILL COST YOU

In the infamous healthcare speech before the Joint Session of Congress, Obama proclaimed that we can keep our current insurance plan, his (yet to be provided) 'Plan' does not cover illegal aliens nor abortions, and -- oh, yes -- no public option. How dare Congressman Joe Wilson shout "you lie!"

No public option must be true because Bill O'Reilly, in his puffed up usual self, said so -- because, he said, Obama said so. Most Americans against governement run healthcare, knew better. And voilà, on the floor of the Senate today is an amendment to add the public option to the Baucus bill.

Fax or phone Congress here.

The Heritage Foundation writes:

What The Baucus Bill Will Cost You
September 29, 2009

This morning the Senate Finance Committee will resume their markup of Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) health care bill. Thanks to Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) the focus today will be on whether or not the Democrats on the committee can find enough votes to include a government-run insurance program. Just like Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) preferred public plan, Rockefeller’s plan would set price controls for health reimbursements at 5% above Medicare reimbursement rates. If the public plan was opened to all individuals and families, 103.4 million Americans would end up on the public plan, 88.1 million of whom would first lose their existing private coverage.

It is unclear at this point if centrist Democrats in Congress are really ready to force this many people out of their existing private care and into government-run health care. But even if the public option is not included, there are still plenty of regressive job killing taxes and invasions of privacy in the Baucus plan that makes it terrible public policy:

Taxes Families - Under the plan, everyone will have to have health insurance by 2013. The mandate will apply to all adults and their dependents under age 18. Those who failed to buy insurance would be forced to pay an annual tax between $750 and $3,800 per year. Those who fail to pay the tax could be jailed for up to one year. Worse, 7.7 million households would face a 35% excise tax on their health insurance. 94% of these households would be paying a higher tax rate on their health insurance than they would be paying on their income.

Taxes Businesses - Employers with more than 50 employees that don’t offer health coverage would have to pay a penalty for each employee who qualifies for new federal subsidizes under the bill. To stay in business employers will be forced to cut jobs and cut wages.

Taxes the Sick - The Baucus bill imposes higher taxes on manufacturers and importers of medical devices, health insurance companies, clinical laboratories, manufacturers and importers of drugs. In effect, the Baucus proposal would tax the sick to subsidize insurance for the healthy, and many of the taxes would be imposed on the same people “helped” by the subsidies.

Invades Your Privacy - The Baucus bill enforces both its individual and employer mandates by deputizing the Internal Revenue Service. To enforce these provisions, the bill would therefore require individuals, health insurers, employers, and government health agencies to report detailed health insurance information on all Americans to the IRS, adding significant administrative costs and reducing privacy protections. The IRS would also be required to report personal income data to state exchanges, insurance companies, and employers because premium credits and out-of-pocket limits would depend on income.

The IRS Will Enforce the Pelosi-Baucus-Obama Health Plan

Congress is back from a long holiday weekend, and ready to pick up the speed to ram government run health care through, whether you like it or not. The speed that caused the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to make a $600 MILLION dollar error. The speed that will give no one time to read, review and dissect a government take-over of 1/6 of our economy, and destroy the private sector.

Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum lays out some critical points and actions we can take:


The IRS Will Enforce the Pelosi-Baucus-Obama Health Plan
Call the Senators on the Finance Committee and Tell Them to Say NO to the Radical Baucus bill!
September 29, 2009

TAKE ACTION NOW!

The Senate Finance Committee is set to resume its consideration of the health care plan outlined by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) today.

Those in the mainstream media and Senator Baucus himself have tried to market this supposedly "new" plan as a more moderate, bi-partisan compromise, however, no other members of the negotiating "Gang of Six," or any other U.S. Senator for that matter, was willing to stand beside Sen. Baucus when he unveiled his plan last week.

Rasmussen reported yesterday that 56% of Americans now oppose ObamaCare. Even worse, the increasing list of defeated amendments in the Senate Finance committee is revealing the true intentions of the Baucus plan to be just as radical as H.R. 3200.

Here are a few things you should know about the Baucus bill and what is developing in the Senate:

• The IRS will enforce the individual mandate. Like H.R. 3200, the Baucus bill requires every American (with the exception of a few groups, including illegal aliens and convicted felons) to purchase health insurance that complies with new federal standards by 2013. Those who fail to pay the penalty-which could be up to $1,900 for each individual-for not having health insurance will face legal action from the IRS and will be subject to the same financial penalties as those who evade paying their federal income taxes. Thanks to aggressive questioning by Sen. Ensign (R-NV) last week to inquire how these provisions would be enforced, the Joint Committee on Taxation confirmed via handwritten letter that the IRS would take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings. The Committee made sure to bring Section 7203 of the U.S. tax code to Sen. Ensign's attention:

"If there is a willful failure to file, pay, or maintain appropriate records and the like [...] the taxpayer may be charged with a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to $25,000 and not more than one year in jail. Felony tax evasion provides for restitution and a fine of up to $100,000 for an individual and up to five years in jail."

