New Hampshire Republican senatorial candidate Kelly Ayotte has recently been the target of push polling. Push polling is illegal in New Hampshire and when Kelly Ayotte’s Republican primary opponents were asked if they were involved in the push poll they all vehemently denied they had anything to do with the poll.
That leaves just one other person whose campaign might have been conducting this push poll, the lone Democrat vying for the seat that is being vacated by retiring Republican senator Judd Gregg– Paul Hodes. When asked if his campaign was responsible for the push poll, Paul Hodes campaign stated:
We don’t comment on the specific timing or content of any market research we conduct
There was no outright denial by the Hodes campaign. In fact the statement released by the campaign reaffirms my belief that Paul Hodes was in fact the candidate behind this poll. They are not denying this poll took place, but they seem to be defending it by saying that this poll was not a push poll, but rather market research.
The New Hampshire GOP is calling this a push poll, while the Hodes campaign is denying it took part in a push poll, but confirming that they were involved in market research. While the Hodes campaign will not confirm that their market research was done in the same timeframe as the push poll, it seems clear to me that the Hodes campaign is being ambiguous for a reason; the Hodes campaign was behind the poll in question here, they just differ on the issue as to whether this was a push poll or not.
The NHGOP is now asking the New Hampshire Attorney General to investigate the Hodes campaign— a move that the campaign calls “frivolous.” In my opinion this is not a frivolous lawsuit but a necessary one. If the Hodes campaign has done nothing wrong they should welcome the challenge, but if the Hodes campaign is guilty they should be held accountable.
The residents of New Hampshire need to know if the person who wants to represent them in the senate would stoop to this level just to get elected. There appears to be a fine line here between market research and push polling, we just need to let the courts decide if that line was crossed.
Democrats are becoming more worried everyday that they are going to lose control of the House and Senate in November– it seems to me that they should have been worried about this prospect before they began passing unpopular legislation against the will of the American people– and because of this they are now beginning to turn their attention to one of their own– indicted former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman and current New York representative, Charlie Rangel.
Democrats are now begging Charlie Rangel to accept a plea deal— which would allow him to retain his House seat– in his tax evasion investigation in order to end this controversy and better their re-election chances in November. They are not calling for his resignation as they did in the Mark Foley case because that would not be beneficial to their re-election prospects. They simply want this case to go away as fast as possible so they can put it behind them.
I find it telling that in this case of corruption and tax evasion, Democrat leaders are more concerned with Charlie Rangel making a deal, because it will help them minimize the casualties in November, than they are about the fact that Charlie Rangel is corrupt.
Democrat leaders are more interested in saving their own political lives than they are in bringing an indicted tax cheat to justice if he is found guilty. If Democrats really wanted to prove to Americans that Barack Obama was serious about bringing the most open, honest, ethical, and transparent government in history to Washington they would be calling on Charlie Rangel to resign, not cut a deal that could possibly help them retain their power.
This case alone tells us all that we need to know about this current crop of Democrats. They care more about staying in power than they care about stopping corruption.
Harry Reid admitted over the weekend that while the healthcare bill the president signed into law does not include a public option, there will be a public option at some point in the future.
I believe him.
In my opinion the healthcare legislation was designed so that eventually there would have to be a public option (which will lead to single payer government run healthcare.) As companies begin to drop healthcare benefits– opting instead to pay a small fine– and as insurance companies which are forced to cover people with preexisting conditions begin to go out of business, people will be left looking for affordable healthcare, but they will not be able to find it so the demand will start to rise for a public option to be implemented. And the all too willing federal government will be ready to oblige them. The government will use our freedom of choice to manipulate us into believing that the only choice we have left is to accept a public option. That doesn’t seem like true choice to me whatsoever.
The plan all along was to devolve healthcare coverage to the point where people would ask the government to step in and save them. Once it gets to the point where people are so desperate to get healthcare coverage that there is overwhelming support for the public option, the people who are looking for government relief will forget that it was government policy that put them in this bind in the first place.
