“As I got towards the front of the queue there was one agent checking boarding passes and IDs while many other agents stood around or talked to him instead of moving people through.  There were about 200 people waiting at any time to move through.   So now I make it to the security zone.  I quickly remove my light jacket and slip on shoes.  I already had my toiletries and laptop out.  I am trained and know the routine.  I am wearing only a t-shirt and knit skirt.  I was wearing less than most doctors visits require.  As I stepped through the metal detector I was shocked as the agent asked me to raise my skirt.  This has never ever happened to me before.  I guess I should have been thankful that my skirt didn’t prompt a thorough feel up to the crotch.  The woman offered no explanation as to why I had to raise my skirt.  As a very modest and religious woman, I choose to wear less revealing garments that come to my knees, I did not relish having to lift up my skirt and basically expose the bottom of my underwear, I felt personally and religiously violated.”

The TSA website does not require women to lift their skirts and skirts are not even mentioned in the Travel Assistant.

Where’s NOW or Gloria Allred when you need them?

“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders.”

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Scathing, I know.  Scolding voters?  Maybe.  I find it imperative to remind him of the mid-term election of 2010 where voters did just that and gave Republicans control of the House and several additional Senate seats.  Roberts may have also forgotten that the Democrats did not have a supermajority after the 2008 election.  It was Republican turncoat Senator Arlen Spector from Pennsylvania who switched his party affiliation to Democrat giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority.  Pennsylvania voters elected a Republican–what they actually got was a Democrat.   Specter was defeated in 2010 by Republican Pat Toomey.  Additionally, Blue Dog Democrat Bart Stupak and his prolife Democrat gang, including Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, sold their souls to the abortion industry for Obamacare–such courage of conviction.  Stupak retired, while Dahlkemper lost by 11.4% to Republican Mike Kelly.  So yes, the system works.

When voters learn the truth about their elected officials–typically after the election–they get ousted if they don’t represent their constituents.  A good example will be in November.  What the were told about health care reform was not what was intended.  Instead, what we got was a CBO-confirmed $1.76 Trillion (over 10 years) government takeover and an IPAB death panel–which resembles nothing like the plan Obama/Biden campaigned on in 2008:

President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law. Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO’s standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama’s pledge that the legislation would cost “around $900 billion over 10 years.” When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

And so much for fiscal responsibility they promised:

A Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility: Barack Obama will pay for his $50 – $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level.

Voters didn’t stand a chance in 2008, so when Roberts rationalized his decision to ease his conscience or something by saying, “It’s not the court’s responsibility to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” it’s apparent that he forgot how the American people were duped into believing one thing about who they really elected and Obama’s actual health care plan.  That may be just politics as usual, but when a law is passed without the consent of the governed and under questionable Constitutional semantics, the courts must intervene, not push it back to the ‘you made your bed, now lie in it’ cliche.  Roberts chose political cover over the Constitution.  However, unlike elected officials, his job is safe.

To our benefit, I see a very re-energized base and I’m loving the GOP fund-raising records.  The Left should be very worried–the job started in 2010 will be finished in November.

With his “Big” sites, Andrew provided the platform for so many great minds to flourish, published hard-hitting news and reports, and there was no denying the Left feared him.  His site, Big Government, was the holy grail of blogging, if you will.  Andrew was always open to new talent.   And Andrew was also the only one who said yes.

People often ask me how I started writing at Big Government.  I simply state, “It started with one Tweet to Andrew Breitbart.”  I asked Andrew a question, and he simply replied, “Yes.”  One word.  Yes.  That one word unlocked a door that was closed– and I was blown away that he said yes–I mean this was Breitbart!  But, because this was Breitbart, I also knew excellence was in order.  Posts had to be accurate, articulate, and thought-provoking.  I had a serious respect for Andrew, learned not to back down, and it was an honor to write for him.

Andrew provided the foundation, created the need and opportunity, and only now can we continue to repay him for that.  God uses each of us in great ways–as He did Andrew.  Now, it is time to pass the torch, not to one, but to many, and carry on and out the work on the Right and let the truth prevail.  In some ways, Andrew’s death, can be a rebirth.  We will never know why God took such a great man at such a young age, leaving behind his wife and young children. My heart weeps for his wife, Susie, who lost her love and my heart streams tears for his children whose father cannot tuck them in any more.  However, we can continue to be a light and hopefully, one day, Andrew’s children will know that their father was a great man, created opportunities, spoke the truth, lived life to its fullest, and was the one who said yes.

Godspeed, Andrew.

Newt Gingrich is out swinging with a new web ad dubbed, “For The Dogs.” The soon-to-be released ad highlights some of Romney’s most humorous verbal gaffes — an obvious attempt to poke holes in the notion of Mitt Romney’s electability.

Newt does go there–as he should–but the ‘Mitt strapped his dog to the roof of his car’ story has three versions:  the “my dog likes fresh air” PETA explanation from Mitt, the one with Seamus in an airtight kennel from Mitt, or what actually happened from the Boston Globe:

Family members told the Globe that Romney attached a special windshield onto Seamus’ carrier to protect him from the wind. Romney was traveling that summer with his wife, five sons, and Seamus to his parent’s cottage on Lake Huron. But hours into the ride, Seamus apparently suffered diarrhea, which ran down the back window of the car. Romney’s sons, all under 14, howled in disgust. Romney pulled off the road into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, and they drove on to Ontario.  emphasis mine

I’m going with the Globe’s story on this one.  You be the judge.

Here is Newt’s latest For the Dogs ad:

Romney, the son of a politician, has been running for office, holding office or thinking about running for office for more than two decades. “Just level with the American people,” Gingrich growled. “You’ve been running … at least since the 1990s.”

For some reason, Romney can’t do that. Or at least it seems like he can’t. His authentic inauthenticity problem isn’t going away. And it’s sapping enthusiasm from the rank and file.

Goldberg is right, but the underlying theme that voters need to be reminded of is that during so many important debates fromhealthcare, jobs, Wall Street Reform, confirmations, recess appointments, to taxes the culprits to invoke cloture or side with the Democrats typically are the same:  Senators Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe,  and Scott Brown–the trifecta of RINOs. All from the northeast, too.  See where I’m going with this?

Frankly, Romney, who the mainstream liberal media would like to see win the nomination, has yet to unite the GOP base.  His used car salesman pitch simply rubs people the wrong way.  We’ve seen this over and over again–even John McCain pointed this out and won in 2007′s primary–and now supports him–that should speak volumes to my point.  Romney has always been dogged by this and this is why we have such a large ‘Not Romney’ camp on the right side of the aisle.

The GOP is also paying the bitter price for not having anyone in line to succeed GW Bush.  The party’s internal tug of war will be an historical teachable moment and prepare the party for future elections.  The one saving grace is that, while the Democrats have Hillary, they have no one to succeed her at this point in time.  I say Hillary because she seems to be the only power broker left untarnished by Obama–even though she is an Alinsky kinda girl.

Additionally, the GOP presidential candidate will have a two-pronged mission as the nominee:  to beat the MSM and Obama.  However, enlightened voters now know for sure the media is mostly state-controlled, Obama was never vetted, and that his radical leftist ideology drives his policies, appointments, and regulations out of the mainstream.

Furthermore, the MSM needs Romney to offset Obama.  The formula is quite simple:  RomneyCare is to ObamaCare as Obama’s rhetoric is to Romney’s rhetoric all of which cancel each other out according to how the media sees it.

I’m not buying the media hype over who can beat Obama.  The primary is the primary and the game changes in the general.  Voters are more inclined to vote with their wallets.  We have gas prices averaging at almost $4 per gallon across the country, skyrocketing food prices, record foreclosures, record number of people on food stamps, high unemployment, ObamaCare, crippling regulations, and much more.  So if the MSM thinks that the historic 2010 midterm GOP wave was a whim, think again.  The Right accomplished its key mission of splitting the Congress so that Obama’s agenda could not be rammed through anymore.  Would we have liked the Senate, sure, but in 2012, the job will be finished.  My point is that who do we really want in the Oval Office?  A northeastern Republican who disavows the GOP or not.  We already have someone who does not have the consent of the governed.  Are we really going to take that risk again?

Finally, Romney has always touted RomneyCare as a great model for all the states to implement, but the reality is, the only person who implemented RomneyCare was Obama and now we have ObamaCare.  No thanks.