• The public option is NOT off the table. This week, Senators Schumer (D-NY) and Rockefeller (D-WV) plan to offer amendments to replace the bill's "nonprofit health insurance cooperatives" with a public option. Currently, the Baucus bill provides for so-called "co-ops," a term which resulted from fierce grassroots opposition, as well as opposition from every Republican Senator and a handful of moderate Democrat Senators, to a purely government-run option.
• Explicitly provides for abortion funding. Currently, the Baucus plan would subsidize plans that cover all elective abortions. This goes far beyond that status quo of current law. Sen. Hatch is expected to offer an amendment to exclude government-subsidized abortion funding and protect conscience rights for health care workers. If you recall, the House Democrats approved the Lois Capps (D-CA) amendment in committee a few weeks ago to officially insert abortion into H.R. 3200. Calls are needed to pressure the moderate Democrats and liberal Republican on the committee in preparation for the Hatch amendment vote on Tuesday: Bingaman (D-MN), Carper (D-DE), Conrad (D-ND), Lincoln (D-AR), Nelson (D-FL), Snowe (R-ME).
• List of defeated amendments reveal the true nature of Baucus' plan. 564 amendments were filed in committee, but only a fraction will be offered and receive a vote. Among the defeated amendments thus far was Senator Jim Bunning's (R-KY) amendment to require that final legislative language and a final CBO (Congressional Budget Office) cost analysis be made publicly available on the committee's website for at least 72 hours prior to a final vote. The Bunning transparency amendment was defeated by a vote of 11 to 12, with all Republicans plus Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) voting in favor-all other Democrats voted NO.

This bill is moving through committee quickly, so your calls are needed to slow it down! Each day, we are learning that it is increasingly likely that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will maneuver to bypass the traditional 60 vote threshold needed to proceed with this bill in order to pass ObamaCare with a simple majority (51 votes) via the budget reconciliation process. Don't let Congress think the American people have cooled down the opposition. The time to light up the Capitol switchboard is now!

TAKE ACTION!

In addition to your own Senators, please call the Senators who sit on the Senate Finance Committee and tell them that the Baucus bill is just as radical and dangerous as H.R. 3200 and that you expect them to oppose it! Also, please be sure to urge support for the Hatch amendment while you are making your calls!

Patrick Gaspard = ACORN = SEIU = White House Political Affairs Director

Considering the importance of the position White House Political Affairs Director, information on Obama's appointee to this position, and his ties, are critical. This is why we have seen such a drastic move to the far left, when all during his campaign, Obama knew he had to run more to the center in order to win the election.

RedState further investigates:


Patrick Gaspard = ACORN = SEIU = White House Political Affairs Director
by Moe Lane, September 28, 2009

Just to repeat some of the things alluded to in this article (with some additions):

• We know that Patrick Gaspard is the White House political affairs director.
• We know that Patrick Gaspard enjoys the trust of the White House to perform sensitive tasks.
• We know that Patrick Gaspard is in fact one of the most quietly powerful people in this administration.
• We know that Patrick Gaspard was formerly an ACORN higher-up.
• We know that Patrick Gaspard was also formerly affiliated with SEIU.
• We know that Patrick Gaspard was seen by Big Labor as being a payoff for SEIU’s support.
• We know that Patrick Gaspard’s brother Michael represents ACORN (and that ACORN Chief Organizer Bertha Lewis kept contact information for Patrick Gaspard).
• And we know that links between ACORN & SEIU and ACORN & the White House have been minimized, downplayed, and outright sanitized recently.
• What we don’t know yet is whether the White House is going to do the same thing with the ties between SEIU and the White House.

Or whether this administration has ‘full confidence’ in Patrick Gaspard. Which is Dizzy City-speak for ‘He’s cleaning out his desk right now.'

ACORN's Man in the White House

Since this administration does not feel the necessity to vet their appointees, it appears the responsibility is on the shoulders of John Q. Public. It's apparent the White House does not want information on their appointees to be made public, just like the records of the president.

America, thank goodness, is still full of citizens who want the truth, though, and are not intimidated in their quest for it. American Spector is on the trail, and this piece deals with Obama's appointee, longtime ACORN operative Patrick Gaspard. There's a really important question at the end of this piece:


ACORN's Man in the White House
by Matthew Vadum, September 28, 2009

Newly discovered evidence shows the radical advocacy group ACORN has a man in the Obama White House.

