Republican DEM-olition of 2010: The Winners and Losers


FORMER. Speaker. Nancy. Pelosi.

Has a ring to it doesn’t it? Those are four of the best words I’ve heard in the last 24 hours.

The Republican’s overwhelmingly swung the House of Representatives Majority away from the Dems to make it a roughly 240+ seat house for the GOP.

While some of the candidates we wanted to win did not, there were certainly many who did.  And the Gubernatorial elections have taken a huge swing in the GOP direction….30+ Republican governorships!

MAKE NO MISTAKE.  Don’t adhere to the Democratic/Leftist media spin……

This was a HUGE, RED tsunami wave that just swept over Obama and his enabling Democratic party.   Yesterday’s was a historic election…bigger than the most recent Republican wipeout of Dems in 1994 — Bigger than any election in decades.

I thought I would compile the Winners and Losers of yesterdays elections….not just the individual candidates, but the issues, groups and others included:

WINNERS:

The American People:  Freedom to have your vote counted.  Many people throughout our history have made great effort and sacrifice for our opportunity to vote. And, in this case, the sweeping wins by conservatives is a major battle won in the continuing war against the Socialist agenda.  A big step in getting our country back!

The Tea Party: The Tea Parties, which moved into full swing shortly after the  Obama/Pelosi/Reid Socialist cabal’s arrogant overreach, were the most influential group in this election.  Without them, I think it is inarguable that many Americans would not have had the voice, nor the knowledge behind their votes, that they possessed in this election!

Republicans60+ seats gained in House for a Majority of 240+,  added 6+ seats in Senate (avg in off-year elections is around 3-4 seats), Republicans gained 9+ governorships and will now hold 30+ Governor seats; Republicans have added  23 MORE States where Republicans gained control of all or part of their Legislatures

The majority of states that now have Republican Governors (30+):  Key wins include Ohio, Florida, Arizona, Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kansas, Michigan, Wisconsin.

The majority of states that now have GOP legislatures!

Minorities and Women:   What was that you said, Democrats?  What was it all those Leftists have kept repeating?  Republicans are what?  Racist??  Racist,  you say?   Well, the proof is in the pudding…A LARGE number of GOP winners yesterday are minorities and/or women –  including Marco Rubio (FL), Nikki Haley(SC), Allen West (FL), Susana Martinez (NM), Brian Sandoval (NV), Tim Scott (SC), Bill Flores(TX), Francsico Canseco (WA), David Rivera (FL), Mary Fallin (OK), Kristi Noem (SD).

State of Oklahoma: The first woman Governor of Oklahoma, GOP’s Mary Fallin, was elected.  Tom Coburn was overwhelmingly re-elected.  And the people of the great state of Oklahoma covered a lot of good ground on ballot issues:  

  •  voted to keep Sharia Law out of the courts
  •  voted to make English the common language of the state
  • voted for term limits in state positions
  • voted AGAINST a teacher’s union effort to dramatically increase spending on education with no clear allocations nor budgets to cover it
  • voted to allow Oklahomans to opt out of Obamacare mandates, and
  • voted for photo ID before voting in elections. 

Citizens of District 8 in FloridaThey ousted liberal, anti-American, rabid, nasty, kook Democrat Alan Grayson from the House! 

Citizens of District 22 in Florida (includes Broward and Palm Beach counties):  They elected Allen West, Republican, who is a black, retired Lt. Colonel in the Army.  Staunch conservative and Tea Party candidate.  Go West..give ’em heck in the House!

The People of Iowa:  They voted out 3 state Supreme Court judges who ruled, against the will of the people of Iowa, for same-sex marriage.  Iowa, we all need to follow your lead and clean out those who legislate from the bench!

Sarah Palin:  She has a habit of silencing the critics at almost every turn.  The vast majority of candidates she backed won their races yesterday in this election season.   As of now, of those candidates she endorsed, 7 out of 12 won their races in the Senate this election season and 30 of 43 won in the House. 

 

and now the Losers!

LOSERS:

Now FORMER House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:  Someone threw a bucket of water on the witch of the west!!!    And she has melted!   Her arrogance is a one-way trip back to LaLa Land….have fun Nancy.    Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.  You have been perhaps the worst “leader” in recent history.    GOODBYE and GOOD RIDDANCE. 

