the breakfast of champions...

NOT!!

Thanks to VP Allison Miller for sending in the photos. :)

He didn't start the fire ...

But Obama's sure throwing a lot of gasoline on the flames:

Don't Mess with Texas Tea Party!

Don’t Mess with Texas Tea Party
Join us as we rally in protest of the Stimulus!

We have a lot to be proud of in Texas! Texas is #1 in job creation, most Fortune 500 companies, top state for business, fastest growing state in the country, top exporting state, and our tort reforms rank top in the nation!

We don’t need the federal government burdening our citizens with more taxes and debt!

Help us in telling them they should leave us alone! We don’t want or need their stinkin’ stimulus!

Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 (Tax Day)

Time: 11:30am – 1:30pm

Location: Austin City Hall, 301 W. 2nd Street, Austin TX 78701

Click here to RSVP online or to RSVP on facebook click here: http://tiny.cc/Dro5v


Confirmed Speakers include: Governor Rick Perry, Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams, Texas House Representative Wayne Christian, Michael Quinn Sullivan (Empower Texans), Peggy Venable (Americans for Prosperity-TX) and many more!


Partnering Organizations thus far: Americans for Prosperity, Austin Young Republicans, College Republicans at St. Edward’s University, College Republicans at Texas State, Libertarian Party of Texas, Texas College Republicans, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, Texas Republican Assembly, Travis County Republican Party, Williamson County Republican Party, Williamson County Republican Women, Williamson County Young Republicans, Young Conservatives of Texas


For information on how to become a Partnering Organization, please email Michele Samuelson at Michele.Samuelson@gmail.com or Eliza Vielma at Eliza@afptx.org.

Yet another example of why socialized healthcare is a nightmare...

The Tuscon Citizen ran this article by Americans for Prosperity Senior Fellow Lawrence Hunter on Tuesday:

U.S. headed toward Canada-style health care rationing

LAWRENCE A. HUNTER

The pain in Bill Murray's arthritic hip throbbed for more than a year while he waited to see a specialist.

When he finally got an appointment, the specialist said Murray needed a cutting edge hip-resurfacing treatment. Murray, a 57-year-old living in Alberta, Canada, tried to schedule the procedure, but was flatly rejected.

It wasn't an insurance company that turned him down or even a hospital worried about his ability to pay. In fact, Murray tried to pay for the procedure out of his own pocket.

Instead, Murray was denied by the Canadian government's health care bureaucracy, which declared that he was just too old to appreciate the benefits of the procedure. Simply put, his pain wasn't worth the cost.

Anyone who thinks a health care horror story like this couldn't happen in the United States needs to think again.

Thanks to recent efforts to build a national health information technology system while beefing up spending on comparative effectiveness research, the infrastructure for health care rationing in America is being created even now.

To start with, the recently passed economic stimulus bill designates roughly $20 billion for the creation of health information technology architecture. The aim would be to create a centralized electronic database of health records for every American.

Doctors might resist, but any such effort would likely deal out financial penalties to any health care provider who refused to take part.

Murray was denied his request because Canada's health care bureaucrats decided that his procedure wasn't worth the cost. How did they decide? Government-funded cost-effectiveness research, an idea that's gaining traction - and considerable funding - here in the U.S.

The same bill that provides funding for health information technology also allocates $1.1 billion toward comparative-effectiveness research. And it creates a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research - an advisory group intended to coordinate the research and advise the president and Congress on its future needs.

Centralized health information technology is intended to make the management of U.S. medical records more efficient, and comparative-effectiveness research is designed to save money by determining which treatments create the most patient value.

In theory, these would allow health agencies to better coordinate and more effectively prioritize treatments by focusing on those who would benefit from it most.

But in combination, these programs put in place all the necessary infrastructure for health care rationing in the U.S.: A council with a broad mandate armed with cost-effectiveness data could easily use a centralized health information technology system to push doctors away from treatments they deemed ineffective.

Bureaucrats already are under instructions to "guide" treatments. How long before that guidance becomes a push - or a mandate?

Overseas, this already has happened. In the U.K., a similar formula for determining cost-effectiveness resulted in elderly patients suffering from retinal decay being forced to wait until they are blind in one eye before seeking treatment.

