Your Blue Dogs Are Showing

From the lips of the LOTUS - Speaker Pelosi: Your Blue Dogs are Howling:

Like many Americans, I’m very concerned about the efforts underway to rush through the 2,000 page Pelosi health care bill this weekend. Why the rush? That’s a lot of pages to read. Why not give everyone the chance to read it and debate it? How much will this bill cost us? It’s unclear because the figures coming out of Washington keep changing – and always in the direction of costing more, not less.

The latest numbers show it will cost more than a trillion dollars over the decade, but when has a government program ever come in on or under budget? How will we pay for it? Taxes, of course – and not just on the “rich” (you know, the people who spur the economy by buying goods and running companies that employ people), but also on just about everyone, especially small businesses – the job-creating engine of our economy.

One of the points of health care reform was to help small businesses with the cost, but this bill hurts them – and right at a time when so many Americans are out of work and need the jobs that small businesses produce.

What’s in this bill? The “death panel” provision is in it. Medicare cuts are in it. Coverage of illegal immigrants is in it. And federal funding for abortion is in it. I commend the many Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who are taking a principled stance to fight this. I had a message for Speaker Pelosi in a speech I gave last night for the Wisconsin Right to Life – “please, please don’t break the ‘transparency promise’ by prohibiting at least a vote of your colleagues on funding abortion-on-demand.”

Speaker Pelosi has already broken many promises thus far in this “reform” exercise. She promised that this would be a bi-partisan effort, but the bill she’s pushing isn’t bi-partisan. She promised that the final version of the bill would be posted online 72 hours before it comes to a vote so that the American people could clearly see what’s in it and how we will pay for it. But she broke that promise too when she decided to rush the bill to a vote this weekend. The speaker must be held accountable for her broken promises.

Now is the time for Americans who believe in the free market and who believe that we need policies that promote job growth instead of job loss to say once and for all, “Enough!” Stand up and make your voices heard before it’s too late.

Call and email your representatives and tell them to vote “no” on Pelosi’s train wreck of a health care bill, or else we will vote “no” to sending them back to Washington when we go to the polls in less than 12 months.

PS: For an idea of the bureaucratic maze that the Pelosi bill would create, take a look at this new chart put out by the Joint Economic Committee.

- Sarah Palin

Just Got Back from Palin's RTL Speech

Kissin' Trig

I just got back from seeing Sarah Palin at the Right to Life event in Milwaukee. Here's a basic rundown of my experience. You probably don't care, but I'm going to tell you anway. I've only slept like four hours in the last two days. I pretty much have big raccoon rings under my eyes, so bear with me:

I jumped on ordering tickets as soon as the event was announced. I called my parents and told them about it, after which they refused to let me travel the four hours distance to get there on my own, so my Dad ended up taking me, which was fine. I mapped it out and told him where to go and we went.

We got to the event about 45 minutes before the outer doors opened (around 4:45) and there was a fairly small line. As we stood there we were glad we got there when we did because the line filled in behind us pretty fast.

There was a lady a ways ahead of us in line wearing an Alaskan sweatshirt who claimed that she either had been or currently is Sarah's neighbor. I wasn't able to get close enough to find out details, but I was dying, dying, of curiosity. At any rate, she seemed to approve of Sarah.

Once we got inside, the place filled up slowly, and from where I was sitting, it looked packed. I'd say a safe estimate would be a few thousand people, if not more.

I saw Sapwolf from C4P. He was about ten rows ahead of me. Yes, he's from New York, and yes, he came all the way here. Good grief, man, you get around. He was wearing his C4P shirt. I didn't say hi, mostly because I was about to fall asleep and probably looked like I'd been up for four days and had just stumbled out of a washing machine. But Sapwolf, if you noticed a girl lookin' at you with red hair and a red Wisconsin shirt, that was me.

Anyway, it was supposed to start at 7:30, but it didn't get started right on the dot, and people were getting antsy. All of a sudden, some applause and hollering broke out and people started standing up. I stood up too because I thought it might be Sarah, but no, it was the Republican candidate for Governor, Scott Walker. False alarm (sigh). Antsy again.

A couple minutes later some people started chanting "Sarah!" as if they were trying to bring her out. They chanted in vain. A couple more minutes ticked by.

Finally, at maybe 7:35, the organizer of the event got up and spoke, followed by one of the main people at Wisconsin Right to Life. They shared some good stuff. He apparently got his girlfriend pregnant when he was 19. They decided to have the baby, and today she's married and will soon be giving them a grandchild. It's safe to say that the pro-life movement is personal to him.