Perhaps the next edition can provide kids with a full accounting of the Occupy-related illnesses, vandalism, rapes, deaths, and other criminal violations — and a related pop quiz on John Nolte’s Occupy arrest rap sheet.

The kids deserve the whole truth. The teachers unions’ Alinsky brigade won’t give it to them.

However, while Scholastic continues its love affair with OWS, it also has a hypocrisy problem (yes, go figure).  Seems Scholastic senior editor, Natalie Smith, who wrote this OWS puff piece dated well after this gem of a photo, conveniently forgot that her company is a $1.9 Billion publicly-traded company on the NASDAQ exchange.  Smith writes:

The Occupy protesters argue that large companies like those on Wall Street are making too much money while millions of Americans are struggling just to put food on the table. The protesters say they want average Americans to have more job opportunities and share in companies’ prosperity. They want their voices to be heard.  (emphasis mine)

What Smith fails to report is that Scholastic is in quite good shape financially:

In fiscal 2011 operating income was $100.7 million on revenue of $1,906.1 million, primarily reflecting lower sales of educational technology relative to a year ago, when the Company benefited significantly from the federal stimulus program, as well as increased strategic spending on digital initiatives in the children’s book business. Free cash flow was $120.5 million, which exceeded net income, compared to $171.6 million a year ago, which reflected that year’s strong educational technology sales. The Company also returned $176.4 million to shareholders in the form of share buybacks and dividends in fiscal 2011.

Last year we celebrated the 90th Anniversary of the founding of Scholastic. From the launch of a single classroom magazine in 1920, Scholastic has grown to become the world’s largest publisher and distributor of children’s books and a leader in educational technology and children’s media.

Ah, yes, the sweetness of a capitalistic economic system, vision, ingenuity, and success.  Scholastic has been able to grow due to the very capitalistic system OWS condemns.  It’s mind-boggling, to say the least, how Scholastic can support a movement that validates and teaches children class warfare, lawlessness, and lewd behavior.  But then again…

Congressman Michael Burgess (R-TX and yes, he is also Dr. Burgess) questioned Secretary Sebelius on several key factors, including the unelected 15-person panel, their potential recess appointments to avoid Senate confirmation, and the ultimate effects of this panel in reshaping the health care system.  Burgess does not let Sebelius off the hook, but pushes her on the IPAB’s power and lack of judicial oversight. The entire exchange is worth watching:

Sebelius touts that the IPAB is only a “fail-safe” and only makes recommendations if Congress does not act:

But Sebelius was defiant against claims that IPAB risks usurping the power of Congress to make changes to Medicare. “All final decisions remain in the hands of Congress,” Sebelius said in her prepared statement. “If Medicare costs are rising at an unsustainable rate, it’s Congress’s choice whether to accept those recommendations, or come up with recommendations of its own to put Medicare spending on a stable, sustainable path.” She reiterated her argument from yesterday’s Budget hearing that IPAB serves as a “backstop to ensure Medicare remains solvent for years to come.”

However, former OMB Director Peter Orszag has a quite different analysis regarding the IPAB with this interview, highlighted by Naked Emperor News for Breitbart TV:

Orszag clearly emphasizes ”[the IPAB] has an enormous amount of potential power.”  Orszag goes on to explain, “The proposals take effect automatically unless Congress, not only specifically votes them down, but Congress specifically votes them down (with 67 votes) and the President signs that bill. So, the default is now switched in a very important way.”

Orszag has repeated this in other forums stating that the IPAB was the most important part of ObamaCare (all emphasis mine):

The Medicare Commission, or Independent Payment Advisory Board, would have the power to override Congress if it rejected cuts to the entitlements programme for seniors, said Mr Orszag, a key architect of the reforms signed into law this week.

“This could well turn out to be as consequential for health policy as Federal Reserve policy was for monetary policy,” he said in an FT View from DC video interview. “The commission will put its proposals forward and if Congress does not act on them, or if it votes them down and the president then vetoes that bill, they will automatically take effect. Huge change.”

So, who is right?  Sebelius or Orszag?  My money is on Orszag. The fact is that no matter what Congress does, the IPAB will always have a way to enforce its “recommendations” and override Congress. Sebelius is intentionally misrepresenting the IPAB as being similar to the MedPAC board, which does indeed only give recommendations to Congress. Why would they need to have a duplicative board? Truth is, they are not the same and Sebelius knows it.

With the Democrats zeal to ram through ObamaCare, they created a monster and then stripped themselves of any oversight of said monster as clearly explained by Orszag.  If only the Democrats had read the original ObamaCare bill, didn’t scoff and snear at Republicans’ warnings, and didn’t believe their own rhetoric, it wouldn’t be so imperative to repeal the IPAB.  But wait, can they?

Under a premium support system, the government would pay a percentage toward the insurance premium for each individual; there would likely be more help for low-income and sicker people. And enrollees could (not required) kick in more money to get better coverage.

Henry Aaron, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute and former head of the Congressional Budget Office, in 1995 were among the first to explore alternatives to Medicare’s system of paying for individual services. And in 1998, President Bill Clinton’s National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, chaired by then-Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., and then-Sen. John B. Breaux, D-La., developed a “premium support” idea, but it never became a formal recommendation. Breaux and then-Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., tried unsuccessfully to advance the plan as separate legislation.

Let’s take a look at her ‘confuzzled’ look as she was clearly caught off-guard by Congressman Michael Burgess (R-TX and a physician) as seen here at the July 13 subcommittee hearings (skip to .59 to 2:16):

The Weekly Standard also  reiterates and shreds her original comment:

This, of course, is as ludicrous as it is uncouth. First, the Ryan plan (which wouldn’t affect anyone who is not yet 55 years old) would not give seniors a voucher, as Sebelius well knows. Instead, the government would provide premium support to help seniors purchase private health insurance. Seniors would pick the insurance plan of their choice, and the government would funnel the premium support directly to the insurer — just as it does for Medicare Advantage, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and the health care system for members of Congress.   

The Ryan plan would require insurers to cover any and all seniors as the condition of their being allowed to compete for seniors’ business. It would provide higher levels of premium support for less healthy and less wealthy seniors, and poor seniors would have every dollar of their care provided at taxpayer expense. The premium support would start at the average level of funding for traditional Medicare ($15,000 a year) and would rise with inflation from there. 

In truth, seniors would likely have better catastrophic coverage under Ryan’s plan than under traditional Medicare. There’s a reason why the vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries buy private Medigap coverage: There’s a whole lot of care that Medicare currently doesn’t cover. Despite that fact, Medicare is going bankrupt, and it desperately needs an infusion of private competition and choice to make it more efficient, cost effective, and affordable.

In short, seniors wouldn’t “die sooner” under Ryan’s plan. But Medicare would die sooner without it.

This is just more proof that Sebelius is nothing more than a partisan mouthpiece.  Her ideology gives away her game with her wanting to insert government into the playing field, and further evidenced the day before by none other than Paul Ryan who grills Sebelius on whether seniors should have control of their own health care and choices for their drug coverage.  Sebelius stumbles at the basic principle of allowing seniors to choose their own plan, but knows that choice is good for competition, and would gladly put the government at the top of that competitive scale.  Watch to the end.

Update: This is not the first time Sebelius has been clueless.

However, there are several other companies and individuals who continue to file applications in an attempt to trademark SEAL Team 6 and other variations of the name.  In examining the USPTO database, such companies and individuals filing applications include Metrogames, Justice is Done, AAAA World Inc., RESCO Instruments, The Outdoor Recreation Group (and this one), John Brokaw, and Jon Narmi–even a German company is trying to cash in.  There are others as well, but you get the picture.

It is not coincidental that all of the application file dates range from early May 2011 until present–obviously a direct link.  Additionally, Disney was met with public scorn and the Navy did strong arm Disney to protect its rights:

Navy spokeswoman Amanda Greenberg said the Navy already had rights to the SEAL trademark but recently submitted two new applications for trademarks of “Navy SEALs” and “SEAL Team.”

“The Navy is fully committed to protecting its trademark rights as it pertains to this matter and is currently examining all legal options,” she said.

Disney/ABC spokesman Kevin Brockman said the company pulled the plug on its bid “in deference to the Navy’s application.”

It is fair to ask, in light of the outcome with Disney, how will the Navy handle these companies and individuals who continue to file trademark apps using Navy SEAL Team 6 and will the public rebuke these companies and individuals by boycotting these products that display the TEAM 6 name?