It's a formula that affects older individuals in particular, because part of the formula calculates how long any given treatment will provide value. In other words, as Bill Murray found out, anyone deemed "too old" is liable to be left without treatment.

Murray, of course, tried to pay for the treatment himself. But even then he was denied. Why? Because government bureaucracies survive by barring competing services - and health care is no exception.

A 2005 Canadian Supreme Court ruling, for example, ostensibly gave the country's patients the right to purchase health insurance on the private market. But Quebec's government responded with a set of rules designed to protect its monopoly on health care that essentially made the ruling moot.

The U.S. already has taken steps down this path. Medicare effectively prohibits those it covers from going outside the system for many common services: 97 percent of U.S. doctors accept Medicare funding, and they're all restricted from taking Medicare patients for any services covered by the program.

No government should leave its citizens helpless to provide medical care for themselves, but with the provisions for cost-effectiveness and health information technology, that's just what Washington has decided to do.

We ought to seek out ways to promote efficiency and cost-savings in health care, but too often, when the government is involved, the tough truth is that all those words are just Beltway code for bureaucratic rationing and control.

Lawrence A. Hunter is president of the Social Security Institute and a senior fellow at Americans for Prosperity (www.americansforprosperity.org).

First House Calendar

The House will have it's first house Calendar on Wed. Finally the ball is rolling. You can see the calendar at the site below.

Nothing too exciting.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81r/calendars/html/H120090325.htm

Reason #1029318952 as to why we need Voter ID to pass in TX

ACORN to Play Role in 2010 Census

Cristina Corbin - FOXNews.com

The U.S. Census Bureau is working with several national organizations to help recruit 1.4 million workers to produce the country’s 2010 census, including one with a history of voter fraud charges: ACORN.

The U.S. Census is supposed to be free of politics, but one group with a history of voter fraud, ACORN, is participating in next year’s count, raising concerns about the politicization of the decennial survey.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now signed on as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau in February 2009 to assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States — currently believed to be more than 306 million people.

Click here to read full story

Mr. Speaker

Obama's found a new use for your tax dollars...

If you are upset about how this administration is flushing our economy down the toilet, join us in protest:

Austin Tax Day Tea Party

Date: Wednesday - April 15, 2009

Time: 11:30am - 1:30pm

(just show up for however long you can)

Location: Austin City Hall: 301 W. 2nd Street, Austin TX

Confirmed Speakers: Governor Rick Perry, Representative Wayne Christian, Peggy Venable (Americans for Prosperity), Michael Quinn Sullivan (Empower Texans)

Other organizations that will be joining in on showing Congress exactly they how they feel include: Americans for Prosperity-TX, Empower Texans, Travis County Republican Party, Young Conservatives of Texas.

Your House As Seen By ...

Your house As Seen By:

Yourself....

Your Buyer...

Your Lender...

Your County Tax Assessor ...

Your Appraiser...

Austin Earmarks in Omnibus Bill

Final Amount	Description	City/Location
$2,000,000	LBJ Presidential Library	Austin	TX
$428,000	University of Texas Libraries, Austin, TX for the Latino Veterans Oral History Project	Austin	TX
$350,000	City of Austin Police Technology	Austin	TX
$300,000	Travis County Sheriff Regional Law Enforcement Training Center in Austin	Austin	TX
$300,000	City of Austin for sewer rehabilitation project		TX
$285,000	Center for American History, Austin, TX for educational programming at the Sam Rayburn Library and Museum	Austin	TX
$238,000	Children's Health Fund (The), New York, NY, to provide comprehensive primary care to medically under-served children at elementary schools in the Austin, TX Independent School District	New York	NY
$190,000	Texas Health Institute, Austin, TX, for renovation and equipment	Austin	TX
$143,000	University Medical Center at Brackenridge, Austin, TX, for renovation and equipment	Austin	TX
$143,000	Huston Tillotson University, Austin, TX for math and science education initiative	Austin	TX
$143,000	City of Austin, TX for facilities and equipment for Austin community health centers	Austin	TX
$142,500	Center for American History, Austin TX for emergency repair and renovation of the Sam Rayburn Library and Museum	Austin	TX
$138,000	John Nance Garner Museum, Austin, TX for exhibits, outreach and educational programs	Austin	TX

Rep. Dunnam's Web Stimulation

Democrats will stop at nothing.