Democrats:  They are all willful parties in alienating the people from their Constitution. The arrogance, spending, Socialism, Healthcare votes, inability and/or lack of effort to produce a budget, corruption, not reading bills, buying off votes against the will of the American people, lock-step votes behind Socialist Obama….and more.  All have resulted in crashing message from the American People that WE DON”T WANT YOUR ANTI-AMERICAN HOPE AND CHANGE!

Obama:  Regardless of the spin, this election IS a referendum on Obama and his economic policies and his anti-American rhetoric.   Let’s see if Obama has it in him to effect TRUE compromise with the will of the American people.  That will has been realized in  the form of a new House majority and gains in the Senate.  That will is also exhibited in multiple gains in state legislatures by conservatives and a majority of GOP Governorships.  We want change, Obama, but we want a change BACK from your brand of “change”.

Those who have gotten rich or made a career of “representing Americans”:  I use ‘representing” loosely.  Centuries of Democratic seniority was beaten to a pulp in the House last night!

California:  A repeat with Governor Moonbeam Brown…. four more years with the hippie at the helm of California.  Does anybody really believe that Moonbeam will bring fiscal sanity back to California by standing up to public sector unions?  Does anyone really believe that “renewable energy” is California’s future?  If so, then you might be smoking illegal pot.

Pot smokers:  Prop 19 in California and pot referendums in two other states did not pass.  Sorry but you’ll have to keep your pot in the closet for now.

California, again:  Re-electing Babs “Call Me Senator” Boxer and re-electing Loretta Sanchez.

Congressional Reps who voted for ObamacareThey were voted out in droves! (Including the liberal Republican Cao in Lousiana…voted OUT!)

The US Military:  The Democrats have actively worked to keep the military from voting.  What a shame for the very souls who have risked their lives, sacrificed their lives and limb to make sure we can vote.  Count ALL of the votes. (H/T: BigGovernment.com)

The citizens of Alaska:  Enduring Lisa Murkowski and her arrogance in saying she is “doing what the people of Alaska want” certainly doesn’t make for a great experience for the people of Alaska.  Murkowski was beaten by Joe Miller in the primary  and at that point the people had spoken against her.  Instead of losing gracefully, she has forced the citizens to endure a huge legal battle with her “write-in” campaign.  Not to mention that if she is indeed the winner with such a campaign, the question of fraudulent activity committed by her campaign is not an unreasonable one to ask.

The citizens of Nevada, along with the American people:  Gee, thanks, Nevada, for forcing Harry Reid upon all of us for another 6 years.  GAG!  Or should I thank the SEIU, Casino unions, Reid’s corruption, voting machines already marked for Reid, ….?????  You get the picture.   What a travesty to keep this brainless creature in office.  But, then again, as Rush says, having Harry Reid as the face of the Democrats and Obama’s agenda going forward can only help conservatives in the run-up to 2012.

Obamacare:  Presumed new Speaker of the House John Boehner said today he will work to repeal Obamacare!  Get on with it complete dismantling of this monstrosity.

Joy Behar:  She was already a loser before the election yesterday.  I am just including her because she is like fingers on a chalkboard to most reasonable, intelligent Americans.   She is an intolerant, arrogant leftist (are there any other kind?).  When she points the finger and calls others a B^&* , she must remember that at the same time she has 3 fingers pointing back at her.

America, our war against the statist, anti-Constitutionalist, anti-Americans has just begun with a victory in yesterday’s battle. 

 We are a center-right country.  The idea of standing up for the Constitution and our conservative, traditional roots is the centrist/moderate position in this country.  Don’t let the wishy-washy “moderates” tell you any different.

If you are anywhere to the left of freedom, free markets, and our Constitution, then you are the extremist.

Americans fighting for and standing up for liberty are in the centrist position and we took a HUGE step in moving our country back to the Constitutional, free-America position yesterday.

Kudos to you patriots who have fought the fight and won, decisively, the first battle.

I love this country and I’m proud of it.  God Bless America.

Tom Coburn (R-OK) is up for the fight (video)


Hey, Obama, is this what you call bringing a knife to a fight?

(H/T: RedState.com)

We need more Tom Coburn’s in Congress


I read today the New York Times article on Tom Coburn, Senator from Oklahoma.   I expected the article to be a perfect slam against a man who holds his views tightly and is not afraid to buck the overreaches in the halls of Congress.

