Even Gallup Proves Liberals Are Just A Fringe Group. What Say You Our Fringe Subculture?

Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group

Uptick owing largely to more independents calling themselves conservative

by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- The increased conservatism that Gallup first identified among Americans last June persisted throughout the year, so that the final year-end political ideology figures confirm Gallup's initial reporting: conservatives (40%) outnumbered both moderates (36%) and liberals (21%) across the nation in 2009.
More broadly, the percentage of Americans calling themselves either conservative or liberal has increased over the last decade, while the percentage of moderates has declined.

Since 1992, there have been only two other years -- 2003 and 2004 -- in which the average percentage of conservatives nationwide outnumbered moderates, and in both cases, it was by two percentage points (in contrast to the current four points).

"The proportion of independents calling themselves "moderate" held relatively steady in the mid-40s over the last decade, while the proportion of Republican and Democratic moderates dwindled."

The rather abrupt three-point increase between 2008 and 2009 in the percentage of Americans calling themselves conservative is largely owing to an increase -- from 30% to 35% -- in the percentage of political independents adopting the label. Over the same period, there was only a slight increase in professed conservatism among Republicans (from 70% to 71%) and no change among Democrats (at 21%).

The 2009 findings come from an aggregate of 21 separate Gallup and USA Today/Gallup surveys, including nearly 22,000 interviews. The 1992 to 2008 trends also represent thousands of interviews compiled for each year. Thus, the margins of sampling error around the individual estimates are less than one percentage point.
Trends of the Past Decade
Just looking at the decade that ended in 2009, Gallup's annual political ideology trends document a slight dip in the percentage of Americans calling themselves moderate (from 40% in 2000 to 36% in 2009), while, at the same time, the ranks of both liberals and conservatives expanded slightly.
Gallup measures political ideology by asking Americans to indicate whether their political views are very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, or very liberal. The detailed responses show a slight increase between 2000 and 2009 in the percentage of Americans calling themselves "very conservative" (from 6% to 9%) and less change in the percentage calling themselves "very liberal" (from 4% to 5%). Most conservatives continue to call themselves "conservative" rather than "very conservative," and the same pattern is seen for liberals.

Republicans Become More Solidly "Conservative"
In addition to the very recent increase in conservatism among independents, a growing percentage of Republicans identified themselves as such starting in 2003. Across the same period, the percentage of Democrats calling themselves conservative dipped slightly, somewhat offsetting the increase among Republicans.

Partisans Shy Away From "Moderate" Label
The proportion of independents calling themselves "moderate" held relatively steady in the mid-40s over the last decade, while the proportion of Republican and Democratic moderates dwindled. Between 2000 and 2009, the percentage of moderates fell five percentage points among Democrats (from 44% to 39%) and seven points among Republicans (from 31% to 24%).

Democrats Grow Increasingly "Liberal"
Similar to the increased conservatism among Republicans, there was a gradual increase in the last decade in "liberal" identification among Democrats, from 29% in 2002 to 38% in 2007, and it has since remained at about that level.

The effect of this shift among Democrats is most apparent when one reviews the trend in their ideological profile over the past decade. Whereas moderates constituted the largest bloc of Democrats in 2000, today they are about tied with liberals as twin leaders, and the proportion of conservatives has declined.

By contrast, the expanded number of conservatives making up the Republican Party has merely strengthened the conservatives' already strong hold on that party.

And despite the recent uptick in conservatism among independents, the largest segment continues to be moderate (although by a smaller margin than previously).

Bottom Line
Political independents showed increased attachment to the "conservative" label in 2009, boosting the overall ranks of that group so that it now clearly outnumbers moderates in Gallup's annual averages for the first time since 2004. Longer term, the proportions of Americans calling themselves conservative as well as liberal expanded slightly this past decade, largely because of increased partisan attachment to each label. At the same time, the percentage of "moderates" has dwindled, underscoring the heightened polarization of American politics as the nation heads into a new decade.