State Rep. Jim Dunnam is trying to pass a personal website off as an official state website - that's just wrong, and he should come clean about it.

Take action - request the vital information behind this website.

Funding AIG's Bonuses

I think everyone knows by now that AIG received a rather hefty sum of money from the Federal Government so that the insurance giant would stay afloat. It's also become big news that despite receiving this money from the taxpayers, they used some of it on executive bonuses.

I readily admit that I don't understand the inner workings of the insurance business, and know little about what AIG does with its money (besides sponsoring Manchester United), but I have to ask: Do Executives of a failing company really deserve bonuses?

I'm torn in a sense on this issue, because while I believe that AIG is acting incredibly irresponsibly with taxpayer dollars and that upsets me greatly as a taxpayer, I also get the privilege of telling President Obama "I told you so." This is what happens when the government messes with private corporations, and if you give corporations money they are going to spend it the way they always do. This is why there was great concern over being able to watch how the money was spent, because these things could happen, and it's great timing considering how the President is going to be going back to Congress soon to re-fill the trough for AIG, and other corporations who are putting their hands out.

My favorite quotes about this story include:

-"You could argue that if taxpayers hadn't bailed out AIG, the contracts wouldn't be worth the paper they were signed on," New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said. (If this is true, then why is the Federal Government buying worthless contracts instead of letting AIG deservedly fail?)

-"I warned them (AIG) this would be met with an unprecedented level of outrage," Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.). (And yet they didn't listen to you, probably because they already cashed your check, perhaps it would be better to deal with this issue before handing over the money).

-"How do they (AIG) justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?" he said, declaring the bonuses an "outrage" that violate "fundamental values." (Well of course its an outrage now that they've shown everyone what a fool you are. Mr. President, had this not of happened how much would you have asked Congress to give them the next time around?)

Vacating Straus?

List Circulating in State House to Vacate Speaker’s Chair, Joe Straus
By Mark Feldt, Texas Insider
Word around the Texas House of Representatives is that a phantom list of nearly 76 signatures is circulating that will take out Speaker Joe Straus when the time is right. A few representatives wishing to remain anonymous have told Texas Insider they have signed the sheet calling for a motion to remove the speaker.

When the House debated the Rules early this session, an interesting debate ensued – one that most people thought was moot once Tom Craddick was no longer speaker. Last session, Speaker Craddick was heavily criticized for his decision not to recognize members who were trying to push the legislative session off its tracks in its final days.

The issue in question was the infamous Rule 5, Section 24, which addresses recognition by the speaker. This session, though a new speaker was named, (one many touted as bringing peace back to the House,) the issue of recognition was still at hand. Ultimately, the majority of House members voted to allow a speaker to be removed mid-session if, after a member called for his removal, the speaker denied it, and then 76 members signed an appeal to remove him.

But who ever thought members would use this new rule? Fast forward a few weeks. We are now two-and-a-half months into the 81st Legislature. Committees and chairmanships have been assigned, and all of a sudden members are second guessing the choice for speaker.

Many Democrats had high hopes for plumb chair posts and committee assignments, but when appointments came out they were surprised to see their support for Straus didn’t pay off they way they anticipated. Consequently, a large number of Democrats and a few Republicans have signed a list that may unseat Speaker Straus when the time is right. It has been rumored that the proper timing would be shortly after the budget passes the House, which it is expected to go for a vote the week after Easter (April 12). The obvious irony in all of this, is that the coalition of 11 Republicans and 60+ Democrats who worked so hard to unseat Craddick finally have power.

Rather than ensure they keep power, this same coalition made it even easier to oust a speaker mid-session by setting the bar for removal of the Speaker at 76 votes in the House Rules. A group of Republicans and a handful of Democrats failed in a vote to set the bar at 90 votes. For the Democrats, the vote is obvious. Every Democrat would rather have a Democrat for speaker than a Republican. By removing the Republican chosen by 60+ Democrats and the 11 Republicans, Democrats hope to replace Speaker Straus with a Democrat immediately or throw the House into chaos without a Speaker. For Republicans signing the list, the motives appear less clear. Some may hope to bring back Tom Craddick as Speaker, or simply improve position in committee assignments or with a subsequent Speaker.

Just as the final days of last session tested the strength of Tom Craddick and his opponents, this session appears headed for a test of the strength of Joe Straus and his opponents.

Torture and Gitmo! (Featuring Stevens Beheading)

Subcribe today. :)

Michael Steele: Lost in Translation

When the initial vote was announced, I stood and clapped for the history that just unfolded. Michael Steele became the first black national chairman of the GOP. Reflecting on the moment, I finally felt the party was becoming inclusive by promoting one of its most promising talents. Surely he would bring fresh ideas and reach out to all areas of the electorate.

In his acceptance speech, Steele promised to “bring this party to every corner, every neighborhood”. He promised to “build and grow this party in a way we’ve never seen before”. The party would take its principles, values and challenge democratic strongholds across our country. My initial reaction was one of relief, as a new era in Republican strategy and networking would finally take hold.

Soon after, Steele began taking his message to the airwaves. The introduction was underway. Steele projected a strong, confident style of leadership. However, the oddest thing happened…something that caused me to pause and do a double take. Steele stated the party need to take its principles and apply them to a “hip-hop setting”. Naturally, I assumed he was taken out of context and gave the statement little attention. That is until he began speaking on various media outlets… my eyes closed tightly in disbelief.

Steele has invoked words like “Bling Bling”, "Friggin", “Baby” and even threw a “Shout Out” to Bobby Jindal. However, all things culminated during the CPAC meeting when Michelle Bachmann congratulated Steele by stating: “You be da’ man”. At that moment, you could feel the collective cringe of embarrassment across the country.

We must realize that using "street" terminology and clever catch phrases is not the new image we wish to project. The party must look to one on one interaction at the grassroots level and actually initiate authentic outreach programs. Understandably, Steele is getting use to being the face and spokesman for the national party. However, minus the rocky start, I still believe he will be a strong leader for our party... just lay off the "jive" talk.

Sad, but true...

More Porky Wasteful Spending. Oink!

The Omnibus Bill passed.

62-35 cloture vote.

3 Dem no votes: McCaskill, Feingold, Bayh

8 GOP yes votes: Cochran, Wicker, Bond, Murkowski, Alexander, Shelby, Specter, Snowe.

With this vote the Congress definitively FAILED to seize the opportunity to show that it was serious about a return to any kind of fiscal discipline or meaningful earmark reform. These 8 Republicans put pork over principle, as did almost all the Democrats. The 3 Democrats who broke with Reid deserve credit for actually following through on their public statements and voting no.

Obama is set to sign a notoriously pork-filled bill –the so-called “omnibus” or “porknibus” bill, stuffed with at least $7.7 billion of wasteful pork-barrel earmarks, including such vital national priorities as swine odor research in Iowa and Harry Reid’s beloved Las Vegas Natural History Museum.

Liveblog on Voter ID Senate Debate - Day 2

Liveblog regarding Voter ID Senate Debate

Obama and His Numbers

Today the unemployment rate hit 8.1 %,

as employers eliminated 651,000 jobs.

Just another sign of the Obama administrations lack

of understanding and direction for our economy. But are these numbers really any surprise?

We have watched this president sellout his message of “hope” for the message of fear. The “Chosen One” recently decreed that our country would face “catastrophe” if the American people didn’t step and fetch for his recent spending bills. Even though most reputable economists have stated his plans will not have any immediate effect.

Obama in his partisan attempt to claim a “victory” has ignored Republican plans which would truly stimulate our economy. Now with Obama’s doom and gloom attitude, people’s fears are being reflected in the economy.

The American people are now clearly showing buyers remorse. Obama spoke change and prosperity, only to usher in one of the most astonishing power grabs for bigger government ever seen.

However, as a flag barer for the American people, the Senate Republicans are holding the line. We can appreciate their efforts to reign in this rogue President and his wasteful spending…worse, his dangerous vision for our country.

In response to the latest numbers, Obama answered:

“Astonishing”

That’s not change, just more of the same.