He was followed by a woman who talked about the successes Wisconsin's RTL is having and what they're doing. Again, good stuff, but not really why we came. She asked if anyone was here from out of the country and Sapwolf yelled out, "New York!" and raised his hand. Finally, the woman introduced Sarah, who came through the curtain off to the side of the stage.

I gotta tell ya, the place went absolutely insane. I've never seen her in person before. My first thought was, "Oh, my goodness, she's short!" (Not like, tiny short, but short, nonetheless). My next thoughts were somewhere along the line of "I can't believe she's right there! I can't believe she's right there!....." You get the idea.

She was wearing a red suit and looked awesome. I didn't try to get any pictures or autographs at the end or anything. One, they wouldn't let us bring cameras in; two, that's not why I was there. I know what she looks like; I wanted to hear what she had to say.

The applause went on for awhile. She tried a few times to get us to shut up so she could speak, but nothing doing, we just kept on cheering. Finally, we decided to sit down and let her have her say.

The event was obviously not tailored for recording. There were a couple of screens, but the lighting wasn't quite right so the screen version of her was just a little off. I'm pretty sure it's the shadows that weren't right. I was pretty close though, so I just looked at her. In person she looked great, but you'd be surprised what improper lighting can do to the camera version of something. I just ignored the screens. Besides, I was trying to take notes.

The first thing she did was ask if there were any soldiers or veterans in the audience and asked us to give them a round of applause. My dad is a vet. Then she asked them to stand while we observed a moment of silence for the victims of the shooting at Fort Hood. She said she'd be prayin' during that silence. Two of the soldiers killed were from Wisconsin.

After that she started off like she always does, making connections to Alaska. First up, her grandmother was born in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. Secondly, she gave a shout out to Greta van Susteren. She said she's never been around Greta where she hasn't heard her singing Wisconsin's praises. Greta, of course, is from Appleton, Wisconsin.

Sarah said the third connection was a bit more nebulous. Her father (her mom was there with her, by the way. She was sitting in the audience. That's the only family member I saw or heard mentioned as having been there.) Anyway, I think she said her father had gone to high school with a Jerry (Jeremy?) something, a guy who turned into a Green Bay Packer. I'm not a Packer guru, so don't ask me for details. But Sarah was saying how she was on the phone with her Dad asking him this stuff, and she wanted more details. Her dad was going on about the guy and asking her, "Don't you remember...?" this, this, and that about the player's record. Sarah was like, "Dad, I don't even know if I was born!"

She then got into more serious things. She took out a gold coin, one of those new gold dollars. She said a friend of hers got it as change or something at a car wash (don't quote me, I was writing notes) and asked her what was missing. It was, of course, "In God We Trust." It's been moved to the edge of the coin on the new gold dollars. Sarah said that she knew it wasn't seemingly a big deal, but it was indicative or what's going on in our country, and she just had to wonder, who gave their stamp of approval to that? "In God We Trust," our motto, is being pushed to the outside?

She then mentioned the size of the crowd and said that she liked it for selfish reasons. She said that she looks out at the crowd and thinks, "Thank God; I am not doing this alone."

The theme of her speech seemed to be Truth. She kept coming back to that word. The idea being that as the truth gets put out there by groups like Wisconsin RTL, things will change. They are already changing.

She quoted a Bible verse, but good gravy if I caught the reference. I've got an idea of what it was though; I'll keep looking.

Here's a few other quotes. Some are fairly accurate, others are as best as I could write them down:

"...Babies who survive botched abortions; there are some politicians who would choose to see those babies die."

(referring to the Gallop poll) "The majority of Americans do identify as pro-life, and I thank God for that trend."

(talking about Wisconsin right to life and others in the rank and file) "You didn't sit down and shut up - you went rogue!"

"Some politicians did not support providing care to botched abortion survivors...one is now in the White House."

"They call our position extremist; it is not....(she talked about Roe vs. Wade defining abortion as a right and our position is now seen as anti-liberty, anti-freedom...)

"We're not anti-anything; we're for the very best of life."

"Just simply affirm life."

"A baby is a baby, regardless of the circumstances of her conception."

She called out Nancy Pelosi, talked about how the federal government is looking to fund abortion on demand in healthcare bill. She demanded that Nancy Pelosi live up to her promises and allow transparency in the healthcare bill. She mentioned some Democrats that are fighting these provisions, and said that at the very least Pelosi should allow them their say and a vote.