Sign up for Gallup e-mail alerts or RSS feeds

Get Gallup news on Facebook and Twitter

Survey Methods
Results are based on aggregated data from Gallup polls conducted in 2009, each based on telephone interviews with 1,000 or more national adults, aged 18 and older. For results based on the total sample of 21,905 national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point.
Other results are based on aggregated Gallup surveys of approximately 1,000 national adults 18 and older each. Sample sizes for the annual compilations range from approximately 10,000 to approximately 40,000. For these results, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Good Job President Obama!

I'm happy I can say that for a change. It is very easy getting wraped up in all the bad things Obama has done. But for once he's done something that is good for the country at large. He has orders changes in the anti terror foul up case.

The White House was to make public a declassified account of how a suspected terrorist slipped through post-Sept. 11 security to board the plane with an explosive. Obama was to address the nation about the findings Thursday afternoon. A government official said the president will order U.S. agencies to move faster and more accurately in adding suspects to a watch list designed to stop terrorists before they strike.

This would mean that individuals, like the Christmas Day bombing suspect, with potential ties to terrorist organizations or violent extremists would be included in the watch list more rapidly. The government's much smaller "no-fly" list is drawn from the most worrisome names on the watch list.

It was expected that building up the lists would require additional resources.
The official, who is familiar with the president's strategy, was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Obama's remarks Thursday follow a promise earlier in the week to reveal new steps to thwart future terror plots.
No firings over the December security debacle are expected — for now, at least.
In an interview published Thursday by USA Today, national security adviser Gen. James Jones said people who read the report will feel "a certain shock."
Elaborating, Jones said, "The man on the street ... will be surprised that these correlations weren't made" between clues pointing toward a threat from Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Even though the 23-year-old Nigerian man was in a database of possible terrorists, he allegedly managed to fly from Nigeria through Amsterdam to Detroit with an explosive concealed on his body.
Homeland Security officials say they had flagged Abdulmutallab as someone who should go through additional security screening upon landing. In a statement early Thursday, the department said the alleged bomber's potential ties to extremists came up in a routine check of passengers en route to the U.S. from overseas.                                                                                                                                                  So in short President Obama has earned some of my respect.