This power behind the throne is longtime ACORN operative Patrick Gaspard. He holds the title of White House political affairs director, the same title Karl Rove held in President Bush's White House.

Evidence shows that years before he joined the Obama administration, Gaspard was ACORN boss Bertha Lewis's political director in New York.

Lewis, the current "chief organizer" or CEO of ACORN, was head of New York ACORN from at least 1994 through 2008, when she took over as national leader of ACORN. With Gaspard at work in the White House, Lewis might as well be speaking to President Obama through an earpiece as he goes about his daily business ruining the country.

Erick Erickson of the website RedState recently did an excellent job explaining the relationship of Gaspard to Lewis and President Obama so I won't take up space here recalling all his valuable insights. Suffice it to say Erickson reported that Gaspard figures prominently in Lewis's rolodex, which Erickson has in his possession.

Skeptics among you may ask, How do we actually know the low-profile Gaspard, who prefers to work outside the public spotlight and who can hardly be found in Nexis searches at all, was Lewis's right hand man?

Because Gaspard's employment with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is acknowledged by no less an authority than ACORN founder Wade Rathke himself. Rathke writes at his blog:

Tell me that 1199's former political director, Patrick Gaspard (who was ACORN New York's political director before that) didn't reach out from the White House and help make that happen, and I'll tell you to take some remedial classes in "politics 101."

The "before that" time period Rathke is referring to is 2003 when Gaspard was executive vice president for political and legislative affairs for 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. According to publicly available disclosure documents, Gaspard registered as a federal lobbyist for SEIU on Oct. 22, 2007. The registration and subsequent disclosures indicate he lobbied Congress on SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Incidentally, the lines between ACORN and radical left-wing SEIU, whose acronym stands for Service Employees International Union, become fuzzy in places.

SEIU Locals 100 and 880 are part of the ACORN network of organizations. Local 100 in New Orleans is headed by Rathke. SEIU Local 880 in Chicago is headed by longtime ACORN insider Keith Kelleher.

You'd never know about the SEIU connection from visiting ACORN's website, www.acorn.org. That's because the website has been receiving a thorough scrubbing in recent months. On ACORN's affiliated organizations page, references to the two SEIU locals mysteriously disappeared.

It's worth noting that Gaspard's ties to ACORN, SEIU, and Lewis go way back.

According to the Complete Marquis Who's Who, Gaspard has a long history of political involvement stretching back to at least 1989 when he volunteered for the David Dinkins mayoral campaign in New York City. In 2003 he became acting field director for Howard Dean's presidential bid. He was national field director in 2004 for America Coming Together, a now-defunct get-out-the-vote operation that received a $775,000 fine for campaign finance abuses. In 2006 Gaspard was acting political director for SEIU International.

Gaspard also worked for New York's Working Families Party, which is an appendage of ACORN. Lewis is a co-founder of that party -- which endorsed Obama last year -- and has close ties to Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) who has been most reluctant to have the House Judiciary subcommittee he chairs investigate ACORN.

Nadler invented the incredibly creative argument that recent legislative language aimed at depriving ACORN of federal funding constitutes an unconstitutional "bill of attainder." Perhaps singling out the mafia for a federal funds cutoff would be unconstitutional too in his eyes.

Meanwhile, the American public is beginning to realize that ACORN is a vast criminal conspiracy whose reach extends to the highest levels of the U.S. government.

Obama's statement that he's barely aware of ACORN's problems is nothing short of ridiculous, especially so because Patrick Gaspard was a political director for ACORN New York.

Last year he worked as national political director for the Obama campaign followed by a stint as associate personnel director for the Obama-Biden transition team.

As the old Washington saying goes, politics is personnel. Who knows how many administration officials were put in place by Gaspard with direct input from ACORN's Bertha Lewis. It boggles the mind.

We also now know the Obama administration was lying about ACORN's high level involvement in the 2010 Census. The coordination between ACORN and the Census was revealed as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the relentless investigator Tegan Millspaw of Judicial Watch. The Census and other government agencies have cut ties with ACORN as the ACORN scandal widens.

We have to wonder: when it comes to ACORN, what else is the Obama administration lying about?


Matthew Vadum is a senior editor at Capital Research Center, a Washington, D.C. think tank that studies the politics of philanthropy.

MAKING CONSERVATIVES LESS ANGRY

Yesterday, it was reported that FOX-TV Chicago had been order not to run anti-Olympics story, and is another example of this administration's egregious power grab. This assault on the first amendment is appalling, and the attempt to silence free press abhorrent.

