These guys and gals are always out there…as good democrats [sic] we should also stand out there and let them know that we are in this mess because of them.

Instead of accepting the problem she says it’s our fault. We are not Republicans. We are nonpartisan and believe in fiscal responsibility.

Nevertheless, you are a “good democrat” and so is your foulmouthed city commissioner Charlie Atkinson. We didn’t support a health care bill that allows our tax dollars to kill babies. We don’t support corrupt officials. We don’t support tax increases that hurts our economy. We don’t support eco-fascism. We don’t support spending 4 million dollars per job to support our local economy because we think you should get a lot more than one job for that $4 million to stimulate our local economy.

How is it our fault “we are in the mess we’re in” Sylvia?  If anything it’s Democrat policy of spending everything we don’t have that’s gotten us on the verge of a double-dip recession. If anything it’s Democrats unwilling to reign in Freddie Mac and telling banks they need to give out money like it grows on trees to people who financially could not pay back the money. If anything it’s Democrats who continue to vote Democrat because they supposedly support poor people.

We are not Republicans. Therefore, the class warfare business that ”good democrats” live off come election day is irrelevant to the Tea Party. As “good democrats” how much corruption are you willing to stomach so that you will be willing to accept “the mess” in full?

You’re right on one thing, Sylvia. We do protest. We lost the health care battle, but we don’t give up. We witnessed how the counter-protest you started with your “good democrat” county chair flopped. Keep hope alive.

Last week, the Tip of Texas Tea Party protested against ObamaCare outside the local office of US Representative Solomon P. Ortiz (D-Corpus Christi, TX). A block away on the corner of FM 802 and Paredes Line Road, Coffee Partiers protested for ObamaCare. Noticing the lack of attention, they joined us.

None other than Democratic Party county chairman Gilberto Hinojosa led the Coffee Party. Does his presence with known Democrat operatives mean the Democrats are the Coffee Party? Recall the meme of Tea Parties consisting solely of angry Republicans and served as basis for Rio Grande Guardian‘s questions to us. Did Republican Chairman Frank Morris protest? No. For the record, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents make up our group.

County Chairman Hinojosa’s protesting is at odds with Democratic National Committee (DNC) member Hinojosa. At the DNC winter meeting held last month in Washington, Hinojosa complained President Barack Obama’s lack of attention on jobs. Since Inauguration Day, the President concentrated on his number two legislative initiative, ObamaCare. 

Liberals, Hinojosa openly endorsed then-Senator Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Texas Primary. According to Politico, the Democrat stated, “You’re not going to worry about whether you have health insurance if you’re looking for a job, or climate change or all those things that have been a part of the agenda.”

Hinojosa went on to misrepresent Rio Grande Valley unemployment figures claiming it was “more than 20 percent.” The Texas Workforce Commission‘s  January unemployment numbers for Hidalgo County was 12.2% while Cameron County came in with 11.5%. In February jobless rate were 11.8% and 11.3% respectively. To end up with Hinojosa’s unemployment rate you have to virtually add Cameron and Hidalgo County together, an interesting form of mathematics.

“Republicans have done [a] good job turning things around and blaming us for the problems they created. We need to get our message out better than we have in past,” argued Hinojosa. He missed the point. People want those in power to take action, not talk about your message. That’s called a press release. Do something that won’t burden future generations with bills we cannot afford.

In “Advocates For and Against Health Care Reform Bill Rally in Brownsville,” the Rio Grande Guardian reported

[Hinojosa] was impressed with the number of people at the rally for health care reform. More than 100 participated. ‘You could hear from the people going by honking their horns how important this issue is. . . Health care is an issue that every family worries about and nowhere else in the country do families worry more about it than in the Rio Grande Valley, because so many people do not have access to health care and lack health insurance.’

There were more of us, and we did not reach fifty. We were more vocal and respectful. We got the honks before, during and after the Democrat shills joined us, but I digress.

To Politico and the nation Hinojosa declared the Valley cared about jobs, not ObamaCare. Nevertheless back home he protested for Ortiz’s support of ObamaCare because the Valley needed it. He contended, “We have close to 50 percent that are uninsured. That is unacceptable.”  With his habitual misleading, are we sure about anything he says including his uninsured statistic?

by Michelle Oddis

“Blue Dog Democrats” — a formal group of 52 House members — premise their campaigns on the idea that they are moderate or conservative and are independent of the liberal leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md).

But are they? 