Mr. Obama said that the typical political proposal to rationalize Medicare’s gargantuan liabilities is that it is “just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse.” His own plan is to double down on the program’s price controls and central planning. All Medicare decisions will be turned over to and routed through an unelected commission created by ObamaCare—which will supposedly ferret out “unnecessary spending.” Is that the same as “waste and abuse”?

Fifteen members will serve on the Independent Payment Advisory Board, all appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If per capita costs grow by more than GDP plus 0.5%, this board would get more power, including an automatic budget sequester to enforce its rulings. So 15 sages sitting in a room with the power of the purse will evidently find ways to control Medicare spending that no one has ever thought of before and that supposedly won’t harm seniors’ care, even as the largest cohort of the baby boom generation retires and starts to collect benefits.

I’d like to take you back in time to highlight some important pieces including this one I broke at Big Government where I warned this was being crafted by the Democrats:

The deliberate setup for the White House power grab is built into the each of the health care bills and, if they fail, little-known twin bills called “MedPAC Reform of 2009” are waiting in the wings.  The bills, S.B. 1110 and H.R. 2718, craftily amend the Social Security Act and transfer the Medicare guideline and rule setting processes, from the legislative branch to the executive branch.  These bills offer cover to one another in case one doesn’t pass the House or Senate, respectively.  Remember, Democrats need to gain executive branch authority by amending the Social Security Act over Medicare regulations and physician fee schedules to transform the health care system in a single-payer, socialized system.

More importantly, Medicare’s regulations and physician fee schedules are the keystone to developing payer systems and reimbursement models across the entire health care industry.  And where Medicare goes, insurers follow.

To further reinforce my analysis, former OMB director, Peter Orszag, stated:

The Medicare Commission, or Independent Payment Advisory Board, would have the power to override Congress if it rejected cuts to the entitlements programme for seniors, said Mr Orszag, a key architect of the reforms signed into law this week.

“This could well turn out to be as consequential for health policy as Federal Reserve policy was for monetary policy,” he said in an FT View from DC video interview. “The commission will put its proposals forward and if Congress does not act on them, or if it votes them down and the president then vetoes that bill, they will automatically take effect. Huge change.”

Enter H.R 452.  With 81 Republican and Democrat co-sponsors to date, this bill would repeal the IPAB and give Congress the oversight it had before the lawmakers stupidly inadvently stripped themselves.  And now they want it back.  Now, if you remember there was a story that circulated in December 2009 that bears more coverage when discussing repealing the IPAB. The catch is the language  found in the law where it stipulates:

“It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

Additionally, back in January 2010, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) explained that the Senate:

Would effectively be passing health-care legislation that includes a series of rules on how Congress would handle IMAB recommendations, and simultaneously will be keeping future lawmakers from changing it as they desire.
 
“We will be passing a new law,” he said, “and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.
 
“I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a Senate rule (and not a law). I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force to – for — future Senates,” DeMint added.
 
“(T)his goes to the fundamental purpose of Senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority — or of future congresses.”
 
The subsection that cannot be repealed or changed contains a number of other stipulations on how Congress will handle the IMAB recommendations, even setting deadlines for specific committees to consider them, which DeMint said were also new rules. “These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth,” DeMint alleged.

The CNS article goes on to document an exchange between DeMint and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and is a must read; Brian Darling of Heritage also provides terrific analysis.

The money question is:  Will the Democrats enforce this section with regards to H.R. 452 or will they let this come to the floor for a vote?  Because while the whole argument went down and the Republicans warned, the Democrats basically said–hey, forget about it.

While I won’t rehash all of the issues here, I will note, for the record, that the left started the birther issue (and continually attacked McCain) and Obama is also a McCain birther as he co-sponsored the Senate Resolution declaring McCain a natural born citizen–clearly understanding the difference between being a US citizen and being a natural born US citizen and its importance.

Now that that’s out of the way, I’ve been watching the brouhaha that Donald Trump is causing and he is not backing down–that’s obvious.  But during these interviews, it makes me wonder why the MSM so aggressively attacks anyone who even dares come close to this issue–even now–after they seemingly put it to rest.  What are they afraid of–what might they find?   And was Oprah wrong again?

Another question that I’d like to float:  Is Obama intentionally withholding his long-form birth certificate to continue to perpetrate the notion that those who question him are crazy giving the  media more ammo against the birthers and the right?  It wouldn’t surprise me, but with Corsi’s evidence that may not be the case.

Finally, has the MSM, out of its allegiance to the Democrat party, missed the biggest story in the history of this country?  And one thing you can be assured, the left will dissect and fact check Corsi’s book until the pages fall out, but will they be able to defend their position on the record?  What they do with the information in Corsi’s book will probably need an extra large bucket of popcorn with butter because dare I ask this:  What if the Birthers are right?

In response to a YouTube video of a 6-year-old girl receiving a pat-down from a Transportation Security Administration officer, Congressman Jason Chaffetz is drafting legislation that will require parental supervision during the pat-down of a child.

“They claim there is a modified pat-down for 12-year-olds and younger, but when you see those videos, you realize that just isn’t true,” Chaffetz said.

The proposed legislation would require that a parent must give their consent before a child receives a pat-down, and that the child must remain with the parent while the pat-down is performed.  emphasis mine

While the outrage continues over the pat-downs of minor Americans for “security” purposes, what is ironic about this new concern is that the parental consent/notification issues are completely dismissed and ignored when dealing with abortions.  Most recently, LifeNews reported that a 16-year old girl was sent to the hospital after a botched abortion at a Planned Parenthood facility in Everett, Washington:

The Planned Parenthood caller, in the 911 phone transcript, says, “We have a patient bleeding. She’s 16. We just did an abortion on her.”

Hubert is very concerned about the impact this revelation has on concerns about young girls getting abortions without any parental involvement.

“This is extremely important because of a massive loophole in Washington state law which means that a minor of any age who is pregnant may get an abortion without any parental or adult protections or involvement. It could be your daughter,” he explained. “There is no need for anyone to be there with a girl while an intimidating adult at Planned Parenthood bullies them, lies to them, and manipulates them into getting an abortion that will kill their baby and, as we see here, put them in hospital, possibly rendering them permanently infertile.”

It is important to note that Planned Parenthood has not come forward to say that the girl was escorted by anyone and has not been cooperative in providing that information.

The point here is to question whether Americans have become so desensitized to girls having abortions that we direct our outrage at other more “fresh” instances–like the TSA pat-downs?  Would these same people be just as outraged if a 12- or 13-year old girl had abortion without parental consent?  Planned Parenthood has been under fire for some time, but the laws in place protect their business under the guise of health care and choice.  We all know that.  But, when do parents stand up in the states that have no laws on the books for parental consent/notification and say enough with this ruse.  Or, are they only to foot the ambulance and hospital bill after the fact?

States with no parental consent or notification laws include:  CA, CT, IL, ME, MT, NH, NJ, NY, OR, VT, WA, and Washington DC. While I am not suggesting legislation at the federal level (I’m all about states’ rights) but, it is disturbing that so much emphasis is placed on the TSA (and rightly so), and the issue of minor girls having abortions and their parents’ right to know are repeatedly ignored and challenged.

Crossposted at TMR

Early screening through mammograms and education is critical to end the suffering from this disease: 98 percent of women treated for early stage breast cancer, before it spreads, are alive five years later. The widespread use of mammography and heightened public awareness of breast cancer both contribute to these favorable statistics.

And while Komen Affiliates provide funds to pay for screening, education and treatment programs in dozens of communities, in some areas, the only place that poor, uninsured or under-insured women can receive these services are through programs run by Planned Parenthood.  emphasis mine

Now that Live Action has proved that PP does NOT provide mammography services to its clients, what is the money being used for, because clearly is not for mammography screenings?  Education, treatment?

Update:  More information provided on the PP homepage shows they clearly refer out for these mammography services:

Where Can I Get a Mammogram?

Ask your health care provider, health department, or staff at your local Planned Parenthood health center about where you can get a mammogram in your area.

Additionally, it appears that PP does provide breast exams only.  However, the Komen memo links mammography, screenings, education, and treatment of breast cancer as their list of reasons it contributes to PP.

The Komen Foundation needs to come clean on specifically what those PP contributions are designated.  I’ve added the video below.

