Political thoughts of the day

This morning I woke up to hearing a comment being said about how great it is that Obama is willing to quote scripture and talk about Easter when it isn’t politically correct to do so.  I wanted to scream at them, what about last year when he refused to acknowledge the National Day of Prayer, and if I remember correctly cancelled it.  Don’t you find it interesting that he is more Christian than last year?  Hmm, I wonder what the difference can be?  Could it be that he has announce is once again in campaign mode since he just announced that he is running for a second term?

Enough about the pResident, because I actually have been thinking about Trump running for President lately.  But, before I talk about Trump, I will say that I really like Sarah Palin, but there is one little point about her that is making me feel like she won’t be a strong enough President. It is the fact that she picks venues to speak at and interviews to give that are safe.  Many times, she is preaching to the choir.  Maybe it is something that the choir needs to hear, but it is still a bit too safe for me.  I can see why she doesn’t want to deal with the LSM, but at the same time, if she can’t deal with them on her terms then how will she be seen as strong enough by other world leaders.  I just don’t feel like she can hold her own as the leader of the free world.  Until I see an interview that is not in a safe venue, I can’t support her as President.

I think she is in a great position to speak out and ensure that this country goes back to the roots of what the founding fathers wanted this country to be.  I once was told that while the Republic they founded was imperfect, it could be looked at as being imperfect for a reason.  I’m all about less government for the simple reason when we let the government do for us and for others, we lose a lot more than we realize.  When we expect the government to take care of the homeless, we lose a bit of the part of us that needs to care for others and want to help others.  I think that by letting the government do this, we have become too selfish to help others.  Speaking of this, and then I will return to my first comment, I think that the tax code should allow 100% deductions to charitable organizations no matter what income level you are at.  While people may give for the tax benefit at the same time they are thinking about doing for others, even if at a very small level.

I have been reading a lot of comments and blog posts that talk about Trump not even being a RINO but a Democrat in sheep’s clothing.  I can see how many can see this of him.  I am surprised that I find myself agreeing with him in what I am hearing from him. But, at the same time, I can see that he is probably more old school Democrat when there was a much thinner line separating the two parties when it comes to their platforms.  His donations to Democrats don’t bother me too much because it is due to two things.
The first is that he lives in very blue states, so it really is hard to support a Republican that can win.  The second is that at his level, he has to donate to those he thinks will win as a form of protection money.  I read that he had made a statement that there should be a 1 time tax on the extremely wealthy to help get us back on level ground economically.  I was disappointed to find out that he stated this in 1999.  (While I do find it interesting that he thought we needed to do that when Clinton was supposed to have been such a strong President when it came to the economy.  Actually, I realize that there was somewhat of a fake economy at the time due to dot coms and Y2K preparation that had increased salaries out of the normal range in some areas.)  But, without realizing the time frame of when he said it, I thought it made perfect sense for now.  I would want a protection to be made where it could only happen one time.  But, economically speaking, I do think in a way it would stimulate the economy if it put a lot of other long term tax deductions and spending cuts in the mix.  I say this because when the stock market crashed in 2008, most high end investors lost about 25% of the value of their investments.  I am sure that they would be willing to lose a portion of that in order to be put in the position to gain it back based on a better economy.  I know I usually say that taxes don’t stimulate the economy, but until we stop the spending and get rid of the debt, the economy is going to be standing still.

Finally, please put two and two together if you don’t realize this.  Corporations do not pay taxes.  Granted, they file long tax returns just like you do showing how much money they made, their deductions, and then the amount they have due and just like you this income is based on money that they have received for products and services rendered.  Here is the thing that I don’t think liberals realize.  The money they receive for products and services comes from consumers.  It may take a step or two before it gets to a individual consumer if they are a business to business service provider.  But, they figure in what they expect to pay for taxes into the cost of doing business and then put this in the cost that they charge the consumer.  So, you are basically paying a portion of their tax when you purchase any service or product from a corporation.  So, if you want to pay higher prices on your purchases than lets make sure that corporations pay more than their share of tax.  Or you can just send pay more when you buy items and tell the cashier to tell the corporation to apply this to their tax general ledger line items or you can pay the IRS more when you pay your taxes with a note that since you want to make sure corporations pay a higher tax, you have figured out this is the amount you would have paid the corporations for items if they had been charged at the higher rate.  Sounds kind of stupid doesn’t it.  Personally, I am wondering if the economy would thrive if corporations tax rates were greatly reduced.  I suspect it would because why state and local governments give tax breaks to corporations that move into their areas.