The people will be willing to accept more government as a solution to a problem that the government is at fault for creating in the first place. The government is manipulating us for their own empowerment.
As more and more people begin to require more and more government services for their existence, our liberty and freedoms become more subservient to the government. The more that we owe the government, the less natural freedoms we have because we will need to follow more government rules and regulations in order to receive our entitlements. The government is using our freedom to enslave us little by little.
Couple this with the fact that the Obama regime is going to use the EPA to force cap and trade regulations on us by dictate after the cap and trade legislation came to a standstill in the Senate and we can see that the government is readying itself to intrude on most personal freedoms and choices that we now enjoy as American citizens.
While surfing the blogs that I stop by on a daily basis, I came across a video of a Ronald Reagan speech at The Reaganite Republican in which Ronald Reagan stated, “as government expands, liberty contracts.” That one statement seems all too fitting today as government is expanding at what seems like a record pace. Americans would do well to listen to and heed the advice of Ronald Reagan, as well as his words– in the very same speech– that “man is not free unless government is limited.”
Truer words have never been spoken. Our founders knew this, and Americans used to know this but over the years the government has been able to convince an unsettling amount of Americans that our freedoms come from the government– when in fact we have our freedoms in spite of the government. The government has used this misconception over the years to bind us more closely to the federal government and to make us dependent on them at ever increasing rates.
We are headed in the wrong direction, our liberties are going to be eroded under the guise of healthcare reform and the effort to save the world from our own gluttony.
And we are doing it to ourselves:
“Our freedom’s consuming itself.” Matt Bellamy–Muse (Take a Bow)
Now that Harry Reid has taken the climate change legislation off of the table, and there will be no climate bill this year, Barack Obama is more then likely going to move forward with “Plan B” to regulate greenhouse gasses and carbon emissions.
A recent Supreme Court decision has given the EPA the right to regulate greenhouse gasses and as we speak they are beginning to write what amounts to climate change legislation.
Several Democrats from coal producing states are preparing to introduce legislation that would stop the EPA from implementing these rules for two years. We must not forget that as a candidate Barack Obama promised to bankrupt the coal industry, so it should come as no surprise that Barack Obama is promising to veto this legislation if it makes is to his desk.
This has always been the Obama regime’s backup plan in case cap and trade legislation failed in the House and Senate and now we are beginning to see “Plan B” move forward.
Cap and trade is not dead just because there will be no bill headed towards the president’s desk. Cap and trade is alive and well because the government is going to institute it regardless of what the proper political procedure is. Jay Rockefeller continues to push hard for the Democrats’ two year suspension of the EPA’s authority to implement climate change legislation because he believes– rightfully so– that congress should be setting national energy policy and not a federal agency.
The blame goes well beyond Barack Obama on this one, we owe all of this to a disastrous Supreme Court decision handed down by the Roberts’s court. None of this would be happening without that decision.
I don’t see any way that we can stop this from happening but it would be good to see the president act in good faith and sign a two year moratorium on the EPA in regards to climate change. But that is not going to happen, this is going to be forced down our throats against our will just like everything else that has happened under this president.
And it probably doesn’t matter much anyway because there probably isn’t much difference between what the EPA restrictions are going to be and what Barack Obama wants in climate change legislation. We are screwed either way. Here comes the national energy tax.
It is disconcerting to say the least that while the congress cannot come to a settlement on this issue using the proper forum of debate that a federal agency is going to be allowed to step right over the congress and implement a policy that congress could not agree on and the president did not sign.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has identified 39 vulnerable House Democrats and has begun reserving $28 million in ads to help these beleaguered Democrats win re-election.
My congressman, New Hampshire Representative Carol Shea-Porter, is considered to be a very vulnerable Democrat– her approval rating is extremely low and polls show her losing to her likely Republican opponent in November, Frank Guinta– yet the DCCC has decided not to spend any of that $28 million on Carol Shea-Porter.