Crossposted at The Minority Report

“Barefoot Contessa” Ina Garten has a new nickname — “Heartless Contessa” — in the wake of news that she repeatedly refused to meet with a 6-year-old boy named Enzo who was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

According to the reports:

The boy, who would watch Garten from his sick bed, told the Make-A-Wish Foundation that he wanted to meet the Food Network celebrity. When told that her schedule was too busy, Enzo opted to wait. When the request was made once more, Garten’s representatives replied with a “definite no,” according to the online blog that the family kept about the boy’s illness.

Now, I have been a fan of Garten’s for a while now; I like the way her show is produced and frankly, her recipes are good (minus all the butter).  I can understand that her schedule is demanding; however, I also know that celebrities will go out of their way for the Make-A-Wish Foundation.  So who dropped the ball on Garten’s part?  And an even better question is:  why hasn’t she publicly denounced or fired the person(s).

Additionally, as the article states, Garten’s rep and Make-A-Wish noted:

In response to the controversy, Make-A-Wish stressed to TMZthat Garten is a “good friend” of the foundation. A representative for Garten told the site: “Despite her demanding schedule, [Ina] participates and helps as many organizations as she can throughout the year, helping children and adults like Enzo with life threatening and compromising illnesses. … Unfortunately, as much as she would like to, it’s absolutely impossible for her to grant every request she receives.”

However, the Make-A-Wish website (link above) doesn’t include Garten in the list.  Addtionally, the Look to the Stars website documents very well celebrities an their affiliated charities.  Garten doesn’t even come up in the search.  Searches Garten does come up in–which she donates her valuable time–include, hosting a political fund-raiser and the 16th Annual Hudson Peconic benefit for Planned Parenthood.

Futhermore, you are probably asking why I mention The Home Depot.  I’ll tell you.  I reached out to them this week and not only did the entire local store management team coordinate an effort for me, they offered to provide all of the design services, supplies, and labor–for FREE.  An entire team.  No charge.  Above and beyond what I originally asked.  Garten should take note as to what charity looks like and follow the lead of The Home Depot team.

So, brava, Ina.  As The Home Depot staff recognizes, sometimes it really is for the sake of the children and bringing a simple smile to someone suffering.  Couldn’t you have just made some homemade mac-n-cheese with little Enzo and saved yourself the public’s scorn?

Update:  ABC is reporting that Garten will cook with Enzo after all:

The “Barefoot Contessa” has time to star in her Food Network show, pen cookbooks, and cook at charity luncheons for her well-to-do fans. But apparently, her schedule was too packed to meet a 6-year-old boy stricken with leukemia who requested a cooking session with her through the Make-A-Wish Foundation. She turned him down, twice.

Now, after multiple blogs and news outlets criticized her decision, Garten is inviting Enzo Pereda to the set of “The Barefoot Contessa.”

“Ina became aware of Enzo’s story this weekend and will be calling him today,” a spokesperson for Garten said in a statement to ABCNews.com. “She looks forward to inviting him to spend some time with her at the Food Network studios.”

I was hoping that would be the outcome. I can only hope that Garten holds her reps accountable for how they handled this. I also understand she is busy and her time is her own–I get it.   While there were some feverish comments, which I always expect (and love about HA readers), for the record, I never suggested a boycott of her show, her books, or her sponsors.  I like her show and recipes and, frankly, I think the Ina-Enzo episode (if produced) would/will have record ratings for her.

Not so fast.  The post-election tea party has now evolved into the watchdogs of the state and federal politicians that they gave victories to.  The tea party now expects this new breed of politicians to adhere to their campaign promises (yes, I know) as well as tackle the real problems and actually do something about them.  Actions indeed speak louder than words, and in this case they directly affect our nation’s fiscal future–among other things.

Watch.  And listen.  H/T Caleb Howe

“They cannot agree with themselves,” said Hoyer. He called for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to distance himself from Tea Party conservatives and forge a compromise between centrist Republicans and Democrats.

Hoyer said Boehner should abandon the additional cuts conservatives muscled into the bill introduced by GOP leaders that would have cut $35 billion in spending this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. After an uproar from conservatives, GOP leaders rallied around a bill that would cut spending by $61 billion. 

Of course he would say that.

This is not 1995 though and the game has changed, and frankly so have the rules.  The differences between 1995 and now is the fact that President Clinton used his veto power coupled with spot-on messaging:

On November 13, 1995, President Clinton vetoed a continuing resolution that would have kept the government running amid a budget impasse. The result was a partial shutdown. A few days later, he signed another continuing resolution providing funds for the government until mid-December. After that measure expired, he vetoed three appropriations bills, and another partial shutdown ensued. This one lasted until early January 1996.

Yes, Clinton called the GOP’s bluff and triggered a government shut down.  The blame supposedly fell at the Republican’s feet.  However, the GOP remained the majority party in the 1998 elections only losing five seats in the House, largely due to the fact that the GOP-led Congress passed popular legislation approval ratings remained consistent.  Furthermore, President Obama is signing the CRs–he has no option–as the Democrats control the Senate.  He couldn’t possibly risk the blame to lie with his party.

The Democrat’s political strategy, setup, and sting on the Republicans is as directed at the tea party as it is to fragmenting and alienating the GOP leadership with the freshmen members.  This attempt to weaken Boehner as a leader and cause voters to become disenfranchised with the GOP sets up the 2012 election.  

The GOP must remember that every time a Republican has the fortitude to stand up and call out the Democrats and the left, the people are behind them.  They crave someone with that leadership quality and fearlessness.  And this is why there is no front-runner in the GOP race to the White House.

Speaker Boehner must lead and unify the Republicans, stay on message, and obey the will of the American people.  If he doesn’t, the GOP will suffer serious consequences and the mantra of “not only conservative, but Republican” will vanish–setting up third party races in 2012, GOP incumbent losses, and Democrat wins.  However, if Boehner stands firm there will be no way the MSM machine will be able to beat back the sentiments and will of the American people for the results will be self-evident.

Crossposted at TMR

An anti-tax advocate, Mr. Braman began the petition drive soon after Mr. Alvarez proposed raising property taxes for 40 percent of Miami-Dade homeowners last summer to plug a large budget deficit, a result of plunging property values. The Miami-Dade County Commission approved the budget. At the same time, unionized county employees whose wages had been frozen were due for a raise under a prior agreement and to have some of their benefits reinstated.

But the criticism reached beyond agreements with unions and property tax increases. The once-popular mayor, who was first elected in 2004, gave hefty raises to top aides in 2009, at the height of the recession, and also used a government car allowance to help pay for a BMW.

This anti-tax sentiment is echoed by this report:

On Tuesday, Cuban-Americans will decide the fate of two Cuban-American Miami-Dade County politicians. Once, being Cuban American was good enough for Cuban-Americans to come out and vote for a candidate. That is no longer true.

As early voting took place, it appears that Alvarez and Miami-Dade Commissioner Natacha Seijas will be ousted:

As of Friday, nearly 55 thousand people had already cast their ballots at the polls; more than 67 thousand voted by absentee ballot.

A recent Miami Herald-CBS4-Univision 23 public opinion poll showed that Alvarez and Seijas will likely be turned out of office.

When a politician such as Alvarez reaches into the taxpayers’ pockets to “fix” the budget, can recall be expected as the new normal and will it apply to both parties who dare betray the people?

Update:  The largest polling precinct in Miami Beach is closed to voters.  Reports cite schedule conflicts:

But tell that to voters who went to cast their ballots at the Miami Beach Botanical Garden and found the city’s largest polling place was closed because clients in town for the Cruise show at the Miami Beach Convention Center had booked the garden for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Howard Srebnick, a Miami Beach resident and prominent criminal defense lawyer, said the Botanical Garden at 2000 Convention Center Dr. was shut down “without notice.”

Complying with the records request from the House Energy and Commerce Committee “would constitute a vast and expensive undertaking” and could “implicate longstanding executive branch confidentiality interests,” White House lawyer Robert Bauer wrote the committee. Translation: Nice try.

Before the Democrats rammed through the Obamacare bill (and don’t think for one little ol’ minute that our narcissistic President doesn’t love that branding), Obama and WH officials met with several high-profile insurance executives as the WaPo lists:

The list included George Halvorson, chairman and CEO of Kaiser Health Plans; Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association; Kenneth Kies, a Washington lobbyist representing Blue Cross/Blue Shield, among other clients; Billy Tauzin, then head of PhRMA, the drug industry lobby; Richard Umbdenstock, chief of the American Hospital Association; and numerous others.