The press has been doing a shameful job of keeping the public informed, but FOX News is at least making the effort. We live in dangerous times, with a White House full of left wing radicals who would like nothing better than to silence their opposition, starting with the press.

UPDATE: here (hat tip Drudge Report)
This piece from PajamasMedia is a guide for Democrats to deal with angry conservatives:


Making Conservatives Less Angry
Advice to liberals about how to calm down those dangerous, racist, angry, fire-breathing right-wingers.
by Frank J. Fleming, September 28, 2009

Conservatives are very angry these days. I haven’t seen conservatives this angry since the last time a Democrat was president. So the anger is probably because the president is black. While that might not seem so bad, conservative anger could lead to something disastrous: their mobilizing to vote against Democrats.

If that occurs, what happens to the Democrats’ dream of spending lots of money on seemingly random things? One day the American people will become enlightened enough to surrender democracy to their betters, who would give them such rewards as free (FREE!) health care, but until then conservative anger has to be dealt with. If not, crazy people like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck will force absolutely anyone who happens to be an avowed Communist out of public office.

Despite the apparent menace, imprisonment of conservatives for their dangerous attitudes is not yet an option (we’ll be pushing that bill right before the midterm elections). Thus we must make other efforts to quell conservative anger. Here are some ideas:

How to make conservatives less angry

Actively ignore them: The most basic strategy to try and keep conservatives from being so angry is to never, ever listen to them. If they try to discuss an issue with you, just cover your ears and scream, “Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!” If they realize there is no chance we’ll even listen to them, maybe they’ll decide to just give up trying to have their uneducated viewpoints.

Call them racists: If we shout “Racist!” every time they say something, maybe they’ll finally reflect on the racism that motivates them against a black president and give up whatever silly cause they think they’re pushing. If they dispute the racism accusation, point out how sensitive they are about the charge and how that further proves it’s true (people who really aren’t racist shouldn’t have any problem with being called racist). If further evidence is needed, point out to them that the president is black and they are white and that it’s obvious to everyone that a white person saying bad things about an underprivileged black person is quite racist. If the conservative isn’t white, though, this can be confusing. Make sure to give that person a pamphlet describing the political views he is supposed to have based on his race. If the person doesn’t read the pamphlet, you might have to try using a racial slur. It’s okay, if the person deserves it.

Point out how much smarter Obama is than they are: Obama is obviously very smart (obviously!), but somehow conservatives are overlooking that simple fact. Maybe they’ll be less angry if we keep emphasizing how Obama and his staff are much, much smarter than they are, and in fact they are very stupid compared to Obama and other liberals. Then conservatives will realize that Obama, being smarter than them, probably knows what he’s doing, so there is nothing to fear and be angry about unless you’re a really stupid person.

Use sexual slurs: Conservatives are made uncomfortable by sex talk because of their Jesus person, so associating sexual slurs with everything they do might make them uncomfortable and cause them to give up their protests. For example, when conservatives started having “tea parties,” we started using the slur “tea baggers” to describe them. Any good liberal should know tons of terms describing lewd sexual acts, so be creative!

Make sure no one in the media addresses their concerns: If conservatives can’t get any confirmation of their silly, angry views in the media, maybe they’ll give them up. This has been a problem since talk radio and Fox News came along, though. Still, a boycott of people like Glenn Beck seems to have had some effect. If we can force him off the air, maybe then conservatives will instead watch Keith Olbermann and learn to be calm and reasoned.

Disparage their values: Everyone wants to have popular values, so if we ridicule their values maybe they’ll discard them and instead have the more popular values of the smart people on TV. So always laugh at them if they bring up the invisible sky fairy they worship so they know that’s a dumb belief. Also laugh at any patriotic beliefs they have. Yes, it seems like patriotism should be okay since Obama is now the leader of their country, but somehow it still makes me uncomfortable. Anyway, liking the country is a conservative thing and is part of what makes them angry, so let’s make them stop that.

Threaten them with violence: Finally, we can always use physical threats to get them to not be angry. I don’t mean we should shoot them like when those anti-choice people were shot recently (though that is understandable since conservatives are so dangerous and violent that they have to be stopped by any means necessary), but we could at least rough them up. Yes, most liberals are kinda, well, too puny to do that, but there are always union thugs who are smart enough to do whatever liberals tell them.

Liberals finally have a chance to block conservatives from government forever, but we can’t accomplish that if they’re always angry and keep trying to stop us. That’s why it’s important that we all do everything we can to stop conservative anger. I know many of you are already doing some of the items I outlined, but we need further efforts to stop this dangerous anger from crazy conservatives — anger which stems from them talking about the issues. We want to have an enlightened country where new viewpoints are welcome, but we can’t ever have that if conservatives ever speak — ever. They are all just so crazy angry. I hate them so much and want to bash in their faces until they shut up!