But, I was pleasantly surprised.  While I’m sure the NYT’s references to Coburn’s down-to-earth view and his pride in being called “Dr. NO” are designed to make him look argumentative and out of the mainstream, those are two of the qualities that I admire and believe we need more of in the Congress!

The article makes much of Coburn’s efforts to stop wasteful spending even when he swims upstream against a majority in his own party.  But I believe that both sides of the aisle have become enthralled with their own power and have forgotten their role in Congress which leads to massive spending, elitism, and losing touch with those who put them there.

Not so with Coburn….a practicing family practice physician and Southern Baptist deacon.   I mean who better to speak up about the healthcare monstrosity that the Democrats are trying to foist upon this country than a practicing physician who hasn’t made Washington his only career?

Coburn is certainly not perfect, but the article clearly points out some of the better traits of a man who we could use about 99 more times over in the Senate and 435 times over in House.

Humility and Character:

Senator Tom Coburn’s office is the rare Capitol Hill work space without a “me wall” — the display of photographs of a lawmaker standing beside presidents, foreign leaders and other dignitaries, all illustrating How Big a Deal he is.  

Instead, hanging above Mr. Coburn’s desk is a large framed print of the word “no.” It was a tribute from a liberal voter in New York thanking Mr. Coburn, a conservative Republican from Oklahoma, for his efforts at thwarting expensive legislation.

Defining Principles:

Known as Dr. No, Mr. Coburn, a family practice physician, views legislative battle less in terms of Republicans versus Democrats than as a matter of yes versus no. He sees himself as a one-man treatment center helping Congress beat its bipartisan addiction to misguided spending.

“I’ve always considered myself an opposition within the opposition,” said Mr. Coburn, whose willingness to block, delay or neuter bills through an array of procedural measures has made him an effective nuisance during his five years in the Senate.

Experience that provides insight into the issues:

Known as Dr. No, Mr. Coburn, a family practice physician……..“My mission is to frame this health care debate in terms of the fiscal ruin of this country,” said the 61-year-old Mr. Coburn, who recently railed on the Senate floor that the federal debt was “waterboarding” his five grandchildren. “I have instructed my staff to clear my schedule for every minute that bill is on the floor.”

Down to earth…knows (and remembers) how the other half lives:

After inflicting migraines in Washington, Mr. Coburn goes home on weekends to Muskogee, where he treats patients on Mondays. He says he does his best thinking aboard his John Deere mower, which can run 20 miles an hour and slash through pretty much anything on his seven-acre meadow. Mr. Coburn dons earplugs, stares straight ahead and cuts a determined swath, just as he does in the Senate.

…………..Mr. Coburn spends as little time as possible in Washington, a place he seems to genuinely dislike. An ordained Southern Baptist deacon, he attends church every Sunday back in Muskogee and teaches a Bible study class. He tries to stop armadillos from tearing up his lawn. He pulls fat water moccasins from his pool.

“I kill them,” he said with relish, “by slicing their heads off with the sharp edge of a shovel.”

I like that last line…seems like a great analogy to what he does in the Senate….killing the poisonous “creatures” (legislation).

I like his allegiance to his beliefs but also his discernment in what is most important at any given time:

Mr. Coburn was elected to the Senate with a reputation for outspoken social conservatism. He had denounced the “homosexual agenda” and said he favored the death penalty “for abortionists and other people who take life.”

These issues remain deeply meaningful to him personally, but “none of these things are important right now,” he said, compared with the “fiscal ruin” he sees the country facing.

“If you look historically, every great republic has died over fiscal issues,” he said. “That is the biggest moral issue of our time.”

And he is a good example of a man who “marches to his own drummer”….and remember, those who are effective, are not always liked and shouldn’t care if they are or not…if they stand on principle…

The first thing you can say about Tom Coburn is that he marches to his own drummer,” said Dick Armey, a Republican who was majority leader in the House when Mr. Coburn served there in the 1990s.

…….His at-times hyperbolic rhetoric, fervent social conservatism and seeming indifference to whether or not people like him have made him something of a lightning rod. “If we wiped out the entire Congress and sent common people who have no political experience, we would get far better results than we have today,” he said in a remark typical of how he views the institution.

I agree with his last statement….of course, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and other elitists look down upon the “common people”…….. so let’s do our best to replace theses elitist, power-hungry excuses-for-leaders  in 2010 (and 2012), OK?