While the DCCC states that just because they have not bought any commercial airtime to defend Carol Shea-Porter in this first round of advertisement buying, that does not mean they will not be coming to her defense at some point during the campaign. Still, this has to be a little disheartening to Carol Shea-Porter as she is in the fight for her political life and could certainly use the help of the DCCC.
The question is why has the DCCC shunned Carol Shea-Porter to this point? There is the possibility that the DCCC is holding back while the top Republican candidates do battle with each other. Perhaps they feel the money could best be used elsewhere while the Republican candidates tear each other apart. In other words, perhaps they feel that the Republican candidates will do an acceptable enough job hurting each other so the DCCC feels they can hold off for now. Maybe the plan is to wait until Carol Shea-Porters opponent is known before beginning to run ads in support of Carol Shea-Porter.
Or perhaps the DCCC feels that Carol Shea-Porter’s re-election bid is a lost cause because she does represent the more conservative district in New Hampshire. I honestly believe that Carol Shea-Porter is going to lose this November and I wonder if internal polling by the DCCC shows that she is in grave trouble.
The old gambler’s saying goes, you have to know when to hold them and know when to fold them. Perhaps the DCCC has decided to fold the hand they were dealt in New Hampshire’s first district.
In recent weeks we have begun to see the fallout from Obamacare– from rationing and higher premiums, longer emergency room lines, doctors dropping Medicaid, paying higher premiums to keep your doctor, to federal funding of abortion the list has become long– but the implementation of Obamacare is just beginning and the list keeps on growing.
The latest casualty of Obamacare? The children.
Insurers are beginning to drop healthcare coverage for children that they had been offering to children as individuals. Most children are covered under family plans offered by employers– only an estimated 8% of children are covered under individual plans– so this drop in coverage will not affect the vast majority of children who are currently covered by most people’s family plans. But this is now one more option that will not be available to people seeking healthcare insurance, and it is part of a growing trend as Obamacare is starting to be implemented. As insurance companies look to cut costs they are finding that the best way to do so would be to offer less coverage to people– this is another example– and this legislation was supposed to be a good thing for the American people?
Obamacare is in its infancy, it won’t be fully implemented for years, but it is already off to one hell of a start. This is as good as it gets, it is all downhill from here. It is only a matter of time before small businesses begin to drop healthcare benefits, choosing to save money by a relatively small fine instead of offering healthcare benefits. But this was all part of Barack Obama’s plan from the beginning as has been written here and all across the blogosphere because– as Democrats have stated– the ultimate goal of this legislation is to move towards a single-payer (government run) healthcare system. And the move is underway.
I do want to touch on one more aspect to this story; it has to do with something else I read in the article lined to above:
We believe that the majority of people who would buy this policy were going to use it immediately, probably for high cost claims,” said Kammer. “Guaranteed issue means you could technically buy it on the way to the hospital
The insurance companies are not going to be offering this type of insurance anymore because many people only buy it once they realize they need it– the coverage is guaranteed.
Obamacare makes it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. This means that Americans can decide not to purchase healthcare benefits, pay the low fine to the government, and then purchase healthcare insurance only after they find out they are going to need it for costly hospital and doctors bills. A non-insured patient could theoretically be lying in a hospital bed waiting to undergo heart surgery and sign up for healthcare coverage without ever having paid a premium to that insurance company and that company will have to pay for the surgery.
The insurance company in that example would not be able to drop coverage after Obamacare is fully implemented the way these insurers are able to drop coverage for individual children now, before Obamacare is implemented. Insurance companies are going to cut out plans now before Obamacare is fully implemented that they believe will prove too costly after the implementation of Obamacare. Instead of being able to refuse people with pre-existing conditions who had chosen not to buy healthcare previously, insurance companies will begin to go out of business.
Again, this is part of the Obama regime’s plan– drive insurance companies out of business, leading to single payer healthcare insurance. It is a devious plot indeed.