Polonius POTUS

Every day -- every day -- Obama is at the podium, or at the mike, but always in front of the camera. Has there ever been such an insecure president in the White House? Every day!

There are many great lines in this piece, but a good one is:

Where does this unwavering certainty and wonderful belief in one's self come from?

It's horrifying to see someone who thinks he is so God-like destroying the country and the constitution.

This is another excellent piece from the American Spectator:


Polonius POTUS
by Andrew B. Wilson, September 25, 2009

Polonius POTUS

The President who speaks (and speaks and speaks).

On the seventh day, God rested. But not Barack. Knowing the great work of mismanaging health care, bankrupting the economy and giving aid and succor to the nation's enemies was not yet done, the president appeared on no fewer than five television programs on Sunday, Sept. 20 -- lecturing the American people on the need for immediate action on thousands of pages of health care legislation that neither he nor anyone else has even read.

This is good for us. We need to know the error of our ways. Barack will do that for us, and then some! No president has ever talked so much, or dished out so much free and unsolicited advice.

Appearing on television before millions of American school children earlier in the month, he served up one platitude after another of stunning banality. "This above all," he said, "to thine own self be true." No, wait, it was Shakespeare's Polonius who said that. But Barack said something strikingly similar. That was just one of dozens of recent speaking engagements for this most front-and-center of presidents.

Like Polonius, who proudly announces in Hamlet that he "played once i'th' university…I did enact Julius Caesar," Mr. Obama is something of a thespian.

Speaking on the anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, he played the part of an angry Moses come down from the mountaintop -- warning bankers what would happen if they failed to mend their ways in accordance with his commandments. He told them that he would not intervene a second time to save them from themselves. No, he would let them fall straight to hell. "I want them (i.e. the evil bankers) to hear my words," said he, nodding his head at the gravity of his own words. "Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for the consequences and expect that the next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall."

Sometimes, Barack cannot hide his impatience with those who doubt his omnipotence. One time, rolling up his sleeves at the entrance to the Augean stables, he said, "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them but don't do a lot of talking."

Maya Soetoro-Ng, Barack's Indonesian-born half sister, relates that "There was this joke in our childhood that he was going to be the first African-American president." It was based, she says, "on the fact that he was so bossy and he was always winning arguments. You know, he was always trying to tell people what to do so we were like, 'Oh, yes, Mr. President!'"

Where does this unwavering certainty and wonderful belief in one's self come from?

It comes from his vision.

In his classic book The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulations as a Basis for Social Policy, the economist and social commentator Thomas Sowell described two opposing visions: one tragic, the other triumphant. While the tragic vision is bound by a sense of limitation, the triumphant vision is characterized by total certainty in the ability of the advanced or anointed few to alter the course of human events and make wise and momentous decisions for the good of all.

To someone adhering to the former vision, police, prisons and other parts of the criminal justice system represent necessary if unfortunate trade-offs in protecting individual freedom and property rights. Adam Smith, the most celebrated proponent of limited government, underscored this view of an intrinsically flawed and imperfectable humanity in his comment on the problem of crime in a free society. "Mercy to the guilty," he said, "is cruelty to the innocent."

To others subscribing to the latter vision, however, the preferred approach is to prevent crime from arising in the first place by creating a more perfect society. That is to say, they believe it is within their power to devise a deliberate and artfully constructed plan that will eliminate the root causes of crime. The anointed few aspire to "solutions" of their own creation that offer a clean and miraculous (i.e., essentially costless) break with the past. And this is where candidate Obama -- unbounded by any kind of a reality check -- enjoyed a huge advantage over President Obama.

Most Americans admit to being confused over the issues involved in the health care dispute. In fact, the American people have received a crash course on the economics of health care reform that has made them more aware than ever that there is indeed "no free lunch" -- meaning that there is no way that the government can force insurers and employers to extend coverage to millions of additional people, and be more generous in the coverage they provide (turning a blind eye to pre-existing conditions and meeting all kinds of new federal mandates), while, at the same time, reducing costs, avoiding the need for rationing, and adding not so much as a dime to the federal deficit.

Still more, the American people can see that this is not the best time to add another vast entitlement program to those we already have with Medicare and Medicaid -- given the vast unfunded liabilities of those two programs.