Some thoughts and facts on Obamacare – posted before President “Sham Wow” begins his desperation prime time pitch (again) tonight


So much is being said about healthcare right now.  And rightfully so.  The Right is feeling good that the current Obamacare debacle has a great chance of dying before the Congress recess in August. And Obama is feeling the pinch from his own party that it is too much too soon.

Of course, the Right should never underestimate a corrupt administration’s ability to ram this thing through one way or another and the Left shouldn’t underestimate Obama’s ability to “throw them under the bus” on the way!

Some of my thoughts and research on this health “care” debaucle that must be STOPPED!

OBAMA IS LYING ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD GET WITH THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Obama, during the campaign last year, touted a very moderate view of how he would handle healthcare “reform”.  From American Thinker:

When Obama was in pre-election campaign mode, he made some reasonable statements about healthcare. He wanted you to keep your insurance if you were happy with it. He told us that government-run healthcare with higher taxes was a bad idea. And he didn’t think anyone should be forced to purchase insurance. Only the most naive among us believed Obama’s sweet little promises, but at least they sounded nice.

Think about that as you soak in what Obama is trying to force upon us, our economy, and our kids/grandkids.  As President, he is almost a lone player (if you believe there are actually Blue Dog Democrats against it) in ramming through the current healthcare bill proposals at break neck speed….many of the healthcare fundamental reforms he’s touting are at 180 degrees opposite what Obama campaigned for. 

So hypocrisy and opportunism are two words that come to mind when hearing Obama tout this plan…..A third work that comes to mind is deceit!

Obama is lying and stating blatant inaccuracies in order to “get his way”.  Three main lies that he is touting were highlighted at the New York Post:

1)“If you like your current health-care plan, you can keep it.”   Even White Housespokesmen have said that Obama’s oft-repeated pledge that you can keep your current insurance isn’t meant to be taken literally…..the president supports an individual mandate — a requirement that every American buy health insurance…..

And that doesn’t just affect those without insurance today. The bills now before Congress say that while you won’t be immediately forced to switch from your current insurance to a government-specified plan, you’ll have to switch to satisfy the government’s requirements if you lose your current insurance or want to change plans.

Plus, the president supports the creation of a government insurance program that would compete with private insurance. But because this ultimately would be subsidized by American taxpayers, the government plan could keep its premiums artificially low or offer extra benefit.

In the end, millions of Americans would be forced out of the insurance they have today and into the government plan.Businesses, in particular, would have every incentive to dump their workers into the public plan. The actuarial firm the Lewin Group estimates that as many as 118.5 million people, roughly two-thirds of those with insurance today, would be shifted from private to public coverage.

2)“You will pay less.” The Congressional Budget Office has made it clear that the reform plans now being debated will increaseoverall health-care costs, yet President Obama on Friday repeatedly said that his reform would reduce costs and save Americans money.

But no matter how many times he says it, the truth is you will pay more — much more — both in higher taxes and in higher premiums.

….if one totals up all the new taxes in the House Democratic health-reform bill — the income surtax, the penalties on businesses and individuals that fail to buy into the government health plan, as well as other fees and taxes — the cost to US taxpayers will top $800 billion. New York City will face marginal tax rates as high as 57 percent.

At a time of rising unemployment and economic stagnation, that is like throwing an anchor to a drowning man.

In addition, the new insurance regulations expected to be part of the final bill are likely to drive up insurance premiums. And, if the new government-run plan under-reimburses doctors and hospitals — as Medicare and Medicaid do — providers would be forced to recoup that lost income by shifting their costs to private insurance, driving up premiums. A study by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance estimates that the president’s proposals could increase premiums by 75 to 95 percent.

3)”Quality will improve.” Anyone who thinks a government takeover of the health-care system will improve quality of care has only to look at the health-care programs the government already runs: The Veterans Administration is overwhelmed with problems, Medicaid is notorious for providing poor quality at a high cost — and Medicare has huge gaps in coverage.

Worse, however, on Friday, Obama endorsed the creation of a government board with the power to dictate how your doctor practices medicine and all but endorsed the rationing prevalent in nationalized health-care systems around the world.

Other great analysis of the  “untruths”  being preached to us are also found at “O’s Broken Promises: Health Bills vs. Prez’s words” at the Post.

GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED HEALTHCARE HASN’T WORKED WHERE IT HAS BEEN TRIED.

