Dear Employees:

 Dear Employees:
   

   As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the
fact that Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and
government fees will increase in a BIG way..
   
    To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to
increase by about 10%. But since we cannot increase our prices right now
due to the dismal state of the economy, we will have to lay off sixty of
our employees instead.
   
    This has really been bothering me since I believe we are family
here and I didn’t know how to choose who would have to go.
   
   So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and
found sixty ‘Obama’ bumper stickers on our employees’ cars and have
decided these folks will be the ones to let go.  I can’t think of a more
fair way to approach this problem.  They voted for change…… I gave
it to them.
   
    I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.
   
    THE BOSS

Doctor tells Obama supporters: Go elsewhere for health care

Doctor tells Obama supporters: Go elsewhere for health care

April 2nd, 2010

By Stephen Hudak, Orlando Sentinel

 This doctor says to go elsewhere if you like Obamacare

A doctor who considers the national health-care overhaul to be bad medicine for the country posted a sign on his office door telling patients who voted for President Barack Obama to seek care “elsewhere.”

“I’m not turning anybody away — that would be unethical,” Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. “But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it.”

The sign reads: “If you voted for Obama … seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years.”

Estella Chatman, 67, of Eustis, whose daughter snapped a photo of the typewritten sign, sent the picture to U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, the Orlando Democrat who riled Republicans last year when he characterized the GOP’s idea of health care as, “If you get sick, America … Die quickly.”

Chatman said she heard about the sign from a friend referred to Cassell after his physician recently died. She said her friend did not want to speak to a reporter but was dismayed by Cassell’s sign.

“He’s going to find another doctor,” she said.

Read More:

Who in the White House Authorized a Bribe

Who in the White House Authorized a Bribe

April 2nd, 2010

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Expose Obama

 Obama is practicing Chicago Style Politics

After watching Obama twist arms, beg, borrow and steal to pass ObamaCare, it may come as no surprise to some that Obama’s administration has offered federal jobs for political purposes to two Democratic candidates. What ought to catch people’s attention is that this action constitutes a federal crime.

Did Barack Obama or members of his administration directly violate federal law by offering federal jobs to Rep. Joe Sestak and former Colorado legislator Andrew Romanoff? The best way to answer these and a myriad of other ethical questions is for Congress to join Rep. Darrell Issa in calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate this corruption.

Title 18, Chapter 11, Section 211 of the United States Code states that “Whoever solicits or receives … any….thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

The Obama administration has been accused by two Democratic primary candidates, Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff, of offering them high profile jobs. The jobs allegedly offered included the Secretary of the Navy and a position within the U.S. Agency for International Development. In return for these favors the two would withdraw from their Senate challenges to Obama’s allies, Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado.

The Denver Post, hardly a right-wing newspaper, reported that “Jim Messina, President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop, suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions, according to several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post. Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency, sources said.”

The White House subsequently denied the story and claimed that no job was offered. But with no investigation into this corruption, how will we know how deep the rabbit hole runs?

In February, Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak launched a new charge of bribery by accusing the Obama White House of offering him the Secretary of the Navy job in exchange for his agreeing to abandon his race against Specter. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that this exchange occurred during a TV interview with Comcast anchor Larry Kane: “‘Was it secretary of the Navy?’ Kane asked. ‘No comment,’ Sestak said.’Was it [the job] high-ranking?’ Kane asked. Sestak said yes, but added that he would ‘never leave’ the Senate race for a deal.”

Sestak has later confirmed that yes, he was offered a job, but he has been unwilling to go into greater details. After stonewalling and avoiding the question for weeks, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated that he talked to people in the White House about the claim and that, “I’m told whatever conversations have been had are not problematic.” He added that the incident is “in the past.”

We hate to rain on Mr. Gibbs’ parade, but the incident is hardly “in the past.” If the president of the United States or someone high up in his administration committed a felony the public deserves to know about it. Whoever committed that felony must be brought to justice. This administration is no stranger to corruption, as witnessed by the billions in sweet deals to purchase Congressional votes for ObamaCare.

Obama even tried to influence Democratic Congressman Jim Matheson, who voted against the initial health bill, by appointing his brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. While this corruption is ill fitting for the White House, these incidents pale in comparison to the most recent allegations. The offering of a federal job in order to affect an election constitutes a direct violation of federal law and must be investigated.