Arizona tragedy and my thoughts

I won’t be putting links on this post because if you really want to see what I am talking about I am sure a quick search will lead you to it.  Yesterday, a guy who probably is a paranoid schizophrenic took a gun to shoot a group of people that included a federal judge and a Congresswoman.  Because the congresswoman happens to be a Democrat, it has turned into a political issue.  Maybe he did so because of something in his mind that felt like she hadn’t lived up to his political expectations or maybe it was an attempt to commit suicide by hoping that someone would kill him while he was shooting others.  He is the only one who knows what is going on his mind that led him to this decision.  However, the one thing that I am finding interesting that no one is really talking about is that he bought the gun in November of last year (2010.)  Based on the fact that election day was early in the month, chances are that he bought the gun after the election.  So, maybe he was upset over what had happened with the election or maybe he just decided to buy a gun in November.  Once again, he is the only one who really knows what was going on in his mind in November.

Of course, even though he is reported to be a liberal, the left and the media is still trying to blame it on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.  They just don’t get it do they.  They really don’t see that they do the same things they they try to blame on the right.  They targeted certain seats (and some of those seats were held by Democrats.)  I can’t remember offhand, but I do believe the left targeted Giffords seat because she wasn’t liberal enough.

Sadly, lives were lost and a guy who had severe mental health issues life is over.  I hope that Giffords comes out of this with minimal brain problems and is able to quickly recover from the brain injury so that she can return to Congress.  While everyone is trying to say it was Palin and the Tea Party talk that caused it, they are failing to see something.  Giffords wasn’t acting like a Democrat in Congress when it reconvened in January.  She voted against Pelosi.  She introduced a bill that would reduce the Representatives’ pay by 5% and she had participated in the reading of the Constitution along with the Republicans.  I had just noticed her the other day when I read about the bill she introduced.  I liked the way she was thinking and thought she actually represented her constituents rather than her party.  It didn’t matter to me that she was a Democrat because I sensed that she got what the people are saying.  Sadly, it is because she does represent them that she had arranged to listen to them that she ended up being in a position to be shot.  Sadly, it is because of all this that this tragedy is being turned into a three ring circus.

In closing I will say that as people start to talk about gun control, I am reminded of what Rendell said after the killings at the Amish schoolhouse – you can’t legislate crazy.  Also, it reminds me of a few years ago, when in Britain, which has strict gun laws had a rash of knifings at night because when a criminal can’t use a gun as a weapon they use what they can get their hands on.

Sarah Palin endorses these candidates

Here is a list of the candidates that Sarah Palin is endorsing. At some point, I will add a list of the candidates, in addition to Barbara Boxer, that Obamacorn is endorsing.

I encourage you to check out these candidates if you live in their district. Also, if you want more information on why Sarah is endorsing them, check out her facebook page so has written a note about each one.

Joe Miller for Alaska US Senate  www.joemiller.us.

Jan Brewer for Arizona Governor www.janbrewer.com

Dr. Paul Gosar for Arizona 1st Congressional District www.gosarforcongress.com

Carly Fiorina for California US Senate  http://www.carlyforcalifornia.com/

Star Parker for California 37th Congressional District www.StarParkerforCongress.com

Bob McConnell for Colorado 3rd Congressional District www.mcconnellforcongress.com

Karen Handel for Georgia Governor www.KarenHandel.com

Todd Tiahrt for Kansas US Senate www.ToddTiahrt.com

Tom Emmer for Minnesota Governor http://www.emmerforgovernor.com/

Kelly Ayotte for New Hampshire US Senate www.ayotteforsenate.com

Susana Martinez for Governor New Mexico http://www.susanamartinez2010.com/

John Gomez for New York 2nd Congressional District www.gomez2010.com

Michael Grimm for New York 13th Congressional District www.grimmforcongress.com

Ann Marie Buerkle for New York 25th Congressional District www.buerkleforcongress.com