"I appreciate the Democrats that are fighting abortion on demand in the healthcare bill."

She talked about how we need to help and not be afraid of getting our hands dirty. Too often we shove these things off on the government so we don't have to worry about them: "Don't look to government to walk the walk for us.....Life happens. Don't just hand the government our pregnant teens." She said that beauty could come from less than ideal circumstances.

"I feel a real change is coming, and we can't give up now."

She talked about some feminists of today who "claim to speak for all women. The earliest feminists were pro-life."

She mentioned some of those feminists and what they said. "More young women today agree with our feminist foremothers." (Young women today, the Millennials, are more pro-life than their parents' generation.)

"Don't wait for the government." (talking about how laws have their own process and take time, we just need to get out there and promote life, even if nothing is moving politically.)

She talked briefly about how the danger of judging human life based on utilitarianism. She said that if you judge by utilitarian standards, and the government has to cut costs (under new healthcare bill), our elderly would not be first in line for care, neither would our special needs children.

She said it was funny to see the media's heads spin when she boiled it down to simple terms of truth. She said, "I don't think they can handle the truth yet, but...."

And then finally: "If you feel like you've been pushed out on the edge, come back in; you're not alone; come in and fight with us."

She repeated some of the things she'd said in Evansville. She recounted the ultrasound she got at around 12 weeks. "The technician told me that she saw boy parts!" And, of course, the tests later revealed an extra chromosome.

Sarah talked about her fear, and how she had to cling to just that seed of faith that she had gotten from pro-life proponents. She said it's easy to stand on the side and do the preaching; it's another thing to be asked to walk the walk. She said that she asked Todd and God, "Why us?" And Todd said, "Why not us?"

She talked briefly about Bristol too, and how both her and Bristol understand what you go through in those situations and the temptation to just make it all go away. She then said that she was thankful for all that her family had gone through in the last two years, and that she wouldn't trade it, nor Trig, nor his extra chromosome for anything in the world.

Near the end of her speech she talked about how politicians who resisted the partial birth abortion ban were either heartless or cowards. She said she would call it like she saw it and that partial birth abortion was killing a baby.

She talked about Pope John Paul II and his passion for life. There were a few other things. I'm sure I'm not the only one who was taking notes.

After she was done, the lady from RTL came back and they brought out a check for a $1,000 that Sarah was giving to help fund their tv ad campaign. Everyone who attended got a kind of postcard and a pen. Basically if you would match Sarah's donation for a $1,000, then you will become one of Sarah's "Rogues" and will be shipped an autographed copy of her book when it comes out. Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of money. I guess I'll have to try for a book signing.

The lady also mentioned, "As you know, Jim Doyle is our Governor." Boooos filled the hall, mine included (boos also rang out when Sarah mentioned Nancy Pelosi earlier on). The lady said we'd elect a pro-life Governor next time around. Too early to call that, but I admire her enthusiasm. Truth be told, I know nothing about Scott Walker; I've been focused on other things.

When it was all over, a bunch of people surged forward to get autographs. A couple of guys were there in their Packers jerseys and cheeseheads. They were shoving their cheeseheads forward trying to get them signed. We hightailed it so we could make it out of there. Got home at around 2:00 in the morning.

So, that's the rundown. If I remember anything else I'll mention it later. Good night:)

Random Thoughts on Health Care - Pt. 3: Palin Responds and Scores

Obama, you're lyin'.

On Palin's Facebook response and media "fact-checking":

I have to say it's a risky move to pin your argument down to one section of the bill. That was the media's initial opportunity to take her statement, "fact-check" it, and say, "See! There's no mention of death panels!"

I kind of hope she broadens the argument into other arenas or other sections just so that the media will have a harder time pinning her down. Having said that, it's brilliant. She once again managed to instantly galvanize the whole discussion by going right for the throat and effectively accusing the bill of being a form of government murder.

Instant galvanization. Just like the David Letterman thing. Like Beck pointed out, she didn't just come out and say, "Leave my kids alone." She effectively said, "You're a dirty old man and your mindset contributes to the objectification of women in America. Apologize to all women." Like Joseph Livestro pointed out on C4P, she is framing the debate. Now, we need to be careful of the media's blinders when it comes to "fact-checking" her arguments.

Wisetrog on C4P said this: "The Dems tried to sidestep her argument by confining it to end of life arguments. She has responded to the end of life questions, she should move on and bring the debate to her turf which is rationing. She should expand on her last point and make it a debate about rationing."