Fortunately for those of us who still believe in the rule of law, Rep. Darell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has called for a special prosecutor to probe these allegations. Congressman Issa is confident that a special prosecutor will be appointed. “What you have is a credible allegation by a member of Congress of a felony,” Issa told Fox News. “It is a felony to offer somebody a federal job in order to get them to affect an election.”

We are watching our very system of government corrupted before our very eyes. We encourage all Americans who still believe in our Constitution and the rule of law to join us and Rep. Issa in calling for a special prosecutor to investigate these crimes of the Obama administration.

Sick Thinking From ‘Mainstream’ Leftists

Sick Thinking From ‘Mainstream’ Leftists
David Limbaugh
Friday, April 02, 2010

The Obama left, realizing it has really stepped in it with the American people by cramming Obamacare down our throats, has decided to blunt the backlash against it by tarring, yet again, mainstream conservatives as racists, bigots, homophobes and violent. Its tactics are objectively despicable.

You know the drill. We conservatives, who happen to understand ourselves better than liberals do, know that we are largely a civil, respectable, peaceable bunch. Attendees to the Rush Limbaugh-inspired Dan’s Bake Sale years ago can attest to the mature, wholesome behavior of Rush fans. Ditto Sean Hannity’s Freedom Concert attendees and tea party protest attendees.

The leftists who actually believe the fraudulent bile they are spewing about conservatives as being violent are merely projecting. They know their own side often disrupts and shuts down debate and engages in hate speech and even anarchy. Witness the unruly leftist disruptions of Ann Coulter appearances or the sabotaging of Karl Rove’s appearance by Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans, one of Obama’s radical buddies. Look at the tea party violence from the SEIU left.

But the majority of leftists making these bogus claims about conservatives are either deeply warped or outright lying. There are some isolated acts of fringe violence from the right, but they are just that — isolated and rare. With the many tea parties that have occurred, how much conservative-spawned violence have you heard about — even with a liberal media champing at the bit to slander the entire movement? Hardly any — beyond the fabrications.

The left wants to shut us up. Liberals say they want universal voter registration so all voices can be heard. What? They don’t even want dissenting voices among already existing voters heard. After the way they cheated and gamed the system to impose socialized medicine on an unwilling public, they’ve forfeited their credibility about promoting the people’s will — which we always knew was a ruse anyway.

The Obama left has tried to muzzle us through intimidation — as in its declaration of a false consensus on global warming, its issuing summonses to corporate executives to justify announcements that Obamacare is going to cost them dearly, Obama’s telling those of us who “created this mess” that he doesn’t want us to “do a lot of talking,” his declaring a communications war on Fox News, and on and on. Failing that, the left intends to paint us all as racists who are just a hair trigger away from committing violent acts.

With the groundwork rationale established — that conservative “hate speech” incites violence — liberals will be a step closer to using laws and regulations to emasculate or silence conservative talk radio. But their claim is a vicious, destructive, divisive lie — just like their depiction of conservatives, by virtue of their conservatism, as racists.

A caller to Rush Limbaugh’s guest host Mark Davis said conservatives might not consciously be racists, but the results of their policies harm African-Americans, so it’s fair to infer they are racists. Well, under that standard, Obama is racist because he recently reversed welfare reform, which everyone agrees reduced black poverty and the black illegitimacy rate. The same thing holds for his liberal education policies that result in trapping minorities in inferior inner-city schools. The list goes on.

Yet I don’t believe leftists are racists because the effect of their policies often works to the detriment of blacks; I just think they are misguided and, after all these years of failed policies, have no moral authority to claim otherwise. Good intentions cannot trump decades of bad results.

But the more Obama forces through his unpopular agenda to dismantle America’s founding principles the more outraged the public will become and the more protests and blowback we’ll see (sans violence). These protests, in turn, will result in Obama leftists’ ratcheting up their wild accusations aimed at demonizing their conservative opponents — ordinary Americans, who at this point can be considered victims.

So we should expect more disgraceful columns from liberals, such as Frank Rich, who wrote that conservatives’ “over-the-top rage” over Obama’s policy agenda is caused by “the conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman” — not his agenda. Or Chris Matthews, who asked, “What are the tea partiers really angry about, health care reform or the fact that it was an African-American president and a woman speaker of the House who pushed through major change?”

This is just sick stuff, folks, but not uncommon for leftist thinkers. We conservatives simply don’t think this way. It doesn’t compute. Yet there are scores of examples of other leftist commentators making the same claims.

