Category Archives: Democrats

Barton vs. Eldridge: Bring it on!

Posted by on 06/20/2010 3 comments

It is funny – or blatant chutzpa – that Democrats are attacking some Congressional Republicans, such as Burton, for wanting the rule of law to apply despite public outrage against BP, while these very Democrats defended (or didnt attack) just days earlier a Democrat member of Congress, Mr. Eldridge, who physically attacked a student who merely asked Eldrige a question.

The way I see it, Dems: Bring it on! Let’s show a clip of Eldridge’s behavior side-by-side with Republicans demanding that the courts or current regulation, rather than-Obama arm-twisting, should decide how BP pays for their mess. Take it to the voting booths: way more voters will be mad as hell against Eldridge for his action and Democrats for their inaction than with Barton and other Republicans.

All this is besides the point that the hoo-ha-ha with Barton is mostly inside the beltway crap that most Americans who see the current incompetence of the federal government, do not even know or care one drop, just as few care about the Sestak Jobs story to which I have written May 30 (at the American Thinker) that Republican should drop that story.

Republicans should man up and rip Dems on Obama’s cleanup incompetence; the Democrat’s 1990 Congress for introducing The Oil Pollution Act which did zero to prevent or cleanup this BP mess; and… hold Democrats accountable for not disciplining a member of their party for attacked a young student.

Dummy, the USA is NOT a Democracy!

Posted by on 03/26/2010 5 comments

In the context that The Right is not happy that Obama and the Dems passed HCR, leftist TV host Chris Matthews said March 25 on his show, “It seems the right likes everything about democracy besides elections, majority votes, and government action. I don’t know what about democracy they do like?”

Well Mr. Smart Head: Those on the right don’t like a Democracy. They Right likes Representative Republics, exactly what the Founders made the USA to be.

You see, In a Democracy, the simple majority vote CAN ignore the minority or take away rights of the minority (or minorities). America is not a Democracy! The USA is a Representative/Constitutional Republic (or however the pinheads call it) where the minority has ALOT rights, and a simple “majority vote” CANNOT take away the rights granted in a Constitution.

You got it: According to the “lovely” Democrats’ ideology, we the people have less rights and less of a say than under the evil Republican ideology. Dems have now the majority in both Houses of Congress, but it does not mean that we the people, or the minority party, have to sit back and accept everything that Pelosi and Reid want.

Remember Mr. Matthews: America HAS Democracy, but it is not A Democracy.

Dead Voters Favor Dems by a 4-1 Margin

Posted by on 01/19/2010 No comments

Be aware that dead voters go in favor of the Dems by a margin of more than 4 to 1, as reported here a few years ago.

Maybe in MA where the Dems outnumber Repubs, the margin is even higher…

Obama’s Dog More Influential Than Jessee Jackson, Carter, and Moore

Posted by on 01/12/2010 No comments

In its list of the 100 most influential liberals in the US, the UK Telegraph placed President Obama’s dog, Bo, at slot number 80. The higher on the list, the least influence one has. Which means, those between 81 through 100, are less influential than Obama’s Dog.

Here are some names:

Civil Rights Activists Jackson is number 97.

Former President Carter is number 98.

TV Host Chris Matthews is number 92.

Michael Moore is number 91.

Chairman of WH Council of Economic Advisers, Ms. Romer is number 87.

Billionaire businessman and donor George Soros is number 86

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska is number 81.

And number eighty is… Obama’s Dog!

Don’t forget to sign-up here to receive my writings directly into your inbox.

Retirements ARE Bad News for Dems

Posted by on 01/07/2010 1 comment

The Dems are spinning the recent retirements of top men in their party as a positive thing for the Dems.

On hand they are correct, because getting the failure out of the way in Connecticut permitted the Dems to bring in a better candidate, thus giving Dems a chance to keep that Senate seat. On the other hand, however, the recent retirements show that the Dems, who helped shape the Pelosi-Reid agenda of recent years, are in trouble and therefore need to leave the political battle field.