Ironically, if predictably, the transition from talking about health care to actually doing something has put the president at loggerheads with some of his closest allies. The so-called Obama/Baucus bill would impose a 35% tax on high-dollar, or "Cadillac," health plans offered by insurers. Who are the biggest holders of these gold-plated plans? As it happens, it is not wealthy individuals, but millions of union workers who have long benefited from a tax code that unfairly exempts their health care benefits from income tax in a way that does not apply to the self-employed and many others who work for small, un-unionized companies. Insurers would have no choice but to pass the cost of higher taxes back to their customers -- large companies which would presumably respond by being that much more resistant to union demands for higher wages. Not surprisingly, union bosses are screaming for amendments that would peel back Mr. Obama's "Cadillac" tax.

Similarly, young people were thrilled by Mr. Obama's rhetoric during the last election. They were moved by his vague and often platitudinous talk about "change" and "hope." Now he proposes to force millions of these same young people to buy expensive health insurance plans -- in effect, cross-subsidizing the plans held by their parents and grandparents -- if anything like the current plan is adopted into law.

The real world -- as opposed to the fairy-tale world that occupies the mind of Shakespeare's incorrigible advice giver -- is one of hard choices and trade-offs, made in the recognition of limitations in human knowledge, wisdom and resources. It is not a world that is easily transformed by mere speechifying.

But there is one piece of advice that the president would be wise to heed. As Polonius said, he should remember that "Brevity is the soul of wit."


Andrew B. Wilson, a former Business Week bureau chief in Dallas and London, is a freelance writer living in St. Louis, Missouri.

He Has Plans for Your Children: OBAMA WOULD CURTAIL SUMMER VACATION

In an ongoing attempt to control your life, we have a new threat as Obama sets his sights on our children. How to do that? What better way, than to increase the school hours with additional 'teachable moments', and indoctrinate their young minds with his agenda. At the same time, the longer our children are kept in school, the less family time they will have. Less family time means our children's development will be in the hands of government run schools, and we all know how they feel about religion and teaching.

If that doesn't scare you into comtemplating home schooling, nothing will. Obama is working at breakneck speed to accomplish enforcing his agenda, and it's going to take all of our strength to keep up with it and cry foul. If we don't, the results are chilling.

Take an MSNBC vote is you agree or disagree with longer school hours. So far, the nays have it.

This report is from the Associated Press:

More School: Obama Would Curtail Summer Vacation
by Libby Quaid, September 27, 2009

WASHINGTON – Students beware: The summer vacation you just enjoyed could be sharply curtailed if President Barack Obama gets his way.

Obama says American kids spend too little time in school, putting them at a disadvantage with other students around the globe.

"Now, I know longer school days and school years are not wildly popular ideas," the president said earlier this year. "Not with Malia and Sasha, not in my family, and probably not in yours. But the challenges of a new century demand more time in the classroom."

The president, who has a sixth-grader and a third-grader, wants schools to add time to classes, to stay open late and to let kids in on weekends so they have a safe place to go.

"Our school calendar is based upon the agrarian economy and not too many of our kids are working the fields today," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.

Fifth-grader Nakany Camara is of two minds. She likes the four-week summer program at her school, Brookhaven Elementary School in Rockville, Md. Nakany enjoys seeing her friends there and thinks summer school helped boost her grades from two Cs to the honor roll.

But she doesn't want a longer school day. "I would walk straight out the door," she said.

Domonique Toombs felt the same way when she learned she would stay for an extra three hours each day in sixth grade at Boston's Clarence R. Edwards Middle School.

"I was like, `Wow, are you serious?'" she said. "That's three more hours I won't be able to chill with my friends after school."

Her school is part of a 3-year-old state initiative to add 300 hours of school time in nearly two dozen schools. Early results are positive. Even reluctant Domonique, who just started ninth grade, feels differently now. "I've learned a lot," she said.

Does Obama want every kid to do these things? School until dinnertime? Summer school? And what about the idea that kids today are overscheduled and need more time to play?
___

Obama and Duncan say kids in the United States need more school because kids in other nations have more school.

"Young people in other countries are going to school 25, 30 percent longer than our students here," Duncan told the AP. "I want to just level the playing field."

While it is true that kids in many other countries have more school days, it's not true they all spend more time in school.

Kids in the U.S. spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests — Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013). That is despite the fact that Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong have longer school years (190 to 201 days) than does the U.S. (180 days).
___

Regardless, there is a strong case for adding time to the school day.

Researcher Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution looked at math scores in countries that added math instruction time. Scores rose significantly, especially in countries that added minutes to the day, rather than days to the year.

"Ten minutes sounds trivial to a school day, but don't forget, these math periods in the U.S. average 45 minutes," Loveless said. "Percentage-wise, that's a pretty healthy increase."

In the U.S., there are many examples of gains when time is added to the school day.