Note to fellow conservatives: Please understand whom we’re up against here; otherwise we don’t have a prayer of defeating them.

Obamacare was mainly aimed at redistributing wealth

Obamacare was mainly aimed at redistributing wealth

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
April 2, 2010

(AP)

It hasn’t attracted much notice, but recently some prominent advocates of Obamacare have spoken more frankly than ever before about why they supported a national health care makeover. It wasn’t just about making insurance more affordable. It wasn’t just about bending the cost curve. It wasn’t just about cutting the federal deficit. It was about redistributing wealth.

Health reform is “an income shift,” Democratic Sen. Max Baucus said on March 25. “It is a shift, a leveling, to help lower income, middle income Americans.”

In his halting, jumbled style, Baucus explained that in recent years “the maldistribution of income in America has gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind.” The new health care legislation, Baucus promised, “will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America.”

At about the same time, Howard Dean, the former Democratic National Committee chairman and presidential candidate, said the health bill was needed to correct economic inequities. “The question is, in a democracy, what is the right balance between those at the top … and those at the bottom?” Dean said during an appearance on CNBC. “When it gets out of whack, as it did in the 1920s, and it has now, you need to do some redistribution. This is a form of redistribution.”

Summing things up in the New York Times, the liberal economics columnist David Leonhardt called Obamacare “the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.”

Now they tell us. For many opponents of the new legislation, the statements confirmed a nagging suspicion that for Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress, the health fight was about more than just insurance — that redistribution played a significant, if largely unspoken, part in the drive for national health care.

“I don’t think most people, when they think of the health care bill, instantly think it’s a vehicle to redistribute wealth,” says pollster Scott Rasmussen. “But we do know that people overwhelmingly believe it will lead to an increase in middle class taxes, and we do know that people are concerned that it will hurt their own quality of care, so I think their gut instincts point in that direction.”

By talking openly about redistribution, Baucus and others have gone seriously off-message. Democrats knew there was no way they could ever sell a national health care bill to a skeptical public by basing their case on income inequality. That’s one reason they went to such lengths to argue — preposterously, in the view of most Americans — that the bill could cover 32 million currently uninsured people and still save the taxpayers money.

After Baucus’ statement, I asked a Democratic strategist (who asked to remain nameless) whether fighting income inequality was one of his goals in supporting the legislation. Never, he said. “That’s what the tax code is for.”

“It was not to take something away from rich people, it was to provide something to people without coverage,” he continued, making a distinction between striving for universal coverage and seeking to redistribute income. But he quickly saw that Democrats talking about redistribution could be politically damaging, echoing the controversy that erupted when candidate Obama famously told Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

” ‘Redistribution’ is an easy charge to make,” the Democrat said. “I’m not surprised that it’s an argument critics make; what I’m surprised at is that Democrats are making it.”

This week the DNC group Organizing for America offered a commemorative certificate to supporters who helped pass the health care bill. The certificate said, “We achieved the dream of generations — high-quality, affordable health care is no longer the privilege of a few, but the right of all.”

The privilege of a few? It is widely accepted that about 85 percent of all Americans have health care coverage, and the overwhelming majority are happy with it. There’s simply no way anyone could plausibly claim that health coverage is the privilege of a few.

And yet that is the bedrock belief of some who supported the health care makeover. So it’s no wonder that we’re hearing about health care as the redistribution of income. Of course, we’re only hearing it after the bill has passed.

 

Byron York, the Washington Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on http://www.ExaminerPolitics.com ExaminerPolitics.com.

Obama Cracks Down On Fuel To Force Hybrids And Cap And Trade

Obama Cracks Down On Fuel To Force Hybrids And Cap And Trade

April 1st, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

033110_fuel_efficiency_monster_397x224

The Obama administration set tougher gas mileage standards for new cars and trucks Thursday, spurring the next generation of fuel-sipping gas-electric hybrids, efficient engines and electric cars.

The heads of the Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency signed final rules setting fuel efficiency standards for model years 2012-2016, with a goal of achieving by 2016 the equivalent of 35.5 miles per gallon combined for cars and trucks, an increase of nearly 10 mpg over current standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The EPA set a tailpipe emissions standard of 250 grams (8.75 ounces) of carbon dioxide per mile for vehicles sold in 2016, equal to what would be emitted by vehicles meeting the mileage standard. The EPA issued its first rules ever on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions following a 2007 Supreme Court decision.