The most concerning is George Halvorson as he was the only executive to meet with Obama.  And here is why:

“There really are two Americas when it comes to health care — the fully insured, primarily white America and the disproportionately uninsured minority America,” Halvorson wrote. “More than half of the total uninsured people in this country are minority. That fact alone should make the need to cover everyone in America a pure ethical imperative. This issue is not about economics — it is about equality. Universal coverage should be the next major civil rights issue for this country to face.

Halvorson also wrote an article in 2007 equating health reform to the “unfinished business of the Civil Rights agenda.” Halvorson discusses the disparities between the races and health care coverage and states:

If we considered no other issue than racial and ethnic disparities, this nation’s leadership — like the leadership of a number of states — should be moving this country down the path to an American form of universal coverage as quickly as possible. There is no more vital or meaningful way for us to honor and extend the great legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.

Again, Halvorson was also the only insurance executive to meet with Obama at that time.  Why?  Is it because Obama wants a single-payer system and sees himself as finishing the Civil Rights Movement, and Halvorson has the same viewpoint and the most to gain via Kaiser Permanente?  But, hey, there’s nothing to see here, right?  Or, is it that those meetings were, as Halvorson stated:

“The real discussion this time, behind those closed doors, is about changing the way care is delivered. Not about the cost.” 

Now, that is confusing.  According to former WH Budget Director, Peter Orszag, I thought that we were on an unsustainable path, so how could costs not come up in these meetings?  So, if we now know that those meetings were about how our healthcare is to be delivered, wouldn’t that be cause enough for alarm?  Some questions that pop into my mind are: how are those changes going to be implemented, what type of practitioner has direct access to patients, who has the ability to refer to specialists, who orders advanced tests/images, who makes the medical decisions, what protocols are being set/followed and who sets them, and do patients have access to all available treatment options.

Additionally, the Washington Times article cites that the Clinton and Bush administrations thwarted such calls:

President George W. Bush’s administration beat back efforts to reveal the dealings between Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force and industry. President Bill Clinton’s administration successfully resisted demands for records of its failed push to remake the health care system, which was overseen by then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

However, unlike the previous scenarios, this is now the law of the land, American taxpayers will be footing the entire bill, and will potentially ultimately have their healthcare decisions placed in the government’s control.  Doesn’t that give us the right to that information trumping the “implicate longstanding executive branch confidentiality interests” excuse.  And since when does this administration give a hoot about costs, nullifying the argument that the compliance with the records request “would constitute a vast and expensive undertaking.”

To quote NRO’s Jim Geraghty, did the Obama administration just administer the Cee-Lo Green option on Americans?

Typo correction: I’ve corrected the WaPo citation as it should have been Washington Times.

Hintz touches on so many topics in his 3-minute rant–from transparency, public debate, having to read a piddly 144-page bill, to the 35,000 people outside clammoring to have their voices heard.

Really?

Where was he when the more than one million Americans gathered at the Capitol and were ignored by the Democrats?  Was Hintz outraged when Republicans said they needed time to read the 2,000+ page Obamacare bill?  Where was his outrage when Harry Reid slipped in his manager’s amendment replacing the entire Obamacare bill and then voted on it?  Was he outraged when Nancy Pelosi met with Obama and other Democrat leaders behind closed doors locking out Republicans during the so-called ‘conference’?  Was he outraged when debate was cut off on Obamacare by the Democrats in Congress?  I could go on and on (and wrote extensively about it) as this type “professionalism” was on display for two years with Pelosi and Reid at the helm.

But, at least Hintz gets why the Democrats are in the minority…and in Wisconsin.

For the record, this video was extremely difficult to find as it has continually been scrubbed by the compliant lefty media.

Senate Rule 23
   Senate Rule 23. Committee not to be absent. Members of a committee, except a conference committee, may not be absent by reason of their appointment during the sitting of the senate, without special leave.
[am. 2001 S.Res. 2] emphasis mine

I’m a literal type of gal, and “may not” means you absolutely, positively cannot be absent–without taking special leave (maybe they could get a doctor’s note).  Here are the past and future committee schedules for February and March 2011.

Will tone-deaf, taxpayer-betraying Democrats Tim Carpenter, Spencer Coggs, Tomothy Cullen, Jon Erpenbach, Dave Hansen, Jim Holperin, Robert Jauch, Chris Larson, Julie Lassa, Mark Miller, Fred Risser, Lena Taylor, Kathleen Vinehout, and Robert Wirch abide by the Senate rules that they adopted in January 2011.  Or will they continue to hold their positions in contempt and be cowards?

Will the Wisconsin Republicans hold the Democrat fleebaggers to the Wisconsin Constitution and flex their majority authority…kinda like the Democrats in the US House did with Rep. Joe Wilson?

These fleebagging Democrats not only took an oath to uphold the Wisconsin Constitution, but also the United States Constitution and could, if they really had serious moxie, enforce what is stated in both Constitutions:

Article IV, §7 (of WI document)
   Organization of legislature; quorum; compulsory attendance. Section 7. Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide. (emphasis mine)

It would be a great day for Wisconsin taxpayers if that “may compel” became a “did compel,” because as I have stated before “working families” is code for “union families” and what have the Democrats done for private-sector families, except regulate and tax their businesses it into oblivion.

Yes, indeed, elections have consequences.  And the GOP is only getting started; it’s only been two months.

The tennis court at former President Jimmy Carter‘s private home is swept twice a day, his pool is cleaned daily and his grass cut, his flower beds weeded and his windows washed on a regular basis — all at taxpayers’ expense.

Under an arrangement with the National Park Service, taxpayers are responsible for the exterior of Mr. Carter‘s home in Plains, Ga. — to the tune of $67,841 last year alone. In exchange, the government obtains the right to add the home to the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site when he and his wife pass away.

Other presidents have had similar life estate agreements calling for their properties to be turned over after their deaths, but to have taxpayers footing the bill for upkeep and maintenance of the Carters’ property appears to be unique, and it’s drawing fire at a time of tight federal budgets.

Who knew the character Archie Bunker had it so right.

Where is the outrage at this waste of federal money?  Oh, wait Carter is a Democrat and he is not related to Sarah Palin…the rules are different.  My bad.

My father, a humble World War II vet, is the kindest and most hard-working man I have ever known.  He tirelessly provided the path for his three daughters to fulfill their hopes and dreams and silently mourned the 7-year-old daughter God took at such a young age.  I can only beg the Lord to give me much more time with him and my mother.

Whilst we hope and pray for more time, sometimes the time is not granted as Neil, a retired Marine, passed away early last Sunday morning.  Like my father, he was a great man.  His life was marked by many hardships, including the loss of his own father at age 3.  But as he explained them, he would treat them as a reference point and blessing to help him navigate through life to live each day–treasuring each hour.

When I met my in-laws for the first time, there was something different.  And I wanted to be a part of it.  Not only did I fall so deep in love with my husband, but his parents too.  I learned so much as I watched, talked, and laughed with them.  I have said, from the moment I walked into their home, Neil treated me as his own daughter.  Unbelievable, I know.  But so true.

As the years passed and the grandchildren were born, we grew closer and created fond memories.  Family.

But there was one passion that didn’t come out until 2007–politics.  What we didn’t realize about each other is that we both were political junkies–and I’m not talking let’s watch the news and have coffee, I’m talking addict-level.  The bond.  The sounding board.  The one who would listen while I talked a post through.  The mentor.  The one who made me take it to the next level.  The patriot.  The one who made me a patriot.  The one who taught me to write without fear.  Is now gone.  Sadness.

Each day, we lose more time.  On so many levels that can be unsettling, especially with the political climate in this country and throughout the world, high unemployment, family demands, and daily life stresses.  During the day, it is important to take time out from the mad rush of life, politics, and schedules to nurture the family and relationships, hug each other a bit tighter, and tell those you love that you indeed love them.  I know that is how we are wired here.  We start each day with an I love you and end each day with an I love you–even telephone calls–no matter how short end with I love you.  Cherish.

And yes, those were my last words to him.  Peace. 

Semper fi, Dad Hiller.

The speaker, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., on Wednesday plans to introduce legislation to revive a controversial program that provides private-school vouchers for kids of low-income parents in Washington, D.C. Boehner has long been a supporter of that program, which started to wind down in 2009, but is devoting some serious political capital to the cause this week.

[snip]

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, as it is known, was launched in 2004 as the first federally funded program providing K-12 education grants. Though supporters say it gives poor students an alternative to the city’s underperforming public school system, teachers unions and other opponents say it draws sorely needed money away from the public system. 