I agree. Sarah started with the end result. Now it's time to unravel the rest of the thread. And I suggest doing it before the media has a chance to pick apart this latest post. Death panels are a result of rationing, rationing comes because there's too much demand and not enough supply, which will result because of these provisions in the bill, the cost, etc... and look at what's happened in other countries...

It's time to take the whole thing apart and kill it dead. Broaden the argument. She's gotta dance around. If she stays on the one point, they'll focus all their energy on discrediting or "fixing" that one point in the bill and then claiming it's all better.

All I'm saying is that the media was able to try and discredit her statements originally because she handed them just one section of the bill, which they then "fact-checked" and took her statement out of context (removed it from the rationing scenario) to say it just simply wasn't true and she's making stuff up. Perhaps a slight tactical error, but it doesn't really matter now:

She shoots. She scores!

On Sarah's Victory in the Senate Version of the Bill:

One down, about 28 million to go. In an obvious win for Sarah Palin the Senate struck out the end of life counseling provision. Yay.

Forgive me for not celebrating too loudly, but this is nowhere near over. Broaden, broaden, broaden. Go read her latest Facebook post and you'll see that she's doing just that.

Sarah got at least one section fixed. My fear with this approach was that if they did strike it (which they did) they could then claim, "Look, we fixed it! Are you happy now?" Which is why even though Palin could keep on pressing that one section, she really needs to not make that her only topic of conversation (which she isn't) and she must now broaden quickly (which she is). She already set the stage for this in her reaction to it being struck, saying that it was just one part out of many that causes concern and focusing more on rationing. Good, good, good!

Remember a couple of other things too. First off, this isn't even the final version of the bill. The House passed theirs. The Senate struck this one provision. Later they'll go into committee and hammer out a whole new bill reconciling the differences of the House and Senate. Do you get my drift? We don't even have the final version of the bill yet, let alone a guarantee that anything struck out won't just be slipped back in.

Secondly, this one section doesn't really solve the problem of death panels. This one section was only a piece of that, and Palin's already brought that up. She's also now hammering on the rationing point now quite nicely. Good, good, good. The spending and the framework of a committee like Britain's NICE are just a few other pieces of the bill that will lead to rationing and therefore government bureaucrats handing out care selectively, i.e., death panels.

Whether the section that was struck out is in the final version of the bill or not doesn't really matter. The bill itself as a whole will cause a shortage, and then the American version of Britain's NICE committee will start the rationing, whether we try and convince old people to end of their lives or not.

I hate to be a gloomy Gus, but we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. If this thing passes, that's it. The intrusion of government into our lives will be practically irreversible. Once we become dependent on the government for not only our financial well-being but for our very lives, we are in their hip pocket for good.

So now I say, Sarah, broaden the debate, and in her latest Facebook post she already is. Good. This was not the end of the battle, it was merely the first shot. This was a demonstration of Palin's power to shape the debate and shake up Obama. She won the first advance. Now, on to the war.

P.S. I also want to see Sarah say something about the new FCC guy and his regulations that will destroy talk radio.

Random Thoughts on the Health Care Bill - Pt. 1: The Death Panels

Here's just some random things that have been floating around my brain lately. There's no real rhyme or reason:

Take a moment to think about this: Nobody had a clue who this woman was a year ago. Now she writes a note on her Facebook page, the media loses its mind, and the President of the United States feels like he has to respond.

Of course Obama doesn't WANT death panels. He didn't WANT to bail out the banks. He didn't WANT to get into the car business. When Obama says he doesn't want something, that pretty much means it's going to happen.

And can I just say, Obama is using this "pulling the plug on old people" thing as a strawman. Palin's point was what could happen based on the philosophy of those around him in the event of rationing. "Death panels" is just a term for government bureaucracy deciding who gets care and who doesn't in the event of a shortage, or rationing. The real question is: Will government intrusion lead to rationing? Um... based on the past and pretty simple extrapolation I would say, yes.

It's not about the death panels. RATIONING is the key, which will lead to things where we decide who gets health care and who doesn't, which is the definition of a death panel. It's not like the government will officially sentence people to die, but if there's not enough to go around, they'll just simply fail to keep people alive. This kind of thing already goes on in countries that have socialized medicine and therefore shortages.

The question isn't "will there be 'death panels'?" It is "will government intrusion to this extent create a shortage of care which will mandate a need to ration that care?" If so, then the "death panel" situation is a natural consequence of this health care bill. The actual wording for it doesn't even have to be in there. We're talking about unintended consequences here. If you think that something like this can't happen, you're being naive.