“These historic new standards set ambitious, but achievable, fuel economy requirements for the automotive industry that will also encourage new and emerging technologies,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. “We will be helping American motorists save money at the pump, while putting less pollution in the air.”

Each auto company will have a different fuel-efficiency target, based on its mix of vehicles. Automakers that build more small cars will have a higher target than car companies that manufacture a broad range of cars and trucks. The standard could be as low as 34.1 mpg by 2016 because automakers are expected to receive credits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in other ways, including preventing the leaking of coolant from air conditioners.

“This is a significant step towards cleaner air and energy efficiency, and an important example of how our economic and environmental priorities go hand-in-hand,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said in a statement.

Dave McCurdy, a former congressman from Oklahoma who leads the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing 11 automakers, said the industry supports a single national standard for future vehicles, saying the program “makes sense for consumers, for government policymakers and for automakers.”

LaHood and Jackson said the new requirements will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program. The new standards move up goals set in a 2007 energy law, which required the auto industry to meet a 35 mpg average by 2020.

The rules should add costs to new cars and trucks. The government said the requirements would add an estimated $434 per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle by 2016 but would save more than $3,000 over the life of the vehicle through better gas mileage.

EPA and the Transportation Department said the requirements would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 960 million metric tons over the lifetime of the vehicles regulated, or the equivalent of taking 50 million cars and light trucks off the road in 2030.

Environmental groups have sought curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, blamed for global warming, and challenged the Bush administration for blocking a waiver request from California to pursue more stringent air pollution rules than required by the federal government. The request was granted by the Obama administration last year.

“The standards forthcoming under the ‘clean car peace treaty’ are a good deal for consumers, for companies, for the country and for the planet,” said David Doniger, climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Automakers have been working on an assortment of fuel-efficient technologies, including hybrids, electric cars and technologies that shut off an engine’s cylinders when full power isn’t needed.

Nissan is releasing its electric car, the Leaf, later this year, while General Motors is introducing the Chevrolet Volt, which can go 40 miles on battery power before an engine kicks in to generate power. Ford is bringing its “EcoBoost” line of direct-injection turbocharged engines, which provide a 20 percent increase in fuel efficiency, to 90 percent of its models by 2013.

Independent Voters Turn From Hopeful To Angry At Obama

Independent Voters Turn From Hopeful To Angry At Obama

April 1st, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

ra2039136465

Washington Times:

President Obama and congressional Democrats face an uphill climb to reclaim the support of independent voters who vaulted them to the White House and huge majorities in Congress in 2008.

At the end of the bitter, intensely partisan battle to pass Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul plan, independent voters, once captivated by hopeful campaign promises, are feeling burned and appear eager to oust Democrats in November’s midterm elections.

“There is an overall sense of frustration that no one is listening,” pollster Scott Rasmussen said about a problem that has plagued the political party in power for decades.

Mr. Rasmussen said the more pressing issue for Democrats is that swing voters are not just anxious about health care; they’re also angry about the stimulus package and auto industry bailouts.

“It is gathering steam in the sense that the longer the frustration goes unanswered, the more it grows,” said the founder and president of Rasmussen Reports.

In 2008, Mr. Obama’s hope and change messages seemed to win over independents, and he captured about 52 percent of the independent vote in the election that year.

Self-identified independents continued to back Mr. Obama through June, with about 60 percent saying they approved of his job performance. But as the year wore on and the health care battle gained steam, their approval of the president plummeted and hardened in the low 40s, according to Quinnipiac University polls.

The president’s approval ratings have not rebounded since the health care vote, but the latest Quinnipiac poll shows some positive movement for Mr. Obama. The percentage of independents who disapprove of Mr. Obama’s job performance has dropped nine points, from 53 percent to 44 percent.

“It may be that passage of health care eventually helps President Barack Obama’s approval ratings, but at this point there’s no sign of that,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

“The White House believes that now that the legislation has been signed into law they can sell it to the American people. Approval of health care reform is growing – or disapproval is shrinking – but the president still has his work cut out for him.”

ndependents make for fickle voters. Two former political strategists for Bill Clinton said they’ve already seen independents begin to recoil from Republicans.