In addition, it shows that the Repubs can and should run against this agenda which is not liked by a majority of Americans. Had Americans been happy with all this, no retirements would have taken place this week. So… all in all, the retirements are indeed bad news for the Dems who try running on their “accomplishments” of the last three years.

Good Luck!

The Dems did WHAT to the Poor?

Posted by on 12/18/2009 No comments

Last night, I read a story in the NYT which reported that NYC “officials announced Thursday that they had stopped issuing new federal rent subsidy vouchers and were terminating the vouchers of 3,000 families who had yet to fully use them.” What’s the Reason? O, simple: In 2008 and 2009, reports the Times “Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), instructed the agencies that administer Section 8 vouchers nationwide to use money in their reserves to fill shortfalls in federal financing.”

In an era of TARP, Stimulus, Omnibus spending bills 8%-12% higher than just a year ago, how can there be a shortfall in federal housing financing? Worse, the FY 2008 budget was written in 2007 by the “pro-poor” Majority on Capitol Hill, led by Pelosi and Reid. Why didn’t THEY make sure that the program is well-funded? Since I was 5 years old, I, like all Jews and other minorities, was told that the Dems care for use, vs. the racist, angry, white guys of the Republican Party who want to expel us from the USA. Therefore, I am baffled that the all-caring, pro-poor, who-take the Jewish/minority voters for granted, Dem-Congress didn’t finance the section eight program.

What hurts me most is the fact that “Obama’s Stash” was not used to avoid cuts in the program.

The Dems are Doomed on HCR

Posted by on 11/29/2009 No comments

Whichever way the final Health Care Reform bill shapes up to be, the Democrats are doomed.

If it has a full scale public option, it cannot get 60 votes to end debate in The Senate due to a few moderates. If it does not have the public option, the conference bill won’t pass the House due to a few dozen liberals.

Now let’s move to politics: if the bill passes, the Republicans will campaign the next twelve months that starting in ’10, the legislation cuts too much from Medicare, raises too much tax despite that the HCR benefits start only a few years later. If President Obama does not sign the bill, the base on the Left will be mad like hell, and this likely translate into trouble for the Dems come November.

All this is directly the fault of Obama, Ried and Pelosi who did zero-to-nothing to have real bipartisan support on this issue. Now it is time that they eat their own.

How to Pay for the Afghan War

Posted by on 11/25/2009 1 comment

The Pelosi-Reid controlled Capitol Hill who had no worries how to cover an Omnibus Spending Bill earlier this year despite it being $32 billion larger than a year before; the Democrats who didn’t think twice about cost when debating the $787 billion Stimulus Bill, are now very concerned of how to pay for the war in Afghanistan, despite that it is according to them “a war of necessity.”

Well, here is how to cover the war: The Democrats claim that health care reform pays for itself by more people having insurance, thus more have access to preventative medicine. In turn, billions of would-be health expenses that the nation has now due to an uninsured population, would vanish in coming years. Using this thinking, Afghanistan pays for itself. How? By crushing the Taliban and the terrorists, the United States will prevent a lot of instability in the region and terror attacks worldwide, thus sparing the Treasury billions in future war costs, in addition to the fact the in times of peace and stability, world economies can grow strong, thus bringing in more money to the Treasury.

Bingo!

Give Sweeteners, and Leave HC as is

Posted by on 11/23/2009 No comments

If not for a handful of so-called moderate Dem senators going along with the program, the Senate would have not started debate on the issue of Health Care Reform (HCR). In other words, this issue would have been dead by now.

As it was widely reported, one senator gave her vote only after getting a $300 million sweetener for her state. Considering that the other few moderates might sell their final votes for the same price, The Senate would need to come up with a total of $1.5 billion to cover these five votes that can otherwise kill this bill if they are against ending debate of this issue. Now, calculating that in the House 3-dozen Dem lawmakers will each sell their vote for let’s say $100 million apiece, The House will need $3.6 billion. Putting it together with the Senate, we are looking at a total of 5.1 billion dollars.