As I first wrote about here, it appears as if the Obama regime was using Twitter and Facebook to contact Google in order to circumvent the Presidential Records Act. Darrell Issa has already requested an investigation into the Obama regime for what could be illegal off the official records contact with lobbyists.
The president is required under the Presidential Record Act to report this type of contact, but by using Twitter and Facebook the Obama regime may have violated the law. The White House has already reprimanded Andrew McLaughlin for his “incidental” contact with Google, leading many to wonder if there is indeed something to this story.
Recently released emails raise more questions about Andrew McLaughlin’s communications with Google.
new emails, which NLPC obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, show a continued pattern in which Mr. McLaughlin communicates with another apparent Google lobbyist, the leader of a Google-funded organization that lobbies in support of Google’s primary area of federal interest, and the head of a nonprofit that works closely with Google lobbyists.The topics in the email communication involve many of Google’s highest priority lobbying issues, including FTC rules on online privacy; Administration broadband policy, including Net neutrality; and intellectual property rules.
Andrew McLaughlin is the Obama regime’s Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Internet Policy, and as one of the heads of this group Andrew McLaughlin plays a vital role in shaping internet policy.
As the regime debates such policies as Net Neutrality, one has to call into question why Andrew McLaughlin was in contact with Google using methods that either intentionally of unintentionally circumvented federal laws for contacting lobbyists. As the regime shapes its internet policy it seems suspect that a member of the board that helps to shape that policy would be in “secret” contact with one of the sites that could be most affected by that policy.
Barack Obama promised the most open, honest, transparent, and ethical administration in history– it was one of his biggest campaign promises– but in light of these accusations it seems as if Barack Obama hasn’t been nearly as open, honest, transparent, or ethical as he promised he would be.
Darrell Issa is right, it is time to open up an investigation into this matter and these emails are more proof of that. If there was no wrongdoing on behalf of the regime, and the regime is correct when they state that this contact was “incidental” they should welcome the chance to clear their name.
We need to get to the bottom of Googlegate. If Andrew McLaughlin is truly ignorant of the law, he needs to be held accountable for he is not fit for the job assigned to him, but if he was knowingly violating federal law, the Obama regime needs to be held accountable. Barack Obama’s word that the contact was “incidental” is not good enough.
John Kerry registers his new yacht in Rhode Island to avoid $500,000 in Massachusetts taxes
John Kerry recently purchased a new yacht for $7 million and is berthing this new vessel in Rhode Island to avoid paying $500,000 in taxes to the state of Massachusetts. I find this story interesting and relevent for a couple of different reasons– one national and one local.
First the national issue: We have been told constantly that as Americans we have to sacrifice more for the common good. In this economic downturn the president has told us that we must face higher taxes in order to help those less fortunate than ourselves. From healthcare reform to the stimulus package, future American taxpayers are being asked to bear the burden of this regime’s out of control spending.
At one point during the campaign while in Oregon, Barack Obama was apologizing to the world for what he deems as Americans over extravagant lifestyles, Barack Obama stated that “we can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times.”
So while ordinary Americans are being asked to drop our standard of living by keeping our houses cooler in the wintertime by turning down our thermostats; and while Barack Obama has declared that we can’t eat as much as we want; and while Barack Obama claims that we the ordinary Americans can’t drive SUVs, John Kerry doesn’t have a problem with not only buying a brand new yacht– even as the president dissed us for driving what many families think of as a necessity, SUVs– John Kerry doesn’t have a problem with spending $7 million on a yacht, which nobody can claim is a necessity, while evading the taxes that he rightfully owes by registering it in a state that is not his home state. These politicians are telling us that we have to live by one set of standards while they live a totally unneccessary and extravagant lifestyle themselves. John Kerry is a perfect example of the double standard and hypocrisy that is prevalent in Washington today.
Second, the local issue: Last year Massachusetts decided to crack down on residents that were avoiding the Massachusetts sales tax by buying high end goods in tax free New Hampshire. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick decided to crack down on the state “use tax.”