The official “Blue Dogs”  website states that the Coalition has been “particularly active on fiscal issues, relentlessly pursuing a balanced budget and then protecting that achievement from politically popular ‘raids’ on the budget.” But since the beginning of this congressional session — which has spent more tax dollars than any other in the history of the United States — it’s been hard to see how valid — if at all — their claims to fiscal conservatism are.

Recently much attention has been focused on the Blue Dogs’ opposition to the Democratic leadership’s sweeping healthcare proposals, highlighting the power the group holds when voting as a block. If they remain true to their word they have the power to defeat President Obama’s expensive healthcare overhaul.

But will they?  A number of organizations — ranging from the American Conservative Union to the ACLU — score the voting records of all members of congress.  But no one has so far scored the Blue Dogs against their claims to conservatism. We decided to do just that.

With help from the Heritage Foundation and a variety of Congressional Republican staffers HUMAN EVENTS picked 16 of the most important votes from the 111th Congress and examined how the Blue Dogs voted using Democrat House Majority Leader Hoyer as a benchmark (Rep. Nancy Pelosi — because she is House Speaker — often does not vote except when her vote might be decisive.  With the large Dem majority in the House, that’s not very often).

When calculating 16 of the most important votes so far in the 111th Congress of the 52 members in the Blue Dog Coalition 78% have voted in lockstep with ultra liberal Rep. Steny Hoyer.

Vote 16 HR 2: State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) The passage of SCHIP was the beginning of increased government interference in healthcare. SCHIP increased the cost of tobacco products in order to offset the $35 billion dollar expansion. The Washington Post reported that GOP critics said the “proposals will slow the economy, dramatically increase the deficit and make health care worse for the millions who already have insurance.” 96% of all Blue Dogs voted for the expansion with Hoyer, only two members of the coalition voted against it.

HR 384: Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)  Set conditions for using the second $350 billion of the $700 billion TARP bailout provided to failing banks, insurers, and automakers that included huge amounts of money spend on localized projects that had little to do with the failing economy (pork barrel spending). 82% of all Blue Dogs voted with Hoyer for the bailout.

HR 1: Economic Stimulus  $787 billion spending package (the largest in US history) said to restore the ailing economy. Not one House Republican voted for the bill.  80% of all Blue Dogs voted with Hoyer for the spending package.

HR 1: Economic Stimulus  Substitute Republican alternative to stimulus package that pushed for economical growth by way of investments rather than taxation. 96% of all Blue Dogs voted with Hoyer against the substitute. Only two voted for the Republican substitute Walt Minnick (Id-01) and Travis Childers (Ms-01).

HR 1105: Fiscal 2009 Omnibus Appropriations  This $410 billion bill passed with over 8,500 earmarks. 69% of all Blue Dogs voted with Hoyer for this bill.

HR 1106: Mortgage Loans Modification Passage of this bill gave bankruptcy courts the authority to modify the terms or reduce the principal balance of a homeowner’s mortgage, while protecting lenders from investors when loan terms are altered. It increased the number of people eligible to file for bankruptcy and permitted homeowners to file bankruptcy if the current value of their home is less than the amount owed on it. By doing this more banks would be in trouble and banks would have affectively lost their ability to write and have borrowers keep the terms of their loans. 68% of Blue Dogs voting voted with Hoyer.

H Con Res 85: Fiscal 2010 Budget Resolution Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget included large tax increases on small businesses, proposed a $646 billion dollar tax on families through “Cap and Trade” legislation, and a resurrection of the Death Tax. Again not one House Republican voted for the bill.   73% of Blue Dogs voting, voted with Hoyer.

H Con Res 85: Fiscal 2010 Budget Resolution  Substitute Led by ranking Republican of the House Budgetary Committee, Paul Ryan (R.-Wi.), a Republican alternative to Obama’s budget suggested major policy changes to the Congress. Aimed heavily at tax reform, calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25%, keeping federal spending at the pre-recession level of slightly above 20% of the GDP and proposing a moratorium on earmarks. Overall, this alternative would have resulted in $23,000 less in debt per household than President Obama’s budget. 100% of Blue Dogs voting, voted with Hoyer against the fiscally conservative Republican substitute.

HR 1913: Hate Crimes Prosecution Passage of this bill expanded federal hate crimes law to cover those based on sexual orientation, gender identity or disability and in doing so put freedom of speech and religion at risk. 68% of Blue Dogs voting, voted with Hoyer.