The Obamacare proposals (of which many Obama is not even familiar) are nothing more than an attempt at government-controlled healthcare.  In other countries, such a system has resulted in millions waiting for needed care and for rationing of care to those deemed “not worth it” by government bureaucrats.

Obama expects us to believe him and not our “lying eyes”.  We can clearly see what government-run healthcare has done to other countries.  The care is inferior every where it is tried.

Two good examples of countries with government-run healthcare are Canada and Britain.  Canada has, at any given time somewhere around one million people on a waiting list for surgeries and other necessary procedures.  In Britain, breast cancer survival rates are well under US rates at 69% and 84%, respectively.

In Britian, life-saving cancer treatments are not given to those who the government bureaucracies feel are not “worth the expenditure” because they are too old!  I don’t know about you, but the government has no right to decide whether I, or my parents, live or die because they don’t deem me as “worth” it. 

The plan currently proposed WILL eventually ration healthcare just as its done in other countries….Obama and others have even insinuated as such.  Common sense dictates it as well….the government can not possible pay for all of the services for everyone (including illegal aliens) that we receive in healthcare today….so how do they try to provide it ?  By rationing the care that some receive.  It can be as seemingly benign as further limiting the number of mammograms a woman receives to disallowing cancer treatments altogether, as Britain does, on the elderly and those the GOVERNMENT decides are not worth the money.  It has played out in exactly that manner in other countries.

Yes, our healthcare may cost more, and that is why it is the best system in the world.

IF IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR US WHY WON’T OBAMA AND DEMOCRATS SIGN ONTO RECEIVING THE EXACT “CARE” THEY ARE FORCING UPON US?

From The American Thinker:

“Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill.”

Congressman John Fleming has offered a resolution that will give members of Congress “an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.” Fleming’s resolution has over 40 cosponsors– but not a single one of the cosponsors is a Democrat.

Similarly, Obama has flatly refused to participate in the public health insurance program. I can’t blame Obama for wanting the very best health care for his own family, but I can blame him for being a hypocrite.

In the Senate, Tom Coburn successfully submitted an amendment that passed that the Senate Health Committee by a vote of 12 to 11.  This amendment requires members of Congress to use the same health plan they are forcing upon us.  However, if the bill is passed, there is a huge chance Democrats will cut this amendment from the bill during committee. (H/T: Gateway Pundit)

HOW SHOULD WE ADDRESS THE HEALTHCARE ISSUE IN THIS COUNTRY?

Obama, in his speeches, likes to say that 45 million Americans are uninsured — that is misleading.  Almost 2/3 of those are young people who CHOOSE not to have insurance and others who qualify for S-CHIP and Medicaid who don’t use it.  (Some are also illegal aliens who have no right to our healthcare system to begin with)

In addition, those that have coverage through companies are currently not able to keep that coverage if they move or go to a new company.

Point being, let’s encourage those citizens to use what is available.  At the same time, let’s modify the system to make healthcare more affordable where the consumer manages what they pay and what they receive, not the government.  We are not in need of a complete government takeover with 84 new government departments created in order to tell us what doctor and what care we can receive.  That is exactly what this current plan will do.

Like it or not, healthcare is not a “right” endowed by our bloated government! 

Any healthcare modifications should look at using what is available and then modifying the system to encourage tax credits or savings plans for those struggling to pay for healthcare.  Plans should be portable so that families can keep the insurance they have if they move from state to state.  That, in addition, to current offerings, goes a long way in covering those without healthcare….at least it gets you closer to that goal without government choosing what care you get and don’t get.

BOTTOM LINE:

What is being proposed is a massive, likely irreversible, government takeover of healthcare that is unconstitutional and Socialistic in nature.  Among all of its other faults, this current plan forces us to pay healthcare for 12 to 20 million illegal aliens, forces us to pay for abortions, further taxes “the rich”, and puts a financial penalty on individuals and businesses if we choose NOT to play in the government’s big “healthcare” plan.  (Those are all included in the current bill proposals).

Worst of all, the government chooses whose life is valuable and what procedures are necessary — ALL life is valuable and worthy of all humanly possible attempts to save it…and my doctor and I should decide what procedures are necessary for my care, not bureaucrats in Washington.

MORE REFERENCES:

We all need to be up to speed on what is happening with this healthcare debacle.  Here are more links and information, I highly recommend to become and stay informed.