Beck Is Putting All The Lies On The Table

Politicians Addicted to Addiction

Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel

If our politicians are good at one thing, it's addictions. They've got a lot of them: Hookers; mistresses; interns, congressional pages, Argentine women, meetings at highway rest stops and airport bathroom stalls; coke; bribes, etc.
But their biggest addiction doesn't involve hookers or blow: It's spending.
Americans seem to understand that hookers and the bribes aren't acceptable and so we run the Spitzers and the Blagojevichs out of town. My question is: When do we run those who are bankrupting our country and stealing our children's future out of town?
Our debt is mind boggling:
• $12 trillion in national debt
• $8 trillion in bailouts
• $106 trillion in unfunded liabilities: the liability per citizen is over $346,000 per person
It doesn't take a Harvard education to understand that at some point we have to pay this money back and we don't have the money.
Let's start with the accounting practices in Washington. How do you do it in your house? You have a business you have one set of books and a package of receipts. When the IRS comes knocking, if they don't match you go to jail. If you have a second set of books in the drawer, you definitely go to jail, right?
Well here's how it works in the federal government: Because they don't want the deficit to look so bad, they have in essence a second set of books. Could you imagine if I said to the IRS, "Oh, you wanted to see what I'm paying my employees for their pensions? Uhh ... I've got it in my head, don't worry."
I'd go to jail!
But these people just continue to play the game because they know no one will say anything.
Let me go off the budget for a second; here's an example: Barack Obama says health care will be debated out in the open on C-SPAN. Nancy Pelosi comes out and says this:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
What she's saying here is: We lie when we are trying to get elected. She says she didn't know the president had said that. Really?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA, JAN. 20, 2008: These negotiations will be on C-SPAN ...
OBAMA, JAN. 31, 2008: Broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN ...
OBAMA, NOV. 14, 2008: It'll be on C-SPAN ...
OBAMA, AUG. 21, 2008: We'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN ...
OBAMA, APRIL 25, 2008: All this will be done on C-SPAN ...
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
How does Pelosi respond?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PELOSI: There has never been a more open process ...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
How do these people sleep at night? Could you get away with those lies in your personal life? Would you get away with two sets of books? Collapsing the economy? Whether it's through nefarious desires or just flat-out stupidity, could you do it? The answer is no. Then why do we not demand that they go to jail for what they are doing to our country?
Let me go back to the back to budget deficit: Each one of us owes $346,000. How do we pay that off? And the media only gives you part of the story. You have to put it all together.
Seventy percent of our economy is based on personal consumption. Only 30 percent is based on actually creating of things. They need you to spend. But look what's happened to your spending: The actual household borrowing has taken a nosedive, so you aren't spending. That's why the stimulus package is so important. But where is that government money coming from? Apparently America is content not to think it out that far:
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
KEN ROGULSKI, WJR RADIO DETROIT: Where's the money coming from?
UNIDENITIFED WOMAN: I believe it's coming from the City of Detroit or the state.
ROGULSKI: Where did they get it from?
UNIDENITIFED WOMAN: Some funds that was given by Obama.
ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get the funds?
UNIDENITIFED WOMAN: Obama getting the funds from ... umm, I have no idea, to tell you the truth. He's the president.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
It's not Obama money. His face isn't on any currency notes — yet. It's coming from you. It's tax revenue.
The way to really fix this problem is to flip these numbers around. No longer can we base our economy on consumption; we have to create something. But the problem is there really isn't anything we can hang our hats on. The lie being told to you right now is that "green jobs" are the answer. Evidence? Prince of the Republican Progressives, Sen. Lindsey Graham:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those countries who lead in creating a new green economy for the world will make money.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Really? It is? Well, that's great. Let's start cranking out the solar panels!
I'm sure our prices in the global market will be competitive, what with our cost-cutting union workers and unobtrusive politicians. Just think of the birthing process of a solar panel in America as opposed to China. In America you need:
• Financing
• Workers
• Union contracts
• Permits
• OSHA
• EPA
• Lawyers
Here's what China needs: Children. Parts. Done.
Which panel do you think will be cheaper? I'm betting on China, how about you?
Of course we won't be able to do it cheaper. It's the same thing with "green cars." Really? Our union factories will out-price India or China? It's the reason why Andy Stern wants the workers of the world to unite:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDY STERN, PRESIDENT OF SEIU: Workers of the world unite? It's not just a slogan anymore, it's the way we’re going to have to do our work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Stern's got to pay the bills and grow somewhere. The unions are becoming globalists. They know they can't compete and they know growth market is not America. So they globalize and lower the standard of the American worker. They get theirs because they are a global institution, but where does that leave you and me?
So what in the world will we build that will flip these numbers? I have no idea. Chia Pets? Ben and Jerry's? ShamWows? Mark my words: We'll all be making these little umbrellas for Chinese drinks.
Whatever it is, it better be huge because we have to pay off all of this debt. A debt that up until recently was considered healthy and now it's called unsustainable. Even the president admits that. Why now? Why can't we sustain this debt now?
Imagine three people: A 25-year-old, a 45-year-old and a 55-year-old.
When you are 25 years old, you probably an entry-level salary. It's not unreasonable to spend a little more than you earn because you are at the highest potential. A medium amount of debt can be healthy to build credit and because of that potential. That was America in the 1930s.
When you are 45 years old, you are at your peak earning time. You are making a good salary so you can carry more debt. That was America in the 1970s.
When you are 55-65, you start to scale back. At 65, your income goes away and you are left with Social Security and whatever you saved. It's not wise here to buy a huge house or incur huge debts because you don't have any potential left. That is America today.
America doesn't have the income potential. In the '30s we had steel. We had TV. We had radios. The world had to get it from U.S. In the '70s we were off the gold standard and still had some potential ahead of us. What is it now? Lindsey Graham thinks it's the solar panels and the Prius. That's not the answer.