I have a question and a suggestion. Question: did the CBO add up all these sweeteners when they calculated the cost of the bills? Now my suggestion: without these moderates getting their sweeteners, the bills would have been history by now. In other words, the aye votes were just these lawmakers saying “yes. Give me cash for my district/state.” If so, I suggest that Ried and Pelosi handout sweeteners, without overhauling Health Care. It would be cheaper for taxpayers and for the country.

Our Next President is…

Posted by on 11/16/2009 No comments

A Republican, likely from the conservative wing of the Republican side of the political spectrum, will be our next President. There is a very strong chance that it will be Mike Huckabee, yet Mitt Romney also stands a good chance. I also believe that Sarah Palin should not be counted out.

Before Obama fans dump this article, and before Conservatives forward this article, scrap the first paragraph. Reason being, analyzing now who will be on top of the Presidential candidates list for ‘12, and which party has a better chance of getting elected in ’12 or in ’16, is pre-mature. Just ask Secretary of State Clinton and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford about all this. Being now in late ’09, it is clearly too early to predict and even just discuss with relevance who will be the real players in the ’12 Presidential field. In fact, even to predict now with accuracy how many House seats the Republicans will gain or lose in a year from now, is really too early.

Sure, we can all see where trends are going regarding the mid-term election, and which Republican has currently the ear of the Republican Party. However, just as Palin came out of nowhere and shattered the cards of the Republican establishment, we cannot know now which Republican might start rising very fast and change the game, as Doug Hoffman did in NY-23. Therefore, all roundtables filled with pundits debating the ’12 candidates, are bubbling up water. Don’t waste your time on it

Pelosi Did Indeed Win Tuesday – HCR That is

Posted by on 11/08/2009 2 comments

Following the election results a few days ago, November third, Speaker Pelosi said ‘we won’?  You remember how the Republicans mocked her for this statement?

well wel well, Pelosi did indeed win that night – she won the Health Care Reform bill. Had the Republicans won on Tuesday the two open congressional seats, the final HCR vote would have failed in a 218-217 vote. Here is how:

The current bill passed in a 220-215 vote. Among the Ayes, were Dem Representative Bill Owens who won Tuesday NY’s 23 congressional seat, held until now by a Republican. Also voting Aye was Dem Rep. John Garamendi, who won an open seat in California, held until now by a Democrat. Had Republicans (or Conservatives in NY-23) won these two seats, the Dems HCR tally would have been cut to 218 votes, and the Republicans’ would have gone to 217.

Then there is the Aye vote by Joseph Cao, a freshman Republican from Louisiana. If you noticed, he only voted for the bill, once the score board showed that the Dems anyway had the 218 votes, which means, if not for that, one might conclude that he would have not given the Dems the deciding vote. Instead, he would have voted with the Repubs giving them 218, leaving the Dems with 217.

Good point. Right? Yes it is, but let me destroy it: A handful of Dems voted against the bill, but only after they saw the 218 mark on the screen. Which means, if not for that, maybe one or two of them would have not given their vote on the NO side. Instead they would voted Aye handing Pelosi the current 220 win. After all, as of 8:45 Eastern, it was reported that 34 Dems (not 39 as it was in final) will vote against the bill.

Go figure. But seeing how Owens, Garamendi and Cao voted, you can’t help but admit that Pelosi did indeed win last week Tuesday night.

The Right Saw it Coming

Posted by on 11/06/2009 1 comment

Today, the Labor Department reported that 190,000 jobs were lost in October, worse than the 150,000 consensus in a Market Watch survey of economists. The Unemployment rate hit 10.2%, up from 9.8% a month ago, and much worse than what was expected.

Politically speaking, those on the Left will say that the current jobs report is better than in January when “we lost 700,000 a month.” I wrote already once that this excuse is lame, and the claim is false altogether. Besides, rest assure that those who lost their jobs this month don’t care for a dime how many more or less people lost jobs in this same month.