Charter schools are known for having longer school days or weeks or years. For example, kids in the KIPP network of 82 charter schools across the country go to school from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., more than three hours longer than the typical day. They go to school every other Saturday and for three weeks in the summer. KIPP eighth-grade classes exceed their school district averages on state tests.

In Massachusetts' expanded learning time initiative, early results indicate that kids in some schools do better on state tests than do kids at regular public schools. The extra time, which schools can add as hours or days, is for three things: core academics — kids struggling in English, for example, get an extra English class; more time for teachers; and enrichment time for kids.

Regular public schools are adding time, too, though it is optional and not usually part of the regular school day. Their calendar is pretty much set in stone. Most states set the minimum number of school days at 180 days, though a few require 175 to 179 days.

Several schools are going year-round by shortening summer vacation and lengthening other breaks.

Many schools are going beyond the traditional summer school model, in which schools give remedial help to kids who flunked or fell behind.

Summer is a crucial time for kids, especially poorer kids, because poverty is linked to problems that interfere with learning, such as hunger and less involvement by their parents.

That makes poor children almost totally dependent on their learning experience at school, said Karl Alexander, a sociology professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University, home of the National Center for Summer Learning.

Disadvantaged kids, on the whole, make no progress in the summer, Alexander said. Some studies suggest they actually fall back. Wealthier kids have parents who read to them, have strong language skills and go to great lengths to give them learning opportunities such as computers, summer camp, vacations, music lessons, or playing on sports teams.

"If your parents are high school dropouts with low literacy levels and reading for pleasure is not hard-wired, it's hard to be a good role model for your children, even if you really want to be," Alexander said.

Extra time is not cheap. The Massachusetts program costs an extra $1,300 per student, or 12 percent to 15 percent more than regular per-student spending, said Jennifer Davis, a founder of the program. It received more than $17.5 million from the state Legislature last year.

The Montgomery County, Md., summer program, which includes Brookhaven, received $1.6 million in federal stimulus dollars to operate this year and next, but it runs for only 20 days.

Aside from improving academic performance, Education Secretary Duncan has a vision of schools as the heart of the community. Duncan, who was Chicago's schools chief, grew up studying alongside poor kids on the city's South Side as part of the tutoring program his mother still runs.

"Those hours from 3 o'clock to 7 o'clock are times of high anxiety for parents," Duncan said. "They want their children safe. Families are working one and two and three jobs now to make ends meet and to keep food on the table."
___

Associated Press writer Russell Contreras in Boston contributed to this report.

Do You Know What Textbooks Your Children Are Really Reading

With regards to our school system, this past week has been an eye opener. It's not like we were not already aware our education system has drastically declined over the past 40 years, it is possibly the straw that broke the camel's back.

These are some excellent tools to help inform, and guides to think about taking the bull by the horn -- starting new schools, here, and here.  It's time to start thinking about how we take back our education system, or at least demand improvement.

A recent documentary on FOX News about textbooks our children are reading (5 Parts):

Do You Know What Textbooks Your Children Are Really Reading

Narrated by Tucker Carlson

PART 1


PART II


PART III


PART IV


PART V


On a lighter note, maybe this is the video our children should see:

TIM HAWKINS, "THE GOVERNMENT CAN"

OBAMA'S HEALTH INSURANCE TAX: COMING SOON TO ALL POLICIES

Due to the Jewish holiday, Congress will re-convene on Tuesday, September 29th, and which point they should be looking at a slew of faxes and phone calls protesting the passage of their government run health care reform.

The pressure has GOT to be put on Senator Snowe, because all signs indicate she is going to cave. If she does, my new campaign will be: SNOWE HAS TO GO!

The taxes we are looking at downstream are through the roof, and Dick Morris explains:

OBAMA'S HEALTH INSURANCE TAX: COMING SOON TO ALL POLICIES

by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann, September 25, 2009

The Baucus healthcare bill provides for a tax on "gold-plated" health insurance policies. But, as with the Alternative Minimum Tax, once slated to be imposed only on the wealthy, inflation will make most Americans liable to pay the 40 percent tax in a few years.

The tax applies to all individual policies with premiums above $8,750 and families of four whose premiums exceed $23,000. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the average health insurance premium for families of four will reach $25,000 by 2018. The average premium should pass the thresholds in Baucus's bill by 2016.

So, a few years after the bill takes effect in 2013, the health insurance premium tax will become virtually universal. And this tax is to be a 40 percent levy. So, in six years, the average family health insurance policy, now projected to cost $25,000, will, in fact, cost $35,000 due to the Obama-Baucus tax!

The Baucus bill tax threshold is, of course, not indexed for medical inflation or even for regular inflation. (Premiums have been rising at 10 percent for a decade and the average family premium now is 109 percent higher than it was 10 years ago.)