Obama and the Vampire Congress

 

Michelle Malkin

Meet the Beltway bloodsuckers. They convene in the dead of night, when most ordinary mortals have left work and let their guard down or are lying asleep in bed. Pale-faced and insatiable, the nocturnal thieves do their nefarious business in backrooms and secret chambers. Their primary victims? Taxpayers, the free market, and deliberative democracy.

Democratic leaders have been promising the most ethical, transparent, open, and engaged administration for years. Instead, they have delivered a bleak and creepy legislative environment that could double as a Twilight movie set.

Skulking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rammed the government healthcare takeover package through under the cover of darkness before Thanksgiving and Christmas. House Democratic leaders forbade debate on all but one amendment not authored by themselves. The Senate Finance Committee killed a GOP amendment that would have required Demcare to be available online for 72 hours before the committee voted. Reid and his Volterra-style henchmen cut last-minute cash-for-cloture deals behind closed doors.

And now House and Senate Democratic leaders are reportedly preparing to cut dissenters out of the reconciliation process by bypassing the formal conference committee.

In Hill parlance, this legislative shortcut is called "ping-ponging." A better game analogy: dodgeball. With mounting opposition from both conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats, President Obama's water-carriers must use every trick in the book to speed the final merging and passage of the bill before the end of the month.

The hypocrisy reeks stronger than rotting garlic. In 2006, House Democrats asserted that "House-Senate conferences are a critical part of the deliberative process because they produce the final legislative product that will become the law of the land." That same year, Reid railed on the Senate floor against informal deal-making that circumvented the conference committee process -- and he attacked the use of manager's amendments to avoid public scrutiny:

"Of course, nobody can see the manager's amendment. It is composed of over 40 amendments. How could anyone vote for a piece of legislation such as that -- a manager's amendment with 42 separate amendments? Now, these amendments were not put in a conference committee. People complain about that. But at least in a conference committee, you have people working together, sticking things in....Here, you have one person making a decision as to what is going to be in the manager's amendment. There is no way to know what is in it."

But four years later, it was Reid who snuck his 383-page manager's amendment -- stuffed with payoffs, special breaks, and concessions on healthcare -- into the Senate hopper on the Saturday before Christmas break. Four years later, it is Reid stifling the open, collaborative conference committee process he so fiercely championed.

Where's Barack Obama? As a candidate, he promised repeatedly to broadcast legislative negotiations on C-SPAN "so that the American people can see what the choices are" and "so that the public will be part of the conversation and will see the choices that are being made." But the most transparent presidential administration ever is shrugging its shoulders. On Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs pooh-poohed C-SPAN's request to allow electronic media coverage of the Demcare negotiations.

Instead, Gibbs thinks Americans should be grateful for what they got last month: "The Senate did a lot of their voting at 1:00 and 2:00 in the morning on C-SPAN....And I think if you watched that debate -- I don't know -- I wasn't up at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning for a lot of those votes, but I think if the American public had watched...you'd have seen quite a bit of public hearing and public airing." And if you missed the middle-of-the-night broadcasts, tough noogies.

Team Obama's contempt for meaningful transparency has been on display from Day One. A year ago this month, Obama broke his vaunted open government pledge with the very first bill he signed into law. On Jan. 29, 2009, the White House boasted that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act had been posted online for review. Except: Obama had already signed it -- in violation of his "sunlight before signing" pledge to post legislation for public comment on the White House website five days before he sealed any deal.

From the stimulus to the healthcare takeover to holiday bailouts for bankrupt financial behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it's been all backrooms and blackouts ever since. The Prince of Darkness at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is perfectly happy with his Vampire Congress. Wraiths of a sunshine-evading feather flock together.

Congresswoman Candice Miller Blast These Climategate Fools And Guess What The Debate Isn't Over You Jerks

Michigan Congreswoman Candice Miller called for a Congressional investigation due to the fact that, in her opinion, the destruction of data some scientists were involved in represents