Those on the Right knew all along that the disasters job market is here to stay, and to get worse than what it was a while ago. On May 15, three months after the signing of the stimulus; a time when people were seeing “green shoots” and expecting wonders from Obama’s Stimulus; a time when the unemployment rate was at 8.9%; a time when Fed Chief Bernanke said that the unemployment rate won’t hit the 10% mark, and two months before Buffet warned of an 11% Unemployment Rate, I wrote the following on lohud.com (the article has been pulled since then):

“Sure, these and other statistics are “better” than November’s numbers, yet November and the immediate months after it were “depression era,” hardly an index against which to one would want to measure “better” times. Add to that the disastrous lagging indicator (jobs) that can itself destroy the economy. This leads me to conclude that for regular people on the street, though economic times have yet to reach full scale, and an unemployment rate of more than 11 percent might be here before we get to count the next twelve months.”

I know we are not close to 11 percent; however we are not yet at May ’10 either. Frankly, I was surprised that the Unemployment Rate didn’t crack the 10% figure two-three months ago, considering that so many things in the economy are still very bad. Yes, they are portrayed as “good” just on the basis that it’s not as bad as a year ago. But as I wrote in May, November of 2009 is hardly an era that you want to measure success against it.

As long Obama’s economy does not show a net gain on a monthly basis, and as long the unemployment rate doesn’t cool off, a spin of “saving or creating” jobs will, politically fall on death ears, and will economically keep the recovery down.

What Today’s Elections REALLY Mean

Posted by on 11/03/2009 1 comment

Pundits have thoughts what today’s elections really mean. But I think the following is the best take.

The election results in NJ and VA mean that if Corzine gets defeated, the Republicans win a Governor’s seat. If McDonald in VA wins, the Republicans have another seat. And regardless who wins in NY-23, the outlay in the House of Representatives won’t change much one way or the other. Pelosi will still be in full control of that house.

The elections also mean that Republicans can be joyful for a day or two, thinking that things will change in their lives due to these wins. And for Dems not losing all three seats might mean that some on MSNBC will have with what to be happy about.

You get my point. today’s elections are about today. not about tomorow or next year. The next major elections are only next year November. Have you noticed how many things can change in that time? Well, early to mid September ’08, McCain was riding the polls due to Palin. A week later all was gone together with Lehman, and with it was gone any chance of Obama losing the election.

Yups, that is how fast things change politically. So… Today’s results mean just the raw results what they produce. Nothing more.

YOU in NJ: Go Vote!

Posted by on 11/01/2009 5 comments

The  New Jersey Gubernatorial race gives the Orthodox Jewish NJ voters (or perhaps any group vote) a voice on the national political stage.

During presidential election, such states as NY and NJ are mostly in the tank for the Democrats, with comfortable margins, thus limiting the affect what Jewish voters can have on a national race. The upcoming NJ gubernatorial race is however, down to the middle, if we believe the recent polls. National political observers want to see if the Democrats, using all its star power and money, can hold on to the state. Or will the Republicans capitalize on the national 10% unemployment rate, outrages Washington bailout spending, the already increased taxes (such as on tobacco products), socialized health care, etc, to use all of them to snatch the state from the Democrats.

The vote may come down to less than a few thousand voters, again, if we believe the polls. This means that the average reader in NJ can and will affect the outcome. Therefore, if you are one of those NJ’ans, make sure to go out and vote this November third. Regardless if you want to vote for Governor Corzine because you like his tax hikes and wrecked state budget, or regardless if you want to vote for Christie become you want him to clean up NJ and in the same time send a message to Obama that the US is still a capitalist society, just go out and vote.

Don’t expect your life to change overnight, no matter who wins, but expect your vote to influence the national political debate in the coming weeks.

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Democrat…

Posted by on 10/30/2009 1 comment

 …Thanks so much for reforming the health care system that will cover 94% of the population up from the 88%-90% legal population that are anyway covered.

… Thanks for coming up with a plan that will be “self-sustaining” and “deficit neutral” just as social security was supposed to be.

Now let me ask you a few questions, Mr. and Mrs. Democrat:

… The government will increase taxes as early as next year, to cover this HCR bill. Will the government “borrow” all that money to cover other expanses just as it did from Social Security? Or will the money really be available when the benefit portion of the HCR plan kicks in three-four years from today?