Five Myths About Health Care at Forbes.com

Putting Citizens, not Government, in charge of healthcare at Heritage.org

One Step Closer To Losing Your Right to Healthcare at The American Thinker

Does Ted Kennedy deserve his extended care? at The American Thinker

In America — you read that right — your (religious) thoughts can now be criminalized


Today, the Senate voted to expand hate crimes legislation….the House has already passed a similar bill, so this gross attack on free speech and thought will soon be moving to Obama’s desk!

Very cynically, the Senate hate crimes legislation, which couldn’t get passed on its own account, was inserted into the Defense Spending bill and passed today.

From WND:

A key Senate vote during the wee hours when most Americans were asleep has added the so-called “hate crimes” plan, which creates federal protections and privileges homosexuals and others who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles, to a defense spending bill.

While there are procedural hurdles yet, opponents say they expect the proposal that essentially makes homosexuals a protected class of citizens in the United States soon will reach the desk of President Obama, who has lobbied for it.

The Senate passed the bill 63-28 with all but five Republicans voting against it.

From AP, about the bill:

People attacked because of their sexual orientation or gender would receive federal protections under a Senate-approved measure that significantly expands the reach of “hate crimes” law. The Senate bill also would make it easier for federal prosecutors to step in when state or local authorities are unable or unwilling to pursue those acts deemed to be hate crimes.

 Senate Democrats insist the hate-crimes amendment (S. 909) they attached to the defense appropriations bill won’t criminalize preaching or speaking out against homosexuality.

But Republican Senator Jim DeMint sees it differently:

But Sen. Jim DeMint said that since opposition to homosexuality is “a biblical concept,” the measure could “serve as a warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious views lest the federal law enforcement come knocking at their door.” The South Carolina Republican asked, “Can priests, pastors, rabbis be sure that their preaching will not be prosecuted?

More:

Opponents of the bill, including conservative religious groups, argued that it infringes on states’ rights and could intimidate free speech. “The bill could potentially imperil the free speech rights of Christians who choose to speak out against homosexuality — which could even be extended to preaching against it,” The Christian Coalition of America said in a statement.

Supporters countered that prosecutions under the bill can occur only when bodily injury is involved, and no minister or protester could be targeted for expressing opposition to homosexuality, even if their statements are followed by another person committing a violent action.

To emphasize the point, the Senate passed provisions restating that the bill does not prohibit constitutionally protected speech and that free speech is guaranteed unless it is intended to plan or prepare for an act of violence.

Of course, a few weeks ago, the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, saw it quite differently when asked if preachers would be protected under this bill….his answer was NO!

From WND on July 3:

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister’s sermon about homosexuality would be protected by a proposed new federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn’t be.

The revelations come from Holder’s recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was taking comments on the so-called “hate crimes” proposal. It also was the subject of discussion on talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh’s show today.

“This is the question,” Limbaugh said. “[Sen.] Jeff Sessions [R-Ala.] presents a hypothetical where a minister gives a sermon, quotes the Bible about homosexuality and is thereafter attacked … by a gay activist because of what the minister said about his religious beliefs and what Scripture says about homosexuality. Is the minister protected?”

No, said Holder.

“Well, the statute would not – would not necessarily cover that. We’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends – is designed to cover. We don’t have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person’s desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. That would not be covered by the statute,” Holder stated.

So, basically, in other words, only blacks and those whose are sexually confused are covered under this law!!!!!!!!! 

More of Rush Limbaugh’s take on this:

Continued Limbaugh, “In other words: ministers and whites are not covered by the hate crime statute because we’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis, groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of their skin color, sexual orientation. So hate crimes are reserved exclusively for blacks and homosexuals. Everybody else can get to the back of the bus on this one. “

Oh…and just so you know, those who risk and sacrifice their lives for our freedom are not a “protected class” according to AG Eric Holder:

Under questioning from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Holder admitted that “hate” was involved in a recent case in which a Muslim man attacked and killed a U.S. soldier. Still, soldiers are not among the protected classes.

“There’s a certain element of hate in that, I suppose,” Holder admitted, leading Coburn to conclude, “What we’re willing to do is elevate those crimes (verbal or physical attacks on homosexuals) over this very intended hate crime (a murder.)”

Coburn is right on…

As far as I am concerned, the Democrats can lie and act like this law will not allow prosecutions of pastors and those of faith….and they can act as if this is some sort of “civil rights” issue, but when the most powerful attorney in the country can approve of certain groups as the “protected class”, then I believe that we are leaving up to (perhaps political) judges to determine whether our thoughts and beliefs are crimes or not.