HR 2847: Fiscal 2010 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations More dramatic increases in spending. CQ.com reported the bill “would appropriate $64.5 billion in fiscal 2010 for the departments of Commerce and Justice and other agencies such as NASA and the National Science Foundation. It would provide $27.7 billion for the Justice Department and $13.8 billion for the Commerce Department. It would appropriate $7.9 billion for the FBI and $6.2 billion for the federal prison system. The bill would fund NASA at $18.2 billion, the National Science Foundation at $6.9 billion and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at $4.6 billion.” Rep. Steven King (Rep.-Iowa) tried to introduce an amendment that would have cut ACORN out of the 2010 Census. This would have prevented taxpayer dollars from being allocated to ACORN After Obama hired the organization to “partner” with the 2010 Census Bureau.  89% of Blue Dogs voting, voted with Hoyer

HR 2996: Fiscal 2010 Interior-Environment Appropriations More dramatic increases in spending. The bill represents a 17% increase over the spending from the 2009 bill and a 38% increase of federal funding for the Environmental Protection Agency. Combined with the stimulus, the EPA will receive $25 billion this year. Of the 105 amendments offered to the bill, mostly dealing with cutting specific extraneous costs, only 13 were approved after being neglected by the Democratic House Rules Committee. 78% of Blue Dogs voting, voted with Hoyer 

HR 2454: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Cap and Trade)  In 2012 when the 1,200-page bill is enacted, for a household of four, energy costs go up $436 and reach $1,241 in 2035, averaging $829 annually over that span, cites a Heritage Foundation study. Between 2012 and 2035 over a million jobs will be lost. GDP will be reduced by an average $393 billion per annum between 2012 and 2035, totaling $9.4 trillion. Low-income households would be hit hardest by Cap and Trade, because they use a greater proportion of energy. 44% of all Blue Dogs voted with Hoyer.

HR 2997: Fiscal 2010 Agriculture Appropriations  This bill represents a $2.436 billion or 11.9% increase over 2009 spending. Republicans offered an amendment that would have represented only a 2% increase in spending, but this was rejected along party lines. The bill contains 320 earmarks, totaling $225 million. Compared to 4 years ago, the FDA will receive a 54% increase in federal funding. The FDA will receive $3.04 billion for FY 2010. All Republicans voted in opposition. 88% of all Blue Dogs voted with Hoyer.

HR 3081: Fiscal 2010 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Of all the appropriations bills, HR 3081 represents the biggest increase in spending from FY 2009. This bill entails total spending of $48.8 billion, $12.2 billion, or 33% increase over spending in 2009. The cost for the average family is $460.54. Agencies funded through HR 3081 also received $4.2 billion in stimulus handouts and $14.7 billion from the Supplemental War Funding bill. From FY 2007 to 2009, non-defense spending increased 85%. According to gop.gov, $26.2 billion funding for the Department of State includes “the civilian stabilization initiative, educational and cultural exchange programs, embassy protection and security, overseas peacekeeping, contributions to international organizations (such as the United Nations), international commissions, and broadcasting activities.”  90% of all Blue Dogs voted with Hoyer.

HR 3170: Fiscal 2010 Financial Services Appropriations This bill barely passed in the House needing 215 votes — just squeaking by with 219. It allocates $24.15 billion in discretionary spending in addition to the stimulus bill total. Agencies receiving money from this bill will rack in $29.7 billion. Overall, the bill contains 150 earmarks and will cost the average family $448.19. 57% of all Blue Dogs voted with Hoyer.

HR 3183: Fiscal 2010 Energy-Water Appropriations This bill allocates $33.3 billion in discretionary spending, or less than 1% above the FY 2009 level. But agencies receiving funds through HR 3183 already received $58.7 in emergency spending, mostly from the stimulus bill, totaling $92 billion. Will cost the average family $413.57. An amendment for a 5% cut across the board was rejected.  94% of all Blue Dogs voting, voted with Hoyer.

Again, in these 16 important votes in the 111th Congress, Blue Dogs have voted for the Democratic agenda 78% of the time.

 The Blue Dogs have to answer to the voters for their record of fiscal irresponsibility which doesn’t match their promises.  They have an opportunity coming to redeem themselves — at least in part — by standing strong against Obama’s expensive (and expansive) nationalization of health care.

In the past — in the “Cap and Trade” committee vote, for example — the Blue Dogs quickly bowed to pressure by liberal Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and voted for the bill.  Should they choose to once again bow to their leadership — and vote for government run healthcare that is so expensive and complex that it would change the role of the federal government forever — they should have to answer to their constituents. And they should also rethink their “Blue Dog” label.

by Evan Sayet

Dear America,
 
I hate you.
 