Obama and Checks

Barack Obama announced

the days of writing “blank checks” are over.

I know. Take this time to issue the hypocracy alert. Today in “just words”, Obama has vowed to take on “wasteful spending”.

Hmm, you are probably thinking the ever watchful media would pepper “The Prince” with questions on the recent spending proposal of his administration...right.

Perhaps he could explain the reasoning for his 3.6 trillion dollar budget. A budget that creates deficits never before seen in this country since World War II. Of course, the cost can be given to the next generation. After all, are they complaining? ... Ignore the fact that they haven’t even been born yet.

Perhaps he could explain his $410 billion omnibus spending bill…let’s not forget the 9,000 earmarks of pork. Now anyone who can swallow that bone and still preach fiscal responsibility has a lot of huspa. Of course, "His Highness" expects us to forget his words…

“When I’m president, I will go line by line

to make sure we’re not spending money unwisely.”

That’s not change, just more of the same.

President Obama’s Top Five Broken Promises

By Phil Kerpen
Director of Policy, Americans for Prosperity

Promise #5: Sunlight Before Signing

What he said:

“Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” (BarackObama.com campaign Web site)

What he did:

Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter bill, the SCHIP/cigarette tax hike, and the stimulus bill all with far less than a five-day waiting period that he promised–and continues to promise–on his campaign Web site.

Promise #4: Lobbyist Revolving Door

What he said:

“No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.” (BarackObama.com campaign Web site)

What he did:

Obama appointed Goldman Sachs lobbyists Mark Patterson chief of staff at the Treasury Department, where he directly oversees his former employer, a recipient of $10 billion of taxpayer funds from the TARP. Obama also appointed Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn to be an undersecretary of Defense.

Promise #3: No Tax Hikes on the Poor

What he said first:

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” (September 12, 2008, Dover, N.H.)

What he did first:

By signing H.R. 2 into law, Obama happily signed onto the idea that smokers should pay for a $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP). Cigarette taxes are going up 61 cents a pack starting April 1. Obama signed this bill knowing that the majority of smokers in the United States are working poor, and one in four lives below the federal poverty line.

What he said next:

“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.” (February 24th, 2009, Address to a Joint Session of Congress)

What he did next:

Ignored the already-hiked cigarette tax at the time of the statement and then this restated promise was broken just two days later, when the Obama’s budget proposal was released. His new budget raises 45 percent of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured.

Promise #2: Pork Barrel Earmark Reform

What he said:

“The system is broken. We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project. We can no longer accept an earmarks process that has become so complicated to navigate that a municipality or non-profit group has to hire high-priced D.C. lobbyists to do it. And we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country.” (Statement on Earmarks, March 10, 2008)

What he is expected to do:

The White House has signaled that it intends to sign the $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations bill, which according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, contains 8,570 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion, including dozens of wasteful pork-barrel projects. These earmarks were awarded based on seniority, not on merit, and were mostly the result of high-priced lobbying, precisely the process that Obama promised to end. When the omnibus reaches his desk later this week or next week, we’ll find out if this is one more broken promise.

Promise #1: Big Government

OK, so this one is more of a statement than a promise, but it’s the biggest whopper of all.

What he said:

“Not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t.” (February 24, 2009, Joint Address to Congress)

What he did:

Obama proposed a budget that is breathtaking in scope, a blueprint for the biggest permanent expansion of government in history right on the heels of a sweeping trillion dollar stimulus plan. The budget lays the foundation for a government takeover of the health care and energy sectors and dramatically increasing spending across the board, other than defense weapons programs. Spending as a percentage of the economy under this budget will reach the historic level of 27.7 percent this year. The deficit as a percent of the economy, at 12.3 percent, is set to be the biggest in the entire history of the country outside of the four peak years of World War II. Anyone who offers such a budget can only fairly be described as a believer in bigger government.

Phil Kerpen is director of policy for Americans for Prosperity.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/03/kerpen_obama_budget/

Why people vote Democrat (Besides the obvious reason: they're stupid)

I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.

I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a much better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I voted Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I voted Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they'll now know we're good people.

I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I voted Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.

I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite The Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my butt that it is unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own."

"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."