Mary Fallin for Oklahoma Governor race www.maryfallin.org

Nikki Haley for SC Governor www.nikkihaley.com

Tim Scott for South Carolina 1st Congressional District www.votetimscott.com

CeCe Heil for Tennessee 5th Congressional District www.ceceforcongress.com

Clint Didier for Washington Senate http://www.clintdidier.org/home.html

John Koster for Washington 2nd Congressional District www.kosterforcongress.com

Cathy McMorris Rodgers Washington 5th Congregssional District  www.cathyforcongress.com

Conservative women are the true feminists

So, just shut up fake feminists and stop trying to make your actions that put the glass ceiling back in place as the actions of feminists!!!!

All I can say about this post is that it is a must read post. It is exactly why I refuse to think of the liberal left women as feminists. As she says in this post, they are the antithesis of feminists. Conservative women must band together and take the term back from them because WE are the true feminists.
From Hot Air Taking feminism back: Sarah Palin endorses Nikki Haley for SC governor

Sarah Palin speaks out against healthcare

Sarah Palin gets it. This is the post she put on her Facebook to clearly explain what she is saying about health care bills in DC. I would love for her to really put an emphasis on the impact this bill will have on the availability of doctors to even receive care if this bill passes. I am hearing time and again that doctors will retire rather than have to work in a government system. Are we going to begin seeing that those who would be the best doctors choose another career path; so those who are accepted into medical school are ones that would never have been accepted in the recent past.

Enjoy Sarah Palin’s article

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore….It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program.” [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

As Lane also points out:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]

So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives…. It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen … should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens….An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

– Sarah Palin

[1] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/president-obama-addresses-sarah-palin-death-panels-wild-representations.html.
[2] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[3] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); Sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
[4] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
[5] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[6] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html%5D.
[7] Id.
[8] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html%5D.
[9] See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200.
[10] See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
[11] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions.

Analysis of Sarah Palin

This is a fantastic analysis of Sarah Palin’s decision to step down. I agree with most of the article except the very end. I do hope he is wrong that the GOP won’t be able to take the place-holder down in 2012. I think his comparison to Clinton’s second term is a bit off. Even I voted for Clinton for the first term and I don’t know who I voted for in 1996. I just closed my eyes and picked a lever. Clinton has a charisma that won a lot of people over. And, the GOP didn’t sell Dole the right way, just as they did to McCain/Palin last year. But, it is too early for a front runner to be out there. Also, how many times have the front runners in the news now become yesterday’s news by the time we are going to primaries?

American Thinker

I will have to say that I do agree that she made the right decision for Alaska. Parnell can now run as the incumbent in 2010 and continue what she has put in place in the state. She can do whatever she wants without having those who find fault with whatever she does hindering her ability to serve the state as she says the state the money of having to defend her. Finally, she is able to do what she does best and help the GOP. As long as they don’t try to destroy her. Because of the GOP continues to tie her down they will tying themselves down.

Sarah soars as Powell sinks to a new low

So finally I can watch the news again since Sarah Palin managed to push Michael Jackson off as the top news story. It is sad that liberals think that she is cutting and running. She is doing what she thinks is best for her family, her state and her country. Sometimes what people see as a weak move, actually ends up being the strongest move a person can make. She realizes she is not able to do her job because of those who want to destroy her. So, they think they have won. The best advice I ever got from a boss was to pick your battles because you may win a battle but you won’t win the war. Sometimes, you have to give up a battle so you can end up winning the war. I also think of what Gretzky once said about playing hockey – great players play where the puck is going to be. Just reading over a few of famous quotes he has made, totally make me understand what Sarah Palin has planned. I don’t her plans, I just understand what her basketball analogy meant during her speech.

Speaking of speeches, I am really angry at Powell in that he is now having doubts about what guy at the White House is doing. Gee, isn’t what happening things that conservatives were pointing out last year? Powell you are not a leader if you just now are realizing that our country is going down the drain. Many of us were screaming this at the top of our lungs and yet you had to support him. Sorry, you are a loser and your 15 minutes ended in 2004. Krauthammer, I feel the same way about you. You were so blinded by your dislike for McCain that you de facto supported the Demos. Now, you come out against the guy at the White House. Too later, a day later and a dollar short. Loser!