… I am sure you are aware of the Thompson Retuers analysis that because doctors fear being sued, they over-subscribe medications and run extra tests, at a wasted annual cost of up to $300 billion, or as CNN reported back in August, the over-testing costs annually above $200 billion. Don’t you think it’s time to curtail frivolous lawsuits and the hefty portions that attorneys bite out from their poor clients, rather than taxing the “runaway” profit margins of health insurance companies who earn on their money less than what you earn on your Vanguard investments?

… Waste and fraud, including the waste and fraud that drips through the government-run Medicare, costs annually up to $200 billion. Don’t you think cutting back fraud is a good way to “raise” money for our health care system?

… Don’t you think you should first show that the already-existing public options such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Affairs hospitals can be more efficient and at a better cost before you will dump millions of young-to-middle age Americans into the same hell-hole as seniors and veterans are placed?

… A lot Doctors don’t want to accept new Medicare patients because the government pays doctors less than what you think regular Union workers deserve. Based on this, how many Doctors, do you think, will want to serve the millions on the Public Options that will reimburse doctors on Medicare-levels or even worse?

… Can you please let me keep some of my income money, in addition giving a tax deduction to people for every dime they might spend on Medical/Dental/vision costs?

… I don’t have Health Insurance. Do you think that if I can afford an “extra” $900 per family member for health insurance, I will rather give you the money in form of a fine for not buying health insurance in the first place?

… One more thing, Mr. Democrat. To cover the cost of living increases, you give yourself every year an increase of a few percent to your three-digit salary. When will you start giving us all a yearly tax cut to reflect our cost of living increases?

Missing the Point in NJ

Posted by on 10/25/2009 1 comment

Republicans and Democrats both want to win next week’s gubernatorial election in New Jersey. The Dems want to hold on to that seat, and of course nationally they want to show that they can win now an election, despite the public’s dissatisfaction with President Obama on economic issues. The Republicans are yearning for a big win following their ’06 and ’08 defeats, and the Independent candidate in the race is there for, em… I have no clue.

The Dems are spending millions of dollars and are bringing in all the star power they got, from former President Clinton to Obama, and ended with VP Biden, to give the Dems a win in a Dem State. So even IF the Dems keep NJ, it will be done only after pulling all the capital in their book, a thing they cannot repeat in all important ’10 races.

Wining NJ only under the above circumstances in addition to a third party candidate that helps the Dems, will confirm the Democrats’ biggest fear: ’10 is a tough year for them, as of now. In other words, the Dems might as well not spend there so much capital just to have a nice 2010 cover story, because even with a win, the writing on the wall for 2010 is for everyone to see.

Your 50% Chance of Staying Doomed!

Posted by on 10/23/2009 4 comments

Yip yip ya-hoo (as Limbaugh would say). The Dems health care plan, as you probably know, will cover 94% of the U.S. population.

Let’s have a drink to celebrate.

But hold that one, because if you are currently uninsured, you still have a 50% chance of staying this way even if the Dem plan gets signed by Obama.

Here are the simple numbers…

The U.S. population is approximately 305 million people.

The number without health insurance is 47 million.

Of it, less than 37 million are actually legal in the U.S.

From another perspective it means: approximately 12% is not insured.

The Dem Plan covers only 94%, which means 6% will be left without coverage.

Total: if you are of the 12% without coverage you still have a 50% chance of staying without healthcare.

 Yeah… What a marvelous health plan.

You want more? The Dem plan for 94% coverage kicks in only in ’13. So my fellow 12% uninsured Americans: your 50% chance of getting insurance, has a 100% chance of waiting another 3-4 years.

Ok, so let’s give Medicare for everyone, as the recent plan is. In others, if the old plan is not good because it leaves to the dumps only 6% of the population, let’s go with Medicare and screw up the whole population.

Another note: Medicare is not free; it gets “officially” funded through 7.5% tax off of your weekly income. Plus, you still have premiums when you hit 65. So… if you think Free Health Care is coming your way, wash your face with cold water because you are day-dreaming.