I hate you because you’re stupid, you’re bigoted and you’re dangerous.
 
I know that you’re stupid because you believe in an invisible man in the sky.  Not only does that make you stupid, it makes you dangerous.  After all, if you’re that easily led to believe in some invisible man in the sky then you might be led into believing in witches and you might burn people at the stake.  I don’t care if you “cling” to your religion because you’re not as rich as I am, the fact that you cling to that stupidity makes you a threat to the utopia that would come if only there were no religion.

 
I know that you’re bigoted because you love America.  I’m a citizen of the world, not xenophobic or nativist like you.  I don’t believe in false borders falsely imposed on me by corporations and evil, white men seeking to exploit the world.  Remember what my Messiah’s mentor said, it’s “white man’s greed that rules a world in need.”  Why do you think America is better than any other nation?  It’s only your bigotry and bigotry is evil.  You’re evil.  And you’re standing in the way of my utopia, the peace and prosperity that would come if only there were no countries.
 
And those of you in the military, you scare me most of all.  You’re not just stupid and evil, you’re bloodthirsty.  Why else would you want to kill your fellow citizens of the world?  You’re Nazis.  I’ve told you this before, many times before, any American who serves in the military is a Nazi.  I hate your Islamophobia.  I hate that you fought in the Vietnam War just because you hate the Yellow Man.  Why does color mean so much to you?  Why the antipathy for people who are different than you are?
 
And you people in Kansas, what’s the matter with you?  Why are you so against socialism?  It’ll be good for you.  We’ll be taking money from rich people and giving it to you.  You could take more vacations, buy a bigger screen TV.  You scare me.  Why don’t you want other peoples’ money?  There’s something the matter with Kansas.  You just don’t know what’s in your own best interest.
 
That’s why I support President Obama plans to take over America.  Until you have given up your stupidity and your racism — your religion and your patriotism – you cannot be trusted with your freedom.  And we’re not going to allow you to teach your hate to your children.
 
Please, America, join the Obama coup or just get out of the way.  As President Obama said, America is no longer a Christian nation.  We are all now citizens of the world.  The time for your antiquated superstitions, for patriotism and faith, are gone!
 
 Sincerely, 
The Leadership of the Democrat Party

The American people do not like President Barack Obama’s health care plan. According to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll 42% of Americans “think his plan is a bad idea” compared to only 36% who think it is a good idea. 40% of Americans believe Obama’s health care plan “will result in the quality of your health care getting worse” compared to 24% who believe their care will get better. And 47% of Americans oppose “creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government” compared to only 43% who support it. Facing this cratering of public support, the left in Congress is now considering abandoning moderates and independents to pass their narrow partisan ideal of health reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spokesman Jim Manley promised yesterday that Democrats will pass Obamacare “by any legislative means necessary.”

What exactly does Senator Reid mean by ‘any legislative means necessary’? The Wall Street Journal explains: “Most legislation in the Senate requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, but certain budget-related measures can pass with 51 votes through a parliamentary maneuver called reconciliation.” The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 created reconciliation, but Congress didn’t really use it until the 1980s. In 1993, President Bill Clinton tried to use the rule to press his health care plan through the Senate, but Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) resisted, introducing the Byrd Rule which allows any Senator to strike specific provisions or amendments from legislation if a 60 vote Senate majority agrees that the item is “extraneous” to the budget. At the time Byrd specifically argued that health care was out of bounds for a process that was intended to only apply to budgets.

But Democrats in Congress are undeterred by history, precedent, and public opinion. They are now planning to split the bill into two parts: one bill with budget-related matters and another bill with policy changes such as the insurance market reforms. They even are prepared to argue that the core of the left’s health care vision: a government-run health care plan can be considered a budget related item. The WSJ reports: “Democratic leaders have concluded they can pack more of their health overhaul plans under this procedure, congressional aides said. They might even be able to include a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers, a key demand of the party’s liberal wing.”

The American people are already sick and tired of 1,000 page bills and strong arm legislative tactics. A new Gallup poll shows that 82% of Republicans and even 40% of Democrats disapprove of the job Congress is doing. Even more troubling for the “by any means necessary” crowd is that 70% of independents share a negative view of the House and Senate. Finally, a new Pew poll shows that for the first time since President Barack Obama took office the percentage of Americans who hold a favorable view of the Democratic Party has slipped below 50%. How will independents feel about liberals in Congress if they pass a health plan that 40% of Americans believe “will result in the quality of your health care getting worse”?