Will Congress act, in the future, to index the health insurance premium tax so it does not reach down to the average American's policies? Not very likely. As costs rise under ObamaCare (as they have in Massachusetts, where they have more than doubled in two years), the pressure for increased revenue will dictate that Congress let the tax grow and expand its reach until it is a universal tax that pays for universal care.

Until now, the Obama plan has not meant much for the average American who now has insurance. While scarcity of doctors and medical care is a likely result, the harm was largely confined to the elderly, who will bear the brunt of the rationing. But now, the Baucus bill shows that the real story is quite different. In a few years' time, most families will find their health insurance premiums 40 percent higher because of the new tax. Far from cutting the cost of health insurance, the bill will send it through the roof!

To fight this bill, please click here to donate funds to run ads in key swing states (like Maine) to stop this iniquitous piece of legislation.

Order a copy of Dick Miller's CATASTROPHE - Go here!
View Dick's videos on YouTube - Go here!
Browse Dick's book CATASTROPHE online - Go here!
Sign-up to follow Dick on Twitter - Go here!
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

OBAMA 101: GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT

We have an unbalance in our school system, and it was broken wide open this past week. It's not only unbalanced, but shamefully distorted. Never before have American school children been indoctrinated to sing the praises of our president. Let me say that again -- taught to sing the praises. It has put focus on just exactly what is being taught in our schools.

This piece in Atlas Shrugs by Pam Geller is spot on, and links to an article about Schoolhouse Shariah, where the lessons whitewash Islamic violence and the oppression of women. As mentioned in the Schoolhouse Shariah article,

"California schools are pushing an unbalanced religious agenda that favors Islam and minimizes Christianity and Judaism," Accuracy in Academia warns in its latest Campus Report....

You can't teach the Ten Commandments in public schools. But teaching the five pillars of Islam is A-OK.

OBAMA 101: GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT
by Pamela Geller, September 25, 2009

Watch the videos below -- smacks of Stalin-ism and Goebbels style indoctrination. It is a stunning indictment of how random and dangerous the public education system is, and proof positive that parents must opt out of the system and demand vouchers for private schooling and vouchers for home schooling (vouchers for resources to home school adequately).

The left refuses to recognize the need for objectivity among men -- particularly men of different views and opinions. It's good that people in this great nation have varying opinions, provided we respect each other's rights. The left is incapable of this. It wasn't that long ago that a photo of Bush was not permissible in many private schools.

Is leftwing propaganda the cause of young Americans' hatred of capitalism? I think teachers are responsible for a good deal of that. Schools have no right playing politics with our children. It's a terrible infringement of rights.

Groups of parents must start schools for our children. It is appalling at what is being taught in public schools. There would be no vested interest in such a movement. We are not slaves or prisoners. We must opt out of this morally infected system of indoctrination.

The power of ideas is inestimable. We must take back our individual rights.




UPDATE: OT related: Schoolhouse Shariah (IBD)

Schoolhouse Shariah

Multiculturalism: California's educrats have put out new rules for teaching Islamic studies to seventh-graders in public schools, and they are as biased as ever. They'll also likely spread eastward.

The lesson guidelines adopted by the bellwether state whitewash the violence and oppression of women codified in Islamic law, or Shariah. And they're loaded with revisionist history about the faith.

For example, the suggested framework glorifies Shariah as a liberal reform movement that "rejected" the mistreatment of women that existed in Arabia before Muhammad and his successors conquered the region, according to Accuracy in Academia. The guidelines claim that Islamic law established for the first time that men and women were entitled to equal "respect."

Not so, says Islamic scholar and author Nonie Darwish, who grew up Muslim in Egypt.

"I am shocked that that is what they teach," she said. "Women had more rights in Arabia before Shariah."

In fact, "wife beating is allowed under Shariah" today, she added. "It allows a woman seen without a headdress to be flogged, punishes rape victims, and calls for beheading for adultery."

California's course on world religions also omits Islam's long history of jihadist violence, while portraying Christianity as an intolerant and bloodthirsty faith.

Christianity isn't given equal time, either. It's covered in just two days — as opposed to up to two weeks for Islam — and doesn't involve kids in any role-playing activities like the Islam unit.

Students do get a healthy dose of skepticism about the Christian faith, including a biting history of its persecution of other people.

Islam, in contrast, gets a pass from critical review. Even jihad is presented as an "internal personal struggle to do one's best to resist temptation," not waging holy war.

I find it a bit ironic that politicians whose legislation is filled with pork would advocate the teaching of Islam (hat tip Jonathan Galt)

UPDATE: Where’s America? Where are the Americans? Life in a Fourth-Grade Public School