Massachusetts requires its residents to report on their state income tax returns all goods purchased in New Hampshire that were to be used in Massachusetts, but because this law is unenforceable with Massachusetts residents, Massachusetts tried to sue a New Hampshire business in an attempt to make New Hampshire businesses collect Massachusetts sales tax for them when Massachusetts residents bought goods in New Hampshire. This was met with great resistance in New Hampshire. New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed into law a bill that would exempt New Hampshire businesses from becoming tax collectors for the state on Massachusetts. Score– New Hampshire 1, Massachusetts 0.
It will be interesting to see if Massachusetts goes after John Kerry for avoiding Massachusetts taxes with the same zeal that they went after ordinary Massachusetts residents. Somehow I don’t think that will be the case. While John Kerry as a United States senator is not involved with the local politics of the state, he has been an advocate for the Obama regime’s tax increases. He has endorsed many of the Massachusetts politicians– including Deval Patrick– who support higher taxes, including the recent raising of the Massachusetts sales tax. By doing so he has also endorsed their tax increases.
Yet John Kerry looks to avoid paying higher taxes himself and this is a perfect example. When politicians like Barack Obama talk about sacrifice, and lowering the standard of living, they are talking about ordinary, hard working, middle class tax payers; they are not talking about themselves. They are unwilling to meet the expectations that they hold for us. And John Kerry’s tax avoidance is just the latest example of how Washington politicians are not willing to sacrifice for the common good themselves.
How can we take people like John Kerry seriously any more? How can they expect Americans do do something that they themselves are unwilling to do?
We all know the story by now; Shirley Sherrod was captured on video admitting that she refused to help a white farmer who was going to lose his farm because of his color. The Obama regime forced Shirley Sherrod to resign, but in light of more video evidence, there is the possibility that the Obama regime acted stupidly when it requested Shirley Sherrod resign before they knew all the facts in the case.
With the new video evidence that may or may not exonerate Shirley Sherrod, the Obama regime was forced make an embarrassing reversal. Tom Vilsack eventually took responsibility for her firing, and offered to rehire Shirley Sherrod to a new job (presumably a promotion designed to shut her up.)
Today Barack Obama called Shirley Sherrod personally to apologize to her. But he also threw Tom Vilsack under the bus when he claimed that Tom Vilsack “jumped the gun” when he called for Shirley Sherrod’s resignation.
He jumped the gun, partly because we now live in this media culture where something goes up on YouTube or a blog and everybody scrambles
In light of Barack Obama’s recent claim that information has become a diversion for Americans, and that Americans have access to too much information which puts a burden on our democracy (republic), and in light of the fact that during the campaign he claimed that Americans sometimes get confused and watch the wrong television stations, I find this comment a little scary for it keeps in tune with a general premise that seems to permeate the Obama White House.
The new media has given us unprecedented coverage of politicians and Barack Obama does not like that one bit. So once again he rails against the fact that the internet was the conduit that allowed thousands of Americans access to this information, seeming to place the blame for Shirley Sherrod’s comments on the site that uploaded the video rather than on the person making the comments.
While it appears as if Shirley Sherrod not only will not be held accountable for what she said, she was offered a promotion in the wake of the controversy she started while the man that exposed what she said– Andrew Breitbart– may be held accountable for exposing what she said.
Having said all of that, I want to get on to what the topic of this post was supposed to be about before I got carried away. And that topic is the fact that– in addition to crying about the internet– Barack Obama is throwing Tom Vilsack under the bus because he claimed that Vilsack over-reacted to the situation at hand. Tom Vilsack is being a good soldier by admitting that he is the one who made the call to ask Shirley Sherrod to tender her resignation.
But there is still the accusation out there by Shirley Sherrod herself that Barack Obama’s White House called her two times and demanded that she tender her resignation immediately on her Blackberry– to which she complied.