That is not America and it wipes out our First Amendment rights….How anyone can determine that this legislation is “fair” or “justice” is beyond me.  

Folks, our America is quickly turning into something we won’t recognize….a bunch of fringe, elitist liberals have taken the reigns of our country and the concepts of unalienable rights and freedom don’t seem to be in their vocabulary…unless to be used for politically motivated purposes.

What may happen when this bill becomes law?    Mark Steyn believes we continue a march to “soft despotism”..just look up to what has happened in Canada….From Mark Steyn, who has spoken many times on the same type of legislation that has prosecuted Believers in Canada:

 Jim DeMint speakson the appallingly drafted “hate crimes” legislation whose language opens all kinds of doors, most of them unconstitutional. Senator DeMint also references various advances in “thought crime” from Europe and Canada, most of which will come as no surprise to readers of my posts in the Corner. On the one hand, it’s good to see them raised on the floor of the United States Senate. On the other, the fact that they need to be raised in the Senate at all is a bleak comment on the remorseless march of soft despotism.

Another Senator (John McCain) questions just whose side Obama is on


A couple of weeks ago after Obama’s Cairo speech flush with apologies for America and coddling of the radical Muslim world, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) indcated he didn’t know which side Obama is on.

This time it is Iran’s mullah thugocracy and violent suppression of Iran’s people vs. Freedom/Democracy/rights of Iranian people.

And this time it is John McCain (R-AZ) that has insinuated which side Obama really SEEMS to be on.  From Gateway Pundit:

The Huffington Post interviewed Senator McCain today:

McCain wouldn’t say which side of the struggle he thought Obama was on.

“Between Ahmadinejad and the reformers, do you think there’s any doubt what side President Obama is on?” McCain (R-Ariz.) was asked by the Huffington Post. “What would be the advantage…?”

“I know what side I’m on,” McCain cut in. “I’m on the side of the people. I’m not on Ahmadinejad’s side or Mousavi. I’m on the side of the Iranian people and I’m on the right side of history. And I’m not going to walk on the other side of the street while people are being killed and beaten in the streets of Iran.”

McCain said Obama’s reaction wasn’t equal to the situation. “We can’t sit by and watch a film clip on television of a young woman bleeding to death and say that we’re worried about the Iranian reaction or our ability to negotiate with them. We have to stand up for those people,” he said.

I’ve been on vacation, but there has been much news made about Obama’s decision to vote “present” on this whole situation until he was forced to make a (slightly) stronger comment against the Iranian regime….Obama’s waiting to see if “Iran chooses a path that abides by international norms and principles.”

These folks  and their friends and families would be the first to let Obama know that a path has been chosen by the Iranian regime and it is does not include any “international norms and principles”—

Iranian protesters, including women, being beaten on the streets of Iran 6-24-09

Martyr and symbol of the uprising against the regime and for freedom, Neda Agha Soltan:

neda Iranina proterst shot dead 6-2009 AFP
I agree with McCain….

If Obama can not see what is happening and CLEARLY AND CONCISELY condemn the suppression of freedom and murder of Iranian people by its dictatorship government AND STAND UP FOR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY—- then it appears that Obama stands somewhere near the side of  the mullah dictatorship and supports murder of  Iranian citizens, or at the very least, he does not believe strongly enough (or at all) in freedom that he cares to speak up for it when and wherever he can.

Of course, as the Leftists will argue, no one is asking Obama to invade of bomb Iran…just to clearly condemn the regime and stand up strongly for freedom.  You know, stop offering weinie roasts to Iranian leadership and give up the idea that talking, or writing letters, to these people really does much of anything but feed into Obama’s fantasy of his Messianic touch.

That fact that Obama has not clearly condemned the regime nor strongly stood for freedom in the Iran tragedy…should worry us all here at home.

Tom Coburn: Hands Across The Aisle


This piece at Forbes by Tom Coburn, Senator from Oklahoma (R), does a good job of summing up the notion that, contrary to those with wishful thinking on the left, conservatism did not die in this election. 

Conservatism wins at the polls.  Republicans didn’t win this time because they have professed conservatism over the last few years, but have not governed that way…..all the while, Barack Obama was talking tax cuts and families and turned red states to purple and blue states.  In other words, he sold himself on conservative rhetoric (don’t confuse his rhetoric though with his actual policies, which are not conservative).

tom-coburn-forbesTom Coburn is entirely believable in this piece because he is one of the most, if not the most, conservative member of the Senate. 