In February, Republicans held a 22-percentage-point advantage over Democrats among independents, according to the strategists’ polling, but that had slid to just five percentage points by last month. The drop was attributed almost entirely to female independents, who went from favoring the GOP to favoring Democrats.

The strategists, James Carville and Stan Greenberg, who had front-row seats for Republicans’ congressional victories in 1994 when Mr. Clinton was president, said they don’t see a repeat this November – mainly because the GOP’s high point has come and gone. That apex was in January, when Republican Scott Brown won the seat of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

“When we look back on this, we’re going to say Massachusetts is when 1994 happened,” Mr. Greenberg said.

In state after state, unaffiliated voters now hold the key to elections. Mr. Brown capitalized on that momentum in Massachusetts by telling voters he would be an independent voice in the Senate.

Seeking to boost the numbers, Mr. Obama is traveling across the country to trumpet the short-term benefits of the new health care law.

On Thursday, he was in Portland, Maine, where he predicted voters will start to support health care reform, and ridiculed early polls suggesting that voters continue to be unimpressed with the changes.

“It’s been a week, folks,” Mr. Obama said. “Before we find out if people like health care reform, we should wait to see what happens when we actually put it into place. Just a thought.”

For now, the health care debate’s political effect on Republicans and Democrats is easy to spot: Both sides are more energized.

A CNN poll released Tuesday found that 56 percent of Republicans said they’re extremely or very enthusiastic about voting in November, a six-point jump since January, while 36 percent of Democrats said they’re similarly enthused, which marks a five-point increase.

That enthusiasm gap bodes well for Republicans heading into the elections, but Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Carville said the GOP’s brand image is likely too tarnished for them to retake the House and Senate.

They said in 1994, Republicans emerged from every policy fight with a strengthened image, but this year the GOP is suffering from each policy fight.

Mr. Carville predicted that Republicans will net about 25 House seats and six or seven Senate seats – not enough to give them control of either chamber, but enough to drop Democrats’ margins dramatically.

He said, though, that this will be the third election in a row in which a party has scored those big congressional wins, after Democrats’ double-dip successes of 2006 and 2008, and said voters are profoundly unhappy.

• Stephen Dinan contributed to this report.

Sarah Palin: A Celebration of Hope

Sarah Palin: A Celebration of Hope

A Celebration of Hope
 Yesterday at 8:29pm
For many of us, the arrival of Easter means the arrival of a new season of joy – of Easter parades, Easter egg hunts, chocolate bunnies, and sweet Peeps topping off a family meal. Some may wonder why we merrily celebrate at a time when we’re remembering Christ’s crucifixion on the cross. And there is something to that. Good Friday is, after all, about God who became Man, dying on the cross for our sins. And yet we celebrate Easter Sunday, and we are right to do so.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). This one verse sums up the miracle that is the Easter season and helps explain the celebration. Yes, Christ died for us, but in the end Easter isn’t a season of sadness. Ultimately, the story of Christ’s rising from the dead three days after the crucifixion is the story of the triumph of hope over despair.

Hope is one of America’s unique virtues. Hope makes us dream and achieve the seemingly impossible. It’s who we are, and it’s why we’re able to always believe that our best days are yet to come, both for our families and for our country. Easter time reminds us that we have every right to believe that this hope is based on time-tested truths and a solid foundation.

On behalf of the Palin family, I wish you all a peaceful and reflective Good Friday and a blessed and happy Easter Sunday.

- Sarah Palin

Drill Maybe? Drill! (The Cartoon)

Obama Declares War on Fishing

Obama Declares War on Fishing

April 2nd, 2010

By Beth Daley, Boston Globe

 Obama is really cracking down on fishing

The federal government finalized the most fundamental changes in New England fishing rules in more than a generation yesterday, over the strenuous objections of many fishermen who say they will be put out of business.

The new rules, which take effect May 1, come after years of effort by the federal government and environmental groups to stop overfishing of the region’s fabled cod, flounder, and other bottom-dwelling species that once were said to be so plentiful that colonists caught them simply by lowering baskets into the sea.

The rules encourage boat owners to organize into groups that will be allocated a share of the annual quota for each species, and already fishermen who account for the vast majority of the catch in New England have voluntarily formed groups, called sectors. The system is designed to give fishermen more financial incentive to be good stewards of the sea and more flexibility in deciding who fishes and when, such as allowing fishermen to avoid bad weather.

The government is also lowering the total amount of many species of fish that can be caught.

Read More:

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers