Bart Stupak claims Democrats want healthcare reform to fund abortion so there will be less people to cover
Buried near the bottom of this article was a claim by Bart Stupak that is mortifying.
If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.
Democrat leadership has told Bart Stupak– at least that is his claim– that they are unwilling to add his amendment– which would prohibit the federal funding of abortion– back into the bill. They are willing to take their chances and vote on the bill without the Stupak amendment.
And now we know why they are so adamant about providing federal funds to pay for abortions, they want women to have as many abortions as possible so that there will be less people in the country that would require medical care later on in life. They want to help women who couldn’t normally afford an abortion to get one, not because it is the mother’s right to choose and not even because they feel not providing federally funded abortions is some type on infringement on the mother’s right to choose, but because it will be one less person to take care of later on down the road. They consider abortion as a cost cutting measure. They have to find savings somewhere and they feel this is a good place to start.
I can’t even begin to state emphatically enough how disturbing I find this mindset in the Democrat party if this accusation is true. Bart Stupak said it best when he said, “is this how we now value life in America?” Is it? Could it possibly be true that Democrats are looking at abortion simply through the prism of it being a cost effective means to keep medical expenses down once they have total control over the healthcare industry– and total control over the healthcare industry is their stated goal, make no mistake about it.
People laughed at and tried to discredit Sarah Palin’s claim about the end of life counseling that IS included in the bill when she called them “death panels,” but judging by the lack of sanctity for human life, even in its beginning stages, on display in the Democrat party who would so callously decide that it is cheaper to let the baby die than possibly have to pay for his or her expenses later on in life, how are we supposed to believe that the Democrats would find it cost effective to provide care for a healthy life at the other end of the spectrum?
I have to admit, this is an angle I had not thought of and I find it incredibly disturbing if what Bart Stupak claims is the truth. This is they type of thing that you would expect to read about in China, not in this country.
While Democrats weigh the costs of providing free abortions with the cost of providing medical care to a larger citizenry, Hillary Clinton is preparing a report on the United States’ human rights record to submit to the U.N. Human Rights Council, claiming that, “human rights are universal.” That statement appears to be at odds with the idea that Democrats would rather provide an abortion than provide care for a person once they are born.
It seems to me like this would be a good place to begin the report.
Two Tax repeals in the works for New Hampshire
With New Hampshire Republicans winning seven out of eight special elections over the last year– running on smaller government and lower taxes– something interesting has begun to happen in New Hampshire.
Democrat Governor John Lynch has either increased existing taxes or created taxes and fees in order to pay for his irresponsible spending over the years. Last year’s budget contained two taxes in particular that have been widely unpopular and have come under fire in recent months, the “LLC tax” and the “tent tax.”
The LLC tax was a tax that was slipped into the last budget at the last minute and is a tax on limited liability companies– it amounts to a capital gains tax increase. Governor Lynch had no problem signing this tax into law, but suddenly he is calling for its repeal.
And then there is the “tent tax.” Last year the governor signed a tax increase on the rooms and meals tax. The tax on rooms and meals is now a whopping 9%! But that is not all, they expanded the rooms tax to include campgrounds. People who visited campgrounds previously did not have to pay a tax on a campsite, but once this tax was implemented they suddenly saw the price of renting a campsite jump by ten percent. Needless to say, this hurt the camping industry as New Hampshire competes with Vermont and Maine for camping tourism.
Today the State house voted to kill the “tent tax” and a vote will soon be taken in the senate to kill this tax.
Is it a mere coincidence that these two taxes may be repealed now that Republicans have been gaining ground in the state by running on being in favor of tax cuts? I don’t think so, it is an election year after all.
They laughed at us when we attended the Tea Parties all across the state last April, the demeaned us and they tried to marginalize us. But we have been gaining momentum, and we have almost completely swept the elections that have occurred since that day last April. They are not laughing at us any more.
Perhaps the state has finally opened their eyes and perhaps they finally understand that we are serious and that they are in trouble when the election rolls around in November if they do not change their tax and spend ways.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Tea Party movement is beginning to have an effect right here in New Hampshire. There is no way that the state would even be talking about these repeals if the people were motivated and upset. While these special elections and these two tax repeals are a good start, that is all it is. We must not forget who put us in this bind in the first place. I am happy that the state is finally talking about repealing taxes but they cannot be trusted not to fall back on their old habits once the election is over, we need to vote them out of office once and for all and be done with it.
According to Joe Sestak someone in the Obama administration offered him a high profile job within the administration if he would agree not to run against Arlen Specter in the primary.
If this is true, the White House– or whoever was involved– has committed a federal crime. It is against the law for any federal employee to use his authority “for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate.” And if the allegations that Joe Sestak has repeatedly made are true, that is exactly what has happened.
Darrel Issa has sent a letter to Barack Obama’s attorney asking if there is going to be an investigation into this matter but as of yet there has been no reply.
In an interesting twist, Arlen Specter is now stating that he never made a deal with the White House before switching parties that would ensure he would not have an opponent in a primary, while also admitting that if the White House did offer Joe Sestak a job than a crime was committed.
There is a specific federal statute which makes it a bribe to make an offer for a public office
But he continued:
And when I was district attorney, if somebody came and told me that, I would say, well, name names, name dates, name places. That’s a very, very serious charge. It’s a big black smear without the specification, but I’m telling you, it is a federal crime punishable by jail. And anybody who wants to say that ought to back it up.
He is challenging Sestak to name names, and Joe Sestak should. As Arlen Specter stated, these are serious charges and if they are true somebody in the White House has committed a federal crime. But so far Joe Sestak hasn’t furnished any proof and he hasn’t gone on record as saying who approached him with the job offer.
I honestly can’t understand what Joe Sestak could possibly have to gain from lying about something like this. I want to take him at his word, and I don’t find the accusation to be unbelievable. Joe Sestak has leveled these charges and this is an issue that needs to be investigated. Either Joe Sestak is lying or he is telling the truth and the White House has committed a crime. Either way, we need to know the truth.
Dick Durbin contradicts Barack Obama’s claim that healthcare reform will lower premiums
Speaking on the floor of the Senate, Democrat Dick Durbin said, “anyone who would stand before you and say well, if you pass health care reform, next year’s health care premiums are going down, I don’t think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up, but what we are trying to do is slow the rate of increase.”
I find this more than a little interesting considering that Barack Obama has said, “our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people’s premiums and brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next decade because we’re spending our health care dollars more wisely,”
If what Dick Durbin says is true than Barack Obama is not telling the truth about healthcare premiums if the healthcare reform bill is passed. Dick Durbin claims that premiums will still rise under the healthcare reform bill– just at a slower rate, while the president is claiming that premiums will drop if the bill is passed.
Who is telling the truth, and who is lying? These people need to get their stories straight if they ever hope to sell this bill to the American people.
Darrel Issa claims the White House may have broken federal law by offering Joe Sestak a job
Arlen Specter is facing a primary challenge by Joe Sestak, this is an idea that for some reason– possibly the symbolism of Arlen Specter’s defection from the Republican party to the Democrat party– is not palatable for the Obama administration because, according to Joe Sestak, he was offered a high ranking job in return for his decision not to run against Arlen Specter.
I find it reprehensible that the administration would interfere with a state election in a manner designed to steer the outcome of an election in what they perceive as an advantage. The federal government has no business deciding who will and who will not run in a state election, it is up to the people to decide who will represent them, not the president. And Darrel Issa shares these concerns as he contends that the Obama administration may have actually violated federal law if these accusations are true.
in a letter to White House general counsel Robert Bauer Wednesday, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said that, if Sestak’s allegation is true, administration officials may have violated a federal statute which makes it a crime for a government employee to use his authority “for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate” for certain offices, including Senate seats.
I wrote this off as politics as usual when I wrote about it previously, I am sure that this type of deal is made behind closed doors all of the time. Here is what I said at the time:
Technically, there was probably nothing wrong with this offer; I am sure that this type of thing happens all the time. But I just can’t help but think that the White House should stay out of the affairs of the states
Not that I thought it was right, and not that I was condoning this type of behavior, but I thought there was nothing particularly “out of the norm” when it comes to politics. Darrel Issa contends that there was indeed something wrong– and illegal– about the administration’s interference in a state election:
While the White House may think this is politics as usual, what is spectacularly unusual is when a candidate — a U.S. congressman no less — freely acknowledges such a proposal,” Issa wrote. “Almost always candidates keep quiet about such deals, and for good reason — they are against the law
He does admit this type of deal does occur, but that the candidates keep it quiet– as I suspected– but that they do so specifically because it is illegal. Darrel Issa has sent a letter to Barack Obama’s attorney asking for the answers to seven questions on this issue; the last question being, “do you expect to make a referral to the United States Department of Justice in this matter?”
I think we all know the answer to this question, this issue is going nowhere fast. This will be ignored by the Obama administration and by the media, but it should be looked into. If the administration conducted illegal activities in an effort to sway a state election it should be headline news all across the country, If Barack Obama’s administration did nothing wrong they have nothing to fear and should welcome an investigation. If they refuse they are admitting some guilt on this issue. Their refusal will be all the proof that we need.
When the news broke about Eric Massa and his inappropriate behavior towards his staffers Nancy Pelosi claimed that she only learned about the accusations shortly before we did. But according to this article Nancy Pelosi was told about the concerns of a Massa staffer last October and she decided to ignore the complaint. It appears as if congress decided to do nothing until it was realized that he would vote against Barack Obama’s healthcare reform bill.
This inaction is puzzling considering how vocal Nancy Pelosi was when it came to the allegations of Mark Foley and Larry “wide stance” Craig. She remained silent on this issue because Eric Massa was one of her own. It wasn’t until Democrats found out that Massa wasn’t on board with healthcare that they decided his actions were inappropriate. It seems as if the only action that Massa committed that was inexcusable to the Democrats was his healthcare position– not the position that he wanted to get his staffers into.
Now the House Ethics committee may decide to investigate what Nancy Pelosi knew and when she knew it. The House voted 402-1 to recommend to the Ethic Committee that an investigation be opened into the inaction of Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and other Democrat leaders.
It seems to me that after the Ethics Committee opened up an investigation into what Republicans knew about Mark Foley before the story became public they cannot afford– for the reason of appearing unbiased– to not open up an investigation into the Democrat leadership based on the same questions.
Normally I would be pessimistic about the chances of an investigation being started, and if started I would be pessimistic about the chances of them actually finding fault in Nancy Pelosi and the other Democrat leaders, but the recent guilty finding of Charlie Rangel on ethics violations has me a little more optimistic about the outcome of this investigation– especially in an election year.
If Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and the others knew about Eric Massa months ago and decided to do nothing because they thought he would be a critical “yes” vote on healthcare reform, and only decided to pressure him to resign after it was realized that he was actually a “no” vote, the American people deserve to know this. They American people deserve to know exactly what type of hypocrite the Speaker of the House is.
Hopefully the Ethics Committee will do what the House has asked them to do and open up this investigation. The American people deserve to know the truth about the Democrat leadership in congress.
House may pass healthcare reform bill without voting on it
I am not sure how credible this story is, but it looks as though House Democrats may be working on a plan to pass the Senate version of the healthcare reform bill without ever voting on it. If it is true, the Democrats may be looking at the “‘Slaughter Solution’ as a way to pass healthcare reform. What is the “‘Slaughter Solution?”
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.
“Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
“Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. ‘Once the CBO gives us the score, we’ll spring right on it,’ she said.”
This would allow the House to “deem” the senate version of the bill passed without actually taking a vote on it. Members would still have to vote on the rule change, but they wouldn’t actually have to vote on the bill. Of course anyone who would vote for a rule change that would pass healthcare reform without a vote is actually voting for healthcare reform with this rule change. It is a game of semantics; anyone who opposes the heathcare reform bill would surely vote against this rule change, while those that support the healthcare reform bill would be the ones most likely to vote in favor of the rule change.
Is this an attempt to provide cover for those who are facing tough re-election campaigns by giving them the chance to say that they didn’t vote for the bill, even though they voted for the rule that would allow the bill to pass without a vote? If so, do they really think we are this damned stupid? Do they really think that we won’t see through this? Do they really hold us in such contempt?
I can’t imagine that the House would ever vote in favor of such a rules change, and Nancy Pelosi hasn’t been approached yet with this proposal, but it does show us how desperate some Democrats have become. And you just never know.
Update: Part 2 can be read here.
New Hampshire Republican wins yet another special election
Yes, this is a new post, if you are a regular reader here you may be think that this theme sounds familiar and you would be right. Since the 2008 election there have been eight special elections, and with John Tholl’s victory yesterday by a 1,617 to 1,111 vote margin in Coos County District 2, Republicans have won seven of them.
In March towns across New Hampshire vote on their budgets, and in Coos County there was a special election to replace a Democrat incumbant. In the last special election before the November elections, Republican John Tholl was victorious. Here is the statement that was released by the Chairman on the New Hampshire Republican party:
I want to congratulate John Tholl on his victory in tonight’s special election. John ran an outstanding town-to-town, person-to-person grassroots campaign that focused on the traditional Republican principles of lower taxes and limited government. This victory is extra sweet because Coos County District 2 voters selected a fiscally conservative Republican to takeover a seat previously held by a tax-and-spend Democrat.
John’s victory caps off an extremely successful special election season that saw Republican candidates win 7 out of 8 contests. These special election victories remind voters that the Republican Party is energized, excited and ready to clean house in November.
And, as John H Sununu said in his statement above, New Hampshire appears ready to clean house in November. The success in New Hampshire by the Republican party over the past two years is a direct reversal of fortunes by both the state Republican and Democrat parties. Before the 2008 election Democrats basically swept all of the special elections to date, that has completely changed.
New Hampshire residents are sick and tired of the out of control spending, as well as all the tax and “fee” increases that have been coming from Concord and they appear ready for a change. My congressman, Carol Shea-Porter could be in real trouble in November. As could be the Democrat vying to replace Paul Hodes in district 2 as he prepares what could be an ill fated attempt to replace retiring Republican senator Judd Gregg.
2010 is shaping up to be a good year politically for New Hampshire Republicans. We have made great strides in recent months, and the culmination could come in November.
Nancy Pelosi is losing control of the House
According to this article, Nancy Pelosi is losing control of the House as Democrats are adopting an “every man for himself” attitude with the elections coming up later this year.
Nancy Pelosi is trying to remain firm in her leadership by trying to coax Democrats to vote in line with the party, but it appears that more and more Democrats are jumping ship. These Democrats are more worried about their re-election chances than they are about following Nancy Pelosi’s lead. Nancy Pelosi’s tenuous hold on the House Democrats could spell real trouble for Barack Obama’s agenda because the American people are rejecting his policies– and in turn are rejecting Democrats who support those policies in general.
As her influence wanes, and as Barack Obama becomes more toxic in the eyes of the voters, Democrats are turning away from the party agenda and focusing on what their constituents want. The problem that Nancy Pelosi has is evident to me; the Democrats have overreached, they have tried to do much, too fast, and they have scared off the moderate voters that put them in power. Without the support of moderate voters there is no way that many of these Democrats can win re-election, and they are beginning to realize that they have moved too far to the left.
With the exception of Barack Obama’s more ardent, far left supporters, the American people have rejected the president’s agenda. More specifically, they have rejected the healthcare reform bill and they are frustrated that the administration is not listening to them while they continue to push this legislation.
This problem is compounded by Barack Obama’s announcement that he will push for “comprehensive immigration reform” before the midterm elections. The American people have already rejected this policy when President Bush tried it a few years ago and they are in no mood to suffer through this issue again when so many Americans are out of work. Even supporters of immigration reform have to be upset that the president is talking about a national ID card, an issue that they see as an affront to civil liberties. Hell, they get upset if a person is asked to show ID when they go to the polls to vote.
The American people have to be asking themselves why the president is still pushing a healthcare bill they do not want, and is about ready to tackle an immigration bill they do not want, while he is ignoring the issues that Americans care about the most– the economy and jobs.
It is no wonder that Nancy Pelosi is losing respect in, and control over, the House. Democrats are proving to the American people that they are out of touch, and now Nancy Pelosi is feeling the heat from House members who are having second thoughts about supporting an agenda the American people do not want. Democrats are trying to distance themselves from Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi before the election in much the same manner that Republicans were trying to distance themselves from George Bush and Dick Cheney when it became toxic to be associated with those two. And Barack Obama has managed to do all of this in one short year in power.
The story of disgraced Congressman Eric Massa took an interesting and unexpected turn today with his claim that he was forced out by Democrats because he opposes Barack Obama’s healthcare reform bill.
I have to admit that I was shedding no tears at the fall of the latest embattled Democrat, but I did find it odd that Democrats abandoned him so quickly. After all, the Democrat leadership stood by Charlie Rangel during his ethics investigation; it wasn’t until the ethics committee handed down a guilty verdict that Democrats began to call for his resignation from the House Ways and Means Committee– a demand that Charlie Rangel finally met, but he has been allowed to stay on in congress and no Democrat has asked for his resignation from congress. Indeed this is the party that has in its upper level people like Timothy Geithner and many others with tax problems and other questionable ethics problems. So many questionable people are in Barack Obama’s administration that it almost seems like part of the job description.
While the investigation was still ongoing, Democrats called for his resignation. They seem to be uncaring to the fact that he has not yet been found guilty of anything. I initially wrote this off as Democrats being sensitive to ethics violations so soon after Charlie Rangel was found to have violated House ethics rules. But according to Eric Massa, there is more– much more— to this story than that. I have read what Eric Massa is claiming is the comment that has given him so much grief and while it was rude, it is not a comment that men have not made to each other in any factory across this country on any given day.
He feels that he was targeted by his own party for no other reason than he was a “no” vote on healthcare reform. He claims that he is being made an example of by party leadership and his prosecution is a notice to all other freshman Democrats as to what can happen if you do not go willingly along with the president and his agenda. He claims that because of his situation there is no other freshman Democrat who will be willing to oppose the president’s healthcare reform legislation. In other words, if what he is saying is true, his resignation will almost guarantee the passage of Barack Obama’s healthcare reform through threats and intimidation.
There is no proof of Massa’s allegations, but he has gone so far as to claim that Rahm Emanuel accosted him in the shower after a workout and threatened him. These are some serious allegations and I can’t help but wonder why Eric Massa would lie about something like this. The only reason that I can come up with is that it is sour grapes. He is upset that the Democrats did not stand by him the way they have stood by all of the others, so he lashed out with falsehoods in order to extract his revenge.
But I am not buying that, it simply does not make sense for him to libel the Democrat leadership; I have to wonder if there is truth to these claims, and I believe that there just might be. So far these claims have gone unanswered, nobody has refuted them. Why is that if these are baseless claims?
As I wrote above, there is no proof to back up Eric Massa’s claims, but they are serious claims, and if they are untrue I would expect there to be some type of rebuttal. But there is one thing that we know for sure, if this is what we have come to in American politics than we are in deep trouble. If the president’s party– who admitted they would stop at nothing to pass healthcare reform– would stoop to the level of threatening and “weeding out” the opposition in government in order to pass their agenda than we have reached a new low in American politics. This is not the way the system is supposed to work.
While many people may take these charges lightly, and while the mainstream media may ignore this story, it is much too important to not be looked into. If what Eric Massa claims is true, than this administration is using mafia type “persuasions” and thuggery to pass an agenda that the American people are opposed to. I find that to be very serious and nobody should be taking these charges lightly.
We need to know if these charges are true or not. If not; Massa will be exposed for the liar he is; but if they are, we are dealing with an administration that has no scruples when it comes to advancing an agenda that the people have rejected.
We need to get to the bottom of this story.
America's Watchtower 