He also reigns from Oklahoma, which is the only state in the union where all 77 counties in the state went red for McCain in this Presidential election.…..

Tom Coburn knows conservative, he lives in a conservative state, and he was elected multiple times into the House of Representatives and has served in the Senate since 2004.

Tom Coburn’s piece:

Barack Obama’s election was a historic victory for America’s aspiration to be a country where anything is possible, and where all men are created equal. His election also was a victory for democracy. Even if many Americans don’t like the electoral results, his campaign proved that when the American people are inspired and mobilize, they can seize the reins of government and demand change.

The unmistakable mandate from the 2008 elections is one that applies to both parties in equal measure–it’s time to define a “new kind of politics” not just with our words but with our actions. If anything, a “new kind of politics” means elected officials putting aside their careerist aspirations in pursuit of solutions that work.

The election also was a measure not just of the excellence of Obama’s field operation but of the level of disgust with a decade of Republican hypocrisy. Voters expect Democrats to talk the conservative talk and backtrack, but they expect Republicans to do what they say in terms of enacting conservative policies. In many respects, the 2008 election was a continuation of the 2006 punishment voters exacted on Republicans who were saying one thing but doing another.

However, contrary to the visions of some on the left, the election was hardly the end of conservatism. The president-elect did not seek an ideological mandate, nor did he receive one. This election was unquestionably a change election, but unlike in 1994, the mandate for change was not organized under any particular ideological banner like the Contract With America.

Conservatives find the charge that they have been suddenly expelled from American political life surreal because we have been a minority within the majority, then a minority within the minority, since 1996. Conservatives have been consciously marginalized ever since the new Republican majority decided inconvenient promises like term limits were no longer necessary now that the “good guys” were in charge. And, as far back as 1997, Republican leaders initiated the Republican leadership policy of referring to conservatives as “you conservatives”–a troublesome band best kept outside of the Republican machinery that was busy doing important work like constructing the K Street Project.

While establishment Republicans find solace in complaining about the demands from the right, the record of history shows that virtually every warning and call for internal reform conservatives have offered since 1996 has been vindicated. It was conservatives who indicted the corrupting practice of pork-barrel spending long before sitting members were formally indicted. It was conservatives who warned that budget surpluses would quickly disappear in an environment of out-of-control spending and decimate the Republican brand. It was conservatives who insisted that a culture of oversight was more important to our long-term success than a culture of parochialism.

Therefore, what led the Republican Party to this day was not the application of conservative principles but the abandonment of those principles while hypocritically appealing to those tenets. The past few years have shown a strong correlation between electoral success and fidelity to limited government conservatism. The more Republicans abandoned conservatism, the more voters abandoned Republicans.

Conversely, the more Democratic candidates appealed to limited government conservatism, the more red states turned purple and then blue. Voters understand that conservatism, when applied, does not create the Katrina fiasco and Bridges to Nowhere.

President-elect Obama can learn from the Republican Party’s failure to achieve change, a turning of the page, and the new kind of politics voters wanted back in 1994. As much as I have confidence in President-elect Obama’s sincerity, skills and depth of his commitment to bring about a new kind of politics–a kind of politics he has demonstrated in our close work together in the Senate–he will face the daunting task of confronting the smallness of the politics both parties have practiced for decades.

Conservatives will no doubt take the lead in opposing the excesses and over-reaching of a Democratic Congress that hasn’t yet signed up for change. However, conservatives should be the first to accept the olive branch President-elect Obama has extended to the opposition and help him achieve results in the areas where we agree, such as the need to review the budget line by line and eliminate programs that don’t work.

As president, Obama will have to contend with not just an economic crisis but the impending collapse of Social Security and Medicare, not to mention other unforeseen challenges. Conservatives should be available not to celebrate liberalism’s practical failures but to offer concrete solutions.

Conservatives need not despair because our ideas never go out of fashion. America was founded on a healthy distrust of activist government. Today, conservatives stand ready to remind the public why it’s better to err on the side of too little government rather than too much. The challenges, and elections, ahead will provide conservatives more than enough opportunities to make our case.

Tom Coburn is a medical doctor and a Republican U.S. senator representing Oklahoma.