Lawmakers opposed to the program succeeded in eliminating it after Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. — who could not be reached for comment Tuesday — attached an amendment to a 2009 spending bill. President Obama stepped in and agreed to allow students currently enrolled to graduate. But the program is no longer accepting new applicants.

To recap, the Omnibus appropriations act of 2009 defunded (roll call vote here) the successful program–effectively eliminating any opportunity for poor DC schoolchildren to escape the horrid DC public schools.  The Democrats, namely Dick Durbin, claimed that the program funding would take away from the money the DC public schools needed.

Speaker Boehner and Senator Lieberman put out this video statement:

This move to reinstate this program is a bold one for Boehner–especially when calls for spending decreases are deafening and we are broke (H/T Allah for the video).   However, when the Obama administration spent more than all previous administrations in his first 19 months in office, it’s hard to say that this wasn’t a deliberate cut on the part of the Democrats–especially after 3 months in office.

Furthermore, this is going to be a tricky issue for Obama and the Democrats–one that will further define the Democrats as bought-off, public-sector union hacks and self-serving politicians who continually oppress and exploit others for their own political gain.  Some of you may think, yeah, those Republicans, but I will remind you–it was the Republicans who originally started the DC scholarship program and the Democrats (and a few of the usual RINOs) who filibustered it.  Kinda like the 1964 Civil Rights Act–Democrats filibustered that one, too.  Look it up.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

Update: I’ve added a link to further show that this probably wasn’t the reason, and it is shameful for the MSM to blame Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, etc.  But if they want to go there…

Obviously, this hatred of the Right and America is a long term issue, but the torch continues to be passed.  Alec Baldwin, one of the Left’s darlings and possible seeker of public office, may want to hire a good strategist to develop a PR image plan to diffuse this one again ’cause apologies and saying it was a “joke” is soooo yesterday. The reality is, Alec, you meant every word.  And it’s long-lost rants like this that make great campaign ads.

Just as Nina Totenberg meant it literally when she wished AIDS on Jesse Helms’ grandchildren as she giggled away.  Such good liberals, indeed, with their venom.  Such a hideous display of the inner dark soul of the Left.  I’m still confused by Totenberg’s comment–a child should suffer and die because of his or her grandfather’s political affiliation?

However, what Alec does on Conan’s show in 1998 is even more horrifying.  I remember watching this as it went down and have never forgotten Alec’s violent call to kill an elected Republican Congressman.  Is that what he learned in Africa–that they stone people to death there–as stoning appears to be very prevalent in Africa.  And where were the bills then against threats to lawmakers?

Here’s the transcript (emphasis mine):

Alec Baldwin: “I was in Africa. I go to Africa. I mean ladies and gentlemen I am in Africa. For three months I am in the bush and I come back. I come back here and I come back to what? I mean what is happening right now as we speak? Right now the Judiciary Committee, the President has an approval rating of 68 percent. The President is very popular and things are going pretty good and they are voting to impeach the President. They voted on one article of impeachment already. And I come back from Africa to stained dresses and cigars and this and impeachment. I am thinking to myself in other countries they are laughing at us twenty four hours a day and I’m thinking to myself if we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, [starts to shout] all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! [crowd cheers] Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families. [stands up screaming] What is happening in this country? What is happening? UGHHH UGHHH!!!!”

We all know Alec has a very bad temper.  Is he really fit to be an elected official?  Between his intolerance of those who don’t agree with him, his short fused violent rants, and his inability to put aside his leftist ideology, Baldwin is the last person you want as an elected official.

Additionally, the writers of 30 Rock may want to tone down the rhetoric with Alec’s character because he uses some vitriolic language (emphasis mine):

In one recent episode, Donaghy/Baldwin said: “Do you know who gets elected to Congress these days? Former athletes, washed-up actors, and, uh… women. I’m locked and loaded and ready for whatever these Beltway lobotomites throw at me.”

Finally, we can read over at the HuffPo, Alec also might want to tone it down a bit because, from what I see, there is no way this man can reach across the aisle and represent all of his constituents.

And kudos to Alec as admitted socialist Roseanne Barr agrees with “everything that guys says” (about 1:20 in).

It really has come to this.

To review, Powers said that President George W. Bush’s veto of the bill that included the end-of-life provision was “not true.”  I reported at Big Government, Big Journalism, and HotAir that Bush vetoed that bill which Powers, the MSM, and lefty bloggers tried to use as cover for the end-of-life provisions in the newly revamped wellness visits paid for by Medicare.

Nevertheless, that didn’t stop the left and MSM from continuing to use that false talking point given to them by the Obama administration as seen in The Hill’s piece:

However, an administration spokesman said the regulation, which is less specific than the reform law’s draft language, is actually a continuation of a policy enacted under former President George W. Bush.

Ironically, the administration attempted to use Bush as cover, when, in fact the policy was enacted by means of a congressional veto override.  And that brings us back to our beloved Kirsten Powers and her latest.  After 4 days of knowing the truth about the veto, Powers took my advice and tweeted:

Powers cites the WSJ as her source, which did correct the story as I noted in my original post.  And I do hope that’s the case, because so many news outlets had the same narrative/talking point–which also could mean that they all got the same memo.

Additionally, The Hill and the Politico have not corrected their stories.  The Politico actually goes out of its way to further advance the bogus blame by interviewing Richard Sorian, assistant secretary of Public Affairs for HHS and allows him to spew more propaganda elaborate:

Sorian also clarified that it was the Bush administration that first implemented regulations regarding end-of-life counseling. The wellness visit began as a “Welcome to Medicare” exam, which was created by the Republican-led Congress in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. In 2008, when Democrats held the majority, Congress passed the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act, which modified the exam to include end-of-life planning. The Bush administration first implemented regulations that included the end-of life planning as part of the wellness visit created in MIPPA.

B-,b-,b- but it was Bush.  Not.  It was a congressional veto override that enacted that law.  Period.  And I’m sure that Sorian knows that.  They all do.  Now, where do we go from here.  I’ll tell you.  If Kirsten Powers can issue an apology on Twitter, I’m sure the Politico and Jason Millman of The Hill can too.  So, we will wait a few more days.

Crossposted at Big Journalism (link fixed)

Just watch Kirsten Powers and her disbelief  in this interview when the bomb is dropped about 6:00 in.  She’s so flustered when she finds out the truth that President Bush vetoed the 2008 bill with the end-of-life provision in it and it was the Democrat Congress that overrode the veto and forced it into law.

Here’s the transcript:

SCHLAPP: And government itself, let me tell you, the language here right, the language is different. They made the language worse, instead of doing this once every five years, now the Obama administration is allowing this to happen every year and actually reimbursing doctors to do it every year. So, that’s quite a slight of hand. And doesn’t government — aren’t they a little conflicted here? They have to find this huge health care savings for seniors at the same time they’ve become the counselors to seniors in their end of care decisions?

POWERS: Where was your outrage in 2008 when the Bush administration said that Medicare would reimburse end of life counseling?

SCHLAPP: It was a veto that was overridden by the Democrats. So, I give President Bush credit for vetoing that bill.

POWERS: No, it was a 2008 law. I mean, I don’t know what are talking about.

SCHLAPP: Yes, that became law over the president’s veto.

POWERS: No, that’s not true.

Yes it is true, Kirsten.  And you look foolish and lose more of your credibility for believing the false narrative and then trying to advance it on national TV.

Could you imagine if Sarah Palin made that mistake?

The Medicare policy will pay doctors for holding end-of-life-care discussions with patients, according to the Times. A similar provision was dropped from the new healthcare reform law after Republicans accused the administration of withholding care from the sick, elderly and disabled. However, an administration spokesman said the regulation, which is less specific than the reform law’s draft language, is actually a continuation of a policy enacted under former President George W. Bush.

“The only thing new here is a regulation allowing the discussions … to happen in the context of the new annual wellness visit created by [healthcare reform],” Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin told The Wall Street Journal.

In 2003, Medicare added a consultation visit for seniors new to the program, according to the Journal. Another 2008 law, enacted under Bush, said the visit can include “end-of-life” planning discussions.

However, what The Hill’s Jason Millman forgot to mention in his article was that President Bush VETOED the 2008 bill and the Democrats, along with some “good-willed” Republicans OVERRODE Bush’s veto forcing him to sign the legislation into law.*  The bill dealt with doctors’ reimbursements and more, but the Democrats slipped in the end-of-life planning by opening up the Social Security Act, which I have stated many times is dangerous, because once changed, it is difficult to amend again and allows for tinkering with the Medicare fee schedule and covered services definitions and requirements.

For the record, here is the text that the Democrats changed:

(b) Revisions to Initial Preventive Physical Examination-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1861(ww) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(ww)) is amended–

(A) in paragraph (1)–

(i) by inserting ‘body mass index,’ after ‘weight’;

(ii) by striking ‘, and an electrocardiogram’; and

(iii) by inserting ‘and end-of-life planning (as defined in paragraph (3)) upon the agreement with the individual’ after ‘paragraph (2)’;

Comedy gold indeed, when Democrats blame Bush for, um, everything wrong in America, and then use him for cover on healthcare.

Updated:  *President Bush did not sign this bill into law as the congressional record mistakenly notes.  After Congress overrode Bush’s veto, President Bush was not required to sign the bill to enact it.

A week after Countdown host Keith Olbermann and guest Michael Moore sparked a Twitter protest over their dismissive treatment of rape allegations against Wikileaks founderJulian Assange, Moore made an appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show in which he failed to address the protest directly, but made their imprint obvious in his transformed rhetoric on rape accusations. In a crowning irony, the man whose zeal for transparency-God Julian Assange started this protest finally made direct acknowledgement of it…in a private Twitter message to #MooreAndMe creator Sady Doyle.

Moore’s clarification on The Rachel Maddow Show went like this:

Every woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted or raped has to be, must be, taken seriously. Those charges have to be investigated to the fullest extent possible. For too long, and too many women have been abused in our society, because they were not listened to, and they just got shoved aside… The older people here remember how it used to be. It’s not that much better now, it got a little better, because of the women’s movement made that happen.

His statements must be cleansing to his soul and address Doyle, but the timing does appear that they are also in response to the Rape, Abuse, Incest National Network’s (RAINN) statement and other mainstream outrage:

Yana Walton of the Women’s Media Center told The Daily Caller that progressive activists such as Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann, in their treatment and coverage of the charges against Assange, have made light of rape allegations and put blame on the alleged victims.

“When sexual violence and rape is such a huge part of women’s lives internationally I don’t think it is ever helpful to legitimize it. Rape is rape is rape is rape, and should be prosecuted as such,” Walton said.

It is not, however, just the left that has caused harm to women with the coverage of this case, Walton says. According to Walton, it is anti-female to care about rape only when there are other factors at play — in this case, the leakage of highly sensitive documents.

“Rape should be taken seriously regardless of the situation. And to sort of pick and chose when you deploy gender and care for women and sexual violence against women is doing just as much of a disservice to women,” Walton said.

For Moore, I’m sure this was hard as it took him a week to make it right and walk back his insensitive comments.  As cleansing this is to the soul, Moore needs to do, er, more.  He has no problem donating his cash to politicians and alleged rapists, so I’m going to take it one step further and ask him to really show some compassion for victims of sexual abuse by donating the same amount he gave Assange for bail–$20,000–to RAINN.  RAINN was co-founded by singer and rape survivor Tori Amos and Moore could truly show his Hollywood pals, some of whom are survivors of rape and sexual abuse, and women everywhere that he really is sorry.  As for Keith Olbermann, well you could toss in a few bucks, too.

I know the people at RAINN.  They work tirelessly to provide counseling to rape and sexual abuse victims–especially with the new online hotline–which I helped raise the primary funding for along with their team a couple of years ago.  I have friends who are surviviors and I’m sure you do too.  Moore has the opportunity to really make a difference now and walk the talk.  With money tight for so many donors in this brutal economy, donations to charities are down, but with Moore’s movies grossing over $187 million, I’m sure he doesn’t need the money as one of his favorite political organizations, MoveOn, tells us.  So, Mr. Moore just how compassionate to rape victims are you?  Will you click and donate?  Donations are tax-deductible, if that helps.

However, Moore’s outrageous comments completely dismissing the alleged rapes have raised the ire of many, setting off a Twitter firestorm, fueled by Tiger Beatdown blogger Sady Doyle who started the Twitter hashtag #mooreandme.  Doyle doesn’t stop there, and hauls off on Moore in her piece:

So, here are some cheerful statistics for you: According to RAINN, about 60% of rapes aren’t reported. In those cases, there’s about a 51% chance that the 40% of reported rapes will have an arrest made. There’s an 80% chance of prosecution. And, given various factors including conviction and sentencing, there’s only about a 16.3% chance that someone who commits rape will serve time for that rape. Meaning:  If we factor in the rapes that go unreported, only 6% of rapists ever serve time. EVER.

[snip]

He’s put $20,000 hard, cashy dollars on the line, so that Julian Assange, white male left-wing darling, will be able to get out on bail despite posing a substantial and acknowledged flight risk, and despite the fact that he evidently is working to avoid facing the charges of his accusers. And why is that? Well, as per Michael Moore’s lengthy diatribe on the subject, which contains exactly one paragraph about the rape charges, his reasoning is as follows:

“For those of you who think it’s wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he’s being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please — never, ever believe the “official story.” And regardless of Assange’s guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself.”

In other words: Never, ever believe the women who are accusing Assange of rape. Never, ever believe the allegations that he forcibly held a woman down and raped her, never, ever believe that he raped a woman while she was unconscious.

Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher also chimes in:

While Moore is correct that Assange is entitled to the presumption of innocence, the alleged victims in this case are also due the presumption that they’re not just lying crybaby sluts. In addition to the generally dismissive attitude that he and Olbermann display, the idea that Assange is only accused of condom breakage is patently false:

“According to accounts the women gave to the police and friends, they each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual. One woman said that Mr. Assange had ignored her appeals to stop after a condom broke. The other woman said that she and Mr. Assange had begun a sexual encounter using a condom, but that Mr. Assange did not comply with her appeals to stop when it was no longer in use. Mr. Assange has questioned the veracity of those accounts.”

RAINN (Rape, Abuse, Incest National Network) president and founder, Scott Berkowitz, issued an email statement condemning Moore’s position:

This issue with Moore has nothing to do with Julian Assange — like any alleged rapist, he deserves a fair trial.  The problem is that Moore doesn’t believe the charges should even be investigated or go to trial. That’s a dangerous precedent that excuses perpetrators and further harms victims.

With all of the outrage his irresponsible comment based on misinformation and $20,000 bail donation to Assange have created, will Moore and even some of his Hollywood pals buck up–literally–and donate to RAINN or another sexual abuse charity of his choosing.  Probably not, but then what else would you expect?  Compassion for the victims?  This is Hollywood, baby.

Russia, however, is not so clear on its messaging.  Let’s explore:

These underreported stories from late October and early November prove interesting regarding ratification:

Russia’s State DumaForeign Affairs Committee has repealed an earlier decision to ratify the latest Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the US after the American Senate made around 30 amendments to the original version.

­Among them are clauses stipulating that the treaty does not cover deployment of a US missile defense system, or ballistic missiles with conventional warheads.

“The presidents of Russia and of the US have set the task of synchronizing all procedures concerning the new START treaty. Nevertheless, now we have to speak not only about synchronizing efforts to keep up with the deadlines, but of synchronizing the contents as well,” said Konstantin Kosachev, head of the State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mikhail Margelov from the Russian Federation Council hopes the current “reset” in the two countries’ relations will not be affected by the latest developments.

And on December 4, just two weeks ago, Russia made these promising statements:

Russia’s lower house of parliament, the State Duma, is ready to make amendments to the text of the new START treaty if the move is initiated by the United States, Speaker Boris Gryzlov said on Saturday.

[snip]

Russia has said it will act symmetrically with the United States regarding treaty ratification, but the treaty has met strong Republican opposition in the U.S. Senate over concerns that it may weaken U.S. anti-missile defenses.

“I hope the U.S. Congress ratifies the new START treaty, although we have already received information that they [United States] are trying to adjust and clarify the text,” Gryzlov told the Rossiya TV channel. “If they do this, we will have to do the same.”

“I have already ordered our international affairs committee to prepare possible adjustments to the treaty, in case such amendments are made by Congress,” he added.

However, that stance of good-will has changed, apparently, in a warning (on December 20) to the United States:

Russia warned U.S. lawmakers on Monday that any changes to the strategic nuclear arms limitation treaty signed by Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev in April could kill the pact.