They called me twice,” Sherrod told the AP, noting that she was driving when she received the calls. “The last time they asked me to pull over the side of the road and submit my resignation on my Blackberry, and that’s what I did.
According to Shirley Sherrod, it was the Obama regime who called her repeatedly to demand her resignation– not Tom Vilsack, as the Obama regime would like you to think. (Again, too much information for Barack Obama’s liking.)
Barack Obama sees this as a teachable moment, claiming that we can all learn from this:
If there’s a lesson to be drawn from this episode, it’s that rather than us jumping to conclusions and pointing fingers at each other, we should all look inward and try to examine what’s in our own hearts
I find it funny how the man that points his finger at the Bush administration at every chance he can get suddenly does not want fingers pointed when they end up pointed at him! It seems to me that Barack Obama could learn a little something if he just followed his own advice.
Now Barack Obama is pointing the finger at Tom Vilsack, instead of looking inward to see what is in his own heart.
Barack Obama is claiming that the decision to fire Shirley Sherrod was Tom Vilsack’s decision: Tom Vilsack is claiming that he was under no pressure from the administration to fire Shirley Sherrod: and Shirley Sherrod is claiming that it was indeed the Obama regime that forced her to tender her resignation on the side of the road by using her Blackberry.
Someone is lying here and I think that I know who it is.
Harry Reid kills cap and trade legislation
It is being reported that today Harry Reid has pulled climate change legislation off the table because Democrats simply cannot get to 60 votes. Congress will move forward on a much smaller energy bill which does not include cap and trade, instead focusing on some issues that are more popular with the American people.
If only Harry Reid and the Democrats had taken that same position once it was learned that the healthcare reform bill was unpopular with the American people perhaps the Democrats wouldn’t face the prospects of massacre in the fall election.
Maybe the Democrats are finally learning that they must actually listen to the American people if they want to hold onto their jobs– but I wouldn’t count on it. Here is a quote from Barbara Boxer:
rather than take us to a situation where we don’t have the votes, rather than do half-measures, let’s wait until we can get it done and get it right. So I think it’s a smart decision
That statement does not rule out trying to pass cap and trade at a later date; in fact Barbara Bower states, “let’s wait until we can get it done.” That statement seems to mean that if Democrats hold onto their majorities they will be able to address cap and trade legislation after the election.
So while this legislation may be DOA for right now, we cannot rest until the Democrat majority is defeated in November. If we get complacent now and Democrats hold onto the House and Senate we can rest assured that cap and trade will be put back on the table.
Some Democrats– Sherrod Brown for one– are blaming Republicans for holding up this legislation:
the Republicans don’t want to cooperate on anything. On any of these major issues they vote no
But she goes on to say:
we’ve got to get some Republican votes because we don’t have unanimity in our caucus
So she is blaming Republicans for voting no, while admitting that she needs Republican votes because the Democrats can’t agree on cap and trade legislation. And because Democrats can’t agree on the legislation, it is the fault of Republicans that cap and trade will not be brought to the floor this year because they won’t provide the votes that Democrats can’t get from their own party. That is convoluted logic to say the least.
But that is okay with me, if she wants to give Republicans the credit for killing a national energy tax they should be proud to stand up and admit to the American people that they are the ones responsible for keeping taxes lower on the middle and lower classes of Americans. They should wear this as a badge of honor.
But there is one more angle to look at now that cap and trade legislation will not bog down the senate through the mid-term elections. This frees up more time for congress to focus on and possibly pass other legislation that is not popular with the American people. Amnesty for illegal immigrants comes to mind.
Harry Reid and the Democrats may have taken a calculated risk here; by throwing away cap and trade while hoping to revisit it if they win re-election, they may have gained themselves more time to push an amnesty bill through congress.
There is still time for one major push in congress before the election and we can expect both Barack Obama and Democrats in congress to prioritize their agenda and move forward to push through as much as they can before they have to face the voters.
America's Watchtower 