This healthcare bill is the first step toward socialized medicine. All you have to do is look at other countries that already have socialized medicine and how the elderly are seen as a burden on the system and often neglected because they just don't have that much to offer society. I don't have a problem with individuals making choices about when to pull the plug, but if we centralize this thing it will take it out of the realm of personal choice and, because of the shortages it will create, put it in the hands of government bureaucracy. "Death panel" is Palin's term for this kind of thing. It's not like there will actually be Obama sitting up there saying, "No more chemo for you!" But the result will be the same. It is the media and the White House who are spinning Palin's statement out of control. But they're losing anyway.

And also, they focus only on her "death panel" statement and ignore her other statements about the growth of government, etc.... They're using that one thing to try and discredit Palin (which they won't succeed in doing).

We want to avoid what Europe has, period. This health care bill is the first step down a road we really don't want to even go near. Sarah's telling us what the end state will be, not the immediate effect. But of course it will take time, and we'll get used to it little by little. By the time we get there, it probably won't even matter anymore. We will officially be mindless drones, completely dependent upon the government for our very survival, and we will cease to be free. Call it fear-mongering, call it crazy, but if it means avoiding becoming Britain, I'm all for it.

I love all these media moguls saying the bill doesn't set up that panel. Well no kidding. Bravo, media, give yourself a pat on the back for being so smart. It's a term, idiots, coined by Palin for the inevitable outcome, not language from the actual bill itself. Don't get me wrong, the framework for such a thing is in the bill.

The brilliant liberals who are so much smarter than we are cannot grasp the concept of a....."term." That's right boys and girls, today we learn about the word "term!" Maybe they'll learn another use for the word after they find out they're not getting another one.

The important thing isn't whether or not people like her or that she becomes Prez or whatever, the important thing is that stuff like Obamacare is stopped. If that means sacrificing a little popularity, so be it. This is a fight: she's going to get scratched up and bloody. Expect it. The ride will not be smooth and without mishaps. Nothing easy is worth doing.

I Don't Think She Gives a Rip

Sarah Palin's recent Facebook statement about Obama Deathcare has many wringing their hands saying that she's being too divisive. They say that she shouldn't have gone so overboard in using terms like "death panel." They claim this type of red meat is great for the conservative base, but just simply won't fly if she wants to run for President.

And that's where they miss the point entirely.

I don't think Sarah Palin gives a rip about being President in 2012. I really don't. If that's where this road leads, than that's where it leads. If not, that's even better.

Think about it. This woman was unknown to the world a year ago. On August 29th she did something that to her was probably very simple and logical: she accepted her country's call to run for Vice-President, arguably the most boring job on the planet.

A bit of a political earthquake has followed Sarah Palin wherever she's gone, but I don't think even she had any clue of how the Left was going to lose its head completely. With that speech in Ohio accepting the Vice-Presidential nomination, a chain of inevitable events was set into motion.

That chain ultimately shut down her ability to do her job as Governor and led her to where she is today, where a simple note on her Facebook page can send the entire media into a babbling conniption fit.

She hasn't been storming the country just yet. If you think about it the woman hasn't really had a day off since she signed up to run with McCain. And if she takes Obama on it's going to be a fight to the finish, so she better get some rest now while she still can.

What is Sarah Palin going to do? She's going to try and pull this country back from the brink of losing everything that it is. In so doing she will tell it like she sees it, "death panel" language and all. If that kills her chances of the Presidency, whoop-de-dung-doo. This country is more important than any one person's political ambitions.

Here's my take on her healthcare comments:

Human life at any stage and any level is worth protecting simply because it is human, not because of its supposed value to society. The words "death panel" may not be in Obama's bill, but that is the natural result of the circumstances the bill would create.

All you have to do is look at other countries in Europe that already have socialized medicine. This healthcare bill is the first step to what they've got. The elderly mean less than dirt over there. What Palin has done is reason things out to their eventual end. I don't think we want to go down that road.

Yes, we as individuals do sometimes have to make choices about when to pull the plug, but those are choices we should be making, not choices a centralized government bureaucracy should be making for us. If they really want to just bring prices down there are tons of other things they could do that would actually work.

And to those who think she's being too divisive: She's right. I don't think she gives a rip if she's ever Prez or not, and at this point, neither do I. Would I like to see that? Sure. But Palin's political future is not nearly as important as the lives of American citizens. If matters of life and death are not worth dividing people over, then nothing is. Kudos to Sarah for not being afraid to speak the truth. Keep it up.