[snip]

“I can only underscore that the Strategic Nuclear Arms Treaty, worked out on the strict basis of parity, in our view fully answers to the national interests of Russia and the United States,” Interfax quoted Lavrov as saying in an interview.  “It cannot be opened up and become the subject of new negotiations,” Lavrov said.

[snip]

Parliament could potentially sign off on it this year if the Senate approves it in time, said Konstantin Kosachyov, Kremlin-allied chairman of the international affairs committee in the State Duma, the lower chamber.

But he said Russian lawmakers would closely examine the U.S. ratification resolution and any declarations or notes accompanying it to ensure no significant changes were made.

The Russian’s messaging from revocation, to concurring ratification, to warning the United States, and then softening the warning allows Russia to flex its muscle and appear to be in control in the perception of the world powers.  It would seem that the US heeded Russia’s warning as it appears that the Democrats have enough GOP votes to pass START, even though Republican amendments got struck down.  Finally, I’m thinking we’ll hear in the near future the unintended consequences of START, the treaty wasn’t perfect, but it was the right thing to do talking points.

Newt helped kick off the Bennett campaign by slamming the Obama agenda and the Democrats’ spending spree, carving himself out as a fiscal conservative that knew what was wrong with Washington.  Romney also threw his hat into the Bennett ring with this ad.  Furthermore, Newt tried to sell us that Bennett was leading the charge to repeal Obamacare.  But all that seems to have vanished as this omnibus bill that Bennett supports actually funds the implementation of Obamacare with more than $1 billion buried in it.

After being duped in 2008, voters see career politicians as power hungry and self-serving–with Bennett only confirming why the people of Utah voted in Mike Lee.   Bennett should do the right thing and vote no, but according to The Hill he stated:

“That’s my intention,” said retiring Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) when asked if he would support the package.
 
Bennett said earmarks in the bill might give some of his GOP colleagues reason to hesitate but wouldn’t affect his vote.
 
“It will be tough for some, but not for me,” he said.

Hmmmm.   A $1.1 Trillion spending bill that he has not read, is stuffed with pork, and funds Obamacare is not a tough vote?

Bennett is showing everyone how he flexes his power and it’s difficult to see his vote as anything but payback–especially after watching these campaign videos:

Bennett’s telephone number is (202) 224-5444.  His memory is short; remind him.

More than 40 of the nation’s millionaires have joined Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength to ask President Obama to discontinue the tax breaks established for them during the Bush administration, as Salon reports.

“For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled,” their website states. “We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.”

MoveOn.org has also thrown in its, forgive me, 2 cents with a new ad confirming that some of the wealthy don’t need the money–which Allah highlights.  Well, the inevitable has happened and the Taiwanese actors have taken on this issue in perfect step.

To my fellow Americans who want to be taxed more, it’s time to put your money where your mouth is and I have found your opportunity.  If you would like to donate to the federal government, all you have to do is mail a check to the US Treasury at this address:

Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called “Gifts to the United States.” This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Oopsy Note:  Ted in the comments points out that it is not Next Media who typically produces these vids, but XtraNormal.  My apologies.

Some 42.9 million people collected food stamps last month, up 1.2% from the prior month and 16.2% higher than the same time a year ago, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Nationwide 14% of the population relied on food stamps as of September but in some states the percentage was much higher. In Washington, D.C., Mississippi and Tennessee – the states with the largest share of citizens receiving benefits – more than a fifth of the population in each was collecting food stamps.

With Obama signing the bill, it is noted that Democrats were not happy with the looting of the food stamp fund:

The major snag was over how to fund healthier school meals and related programs. The deal called for cuts in future food stamp benefits, which alarmed members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Rouse met with CBC members at a White House session to listen to their concerns, and President Obama dropped in for a quick visit. In the end, the White House pledged at some future time to deal with the food stamp issue.

In a Dec. 1 statement, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said the CBC would back the bill because “with poverty and childhood obesity on the rise, this legislation achieves the twin goals of expanding the pool of needy children who are eligible for school nutrition programs while establishing healthier meal guidelines for American schools.”

She added, however, “It is unfortunate that in order to pass The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act it comes at the expense of future Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program funding. As more Americans slip into poverty and unemployment remains at painfully high levels, we should not have to choose between feeding poor children or their parents at a time that some in Congress argue for a $700 billion tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.

To that point, it’s always the rich vs. the poor with the Democrats, but staying on topic here, why didn’t the Democrats force Obama to make good on his promise to refund the program in the tax cut deal as they pile on the pork?  Additionally, I will concur with Ed on this one:

Eight billion dollars in a $3.8 trillion budget amounts to … 0.21%.  What about the other 99.79% of federal spending?  And let’s not forget that last year’s omnibus budget bill that completed the FY2010 budget contained in itself over $17 billion in earmarks. I guess Congress gets to pork out while the poor and unemployed sacrifice.

Looking at each report from the USDA during Obama’s presidency, we see an increase in the numbers of enrollees–setting a new record each time during the 2-year period–beginning at 33.5 million people in 2009 to 42.9 million people through October 2010. With the number of enrollees in the food stamp program and unemployment hovering around 10 percent, the outlook for decreasing the food stamp rolls is bleak.  Finally, with the Democrats refusing to bring the extension of the tax cuts to the House floor, which also includes unemployment benefits, more people can be expected to enroll in the food stamp program, but how will they pay for it?

The agreement reached by the White House and GOP called for an extension of unemployment benefits, which now seems to be DOA according to House Dems.

The fact that the Democrats are blocking the tax cut deal between the White House and GOP–which most Americans support noted by Ed–puts out the question of are the Democrats capable of governing according to the will of the American people and in a bipartisan manner.  Clearly, the Democrats are squandering this opportunity based on their Keynesian and progressive taxation ideology as exemplified here by Rep. Barney Frank.

The baseless notion that the wealthy do not pay their fair share has been argued, but facts are facts, and the rich do pay the most taxes already:

In 2006, the latest available year from CBO, the top 20 percent of income earners paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes, an all-time high.  This is an increase of over 6 percent from 2000, when the top 20 percent paid 81.2 percent. During the same period, the bottom four quintiles all saw their share of the federal income tax burden fall sharply:

• The bottom 20 percent of income earners’ share of federal income taxes fell from -1.6 percent in 2000 to -2.8 percent in 2006;
• The next 20 percent’s share declined from 1.1 percent to -0.8 percent;
• The middle quintile’s share dropped from 5.7 percent to 4.4 percent; and
• The fourth quintile’s share decreased from 13.5 percent to 12.9 percent.

Each of these four quintiles’ shares was an all-time low.

This class warfare the Democrats perpetuate is floated under false pretenses and plays out bitterly in society and pits Americans against one another.  Moreover, the Democrats apparently have no problem using the unemployed as leverage in their deal, because according to Senator Chuck Grassley, he concedes that a deal could have been passed for a 3-month extension of unemployment benefits without the tax deal.

It’s no secret that Kirk is known to be a liberal, but his non-specifics on immigration are troubling.  Towards the end of the campaign, I contacted Kirk’s headquarters and spoke with his media liaison twice and asked about Kirk’s position on the DREAM Act and cap and trade.  The contact would not answer my questions and promised to send an email explaining Kirk’s positions on both of these issues.  I’m still waiting.

Meanwhile, Kirk’s campaign site has this nugget:

I believe that immigration reforms cannot succeed without border security first.  Given the 20,000 Mexican citizens already killed in cartel-related violence, I understand the decision made by the people of Arizona.

I support the completion of the wall, doubling the number of border police and increased surveillance technology on our borders.  One state cannot solve this problem alone and that is why we need leaders in Washington that will back an effective federal policy to control our border.

But, border security is not immigration reform and he does support a federal policy for immigration reform, but is continually void of any specifics.  Kirk also ”understands” the Arizona law as do most.  But, I’d like to know if he agrees with it?

I understand that this is Illinois, and like Massachusetts, we have to settle for more liberal-leaning Republicans.  With that said, it’s key for these politicians’ constituents to know how to cut through the campaign double-speak or political sham-wow as so many career politicians are masters of the verbal shell game.  It’s especially troubling that Kirk did vote for cap and trade in the House, but then flipped to a no vote if elected to the Senate.  Will he flip again, but this time on immigration?

Kirk is receiving lots of pressure from activist groups as well and his vote on the DREAM Act will be revealing as to which drummer he will march and what we can expect from him in the 112th Congress.