Quick Hits:

• According to USA Today, the health care fight is driving conservatives to embrace many of the same grassroots, tech-savvy techniques that Democrats used last year to help get Obama elected and providing networking opportunities for Republican conservatives who say they didn’t have a candidate to excite them in last year’s presidential contest.
• According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, the nation’s car dealers have already submitted $3.3 billion in “Cash for Clunkers” claims despite the fact that the Obama administration only has secured $3 billion in deficit spending to cover the program.
• According to the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, while the private sector has shed 6.9 million jobs since the beginning of the recession, state and local governments have expanded their payrolls and added 110,000 jobs.
• According to a new Washington Post poll, 70% of Democrats say removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan has not been worth its costs, while 70% of Republicans say the war is worth fighting.
• House Energy and Commerce Committee chair Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is demanding that the nation’s private insurance companies provide “extensive documentation of all “compensation and other business practices in the health insurance industry.”

Charlie Cook, one of the best political handicappers in the business, sent out a special update to Cook Political Report subscribers Thursday that should send shivers down Democratic spines.

Reviewing recent polling and the 2010 election landscape, Cook can envision a scenario in which Democratic House losses could exceed 20 seats.

“These data confirm anecdotal evidence, and our own view, that the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Today, The Cook Political Report’s Congressional election model, based on individual races, is pointing toward a net Democratic loss of between six and 12 seats, but our sense, factoring in macro-political dynamics is that this is far too low,” he wrote.

“Many veteran Congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats.”

Cook scrupulously avoided any mention that Democratic control of the House is in jeopardy but, noting a new Gallup poll showing Congress’ job disapproval at 70 percent among independents, concluded that the post-recess environment could feel considerably different than when Congress left in August.

“We believe it would be a mistake to underestimate the impact that this mood will have on Members of Congress of both parties when they return to Washington in September, if it persists through the end of the Congressional recess.”

By Charles Mahtesian 03:51 PM

By Daniel Dombey and Tom Braithwaite in Washington
Published: August 13 2009 22:08

Two freshly elected Democrats are wavering in their support of healthcare reform, as a rancorous summer series of “town hall” debates appears to be ­hardening opposition against the Obama administration.

Frank Kratovil and Tom Perriello, who as freshmen congressmen would be expected to back the party leadership, both say proposals for expanding coverage to the uninsured are un­acceptable in their current form and should focus more on cost savings.

Mr Kratovil, who was hanged in effigy by a healthcare protester at a town hall meeting in his state of Maryland, said he would have voted against legislation if it had come to a vote last month.

Tom Perriello, another new representative from neighbouring Virginia, also says he is not yet ready to support the current proposals in the House of Representatives, partly because he is “still getting feedback from?.?.?.?constituents”.

Neither man has ruled out voting for a revised package.

Billed as a chance to sell healthcare reform to the American people in small meetings across the country, the town hall debates have seen protesters screaming at their elected representatives.

In spite of hopes by proponents of reform that voters would be turned off by the sometimes ugly scenes, a poll yesterday from USA Today gave an indication that the debates were having the opposite effect.

Some 34 per cent of respondents said the demonstrations had made them more sympathetic to the protesters, while 21 per cent said they were less sympathetic. In the all-important independents grouping, 35 per cent against 16 per cent said they were now more sympathetic to the protesters – a margin of more than two to one.

The Obama administration was on Thursday attempting to regain the initiative with a self-described “chain” e-mail from the senior adviser David Axelrod, pointing to a series of “myths and facts” in the debate.

But the “myths” identified by David Axelrod, one of Mr Obama’s chief advisers, themselves highlight how the healthcare dispute has spilt out of the White House’s control.

In the e-mail, which Mr Axelrod asks supporters to forward to others, he denies that the administration favours rationing healthcare, that the new system will undermine health benefits offered to the over-65s in the government’s Medicare scheme or that the reform will encourage euthanasia – the origin of the “death panel” myth.

This week the veteran lawmakers senator Arlen Specter and congressman John Dingell were shouted down by constituents fearful of tax rises, cutbacks in Medicare and rationing of private schemes. In the face of barracking from a large part of her audience, senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri was reduced to saying: “I don’t know what else I can do. If you want me to go home – OK.”

Mounting opposition among such newly elected legislators played a particularly important role in the collapse of the Clinton administration’s effort to push through healthcare reform in 1994.

This time, some commentators, such as Joe Scarborough, a television host and former Republican congressman opposed to Mr Obama’s proposals, say ­feelings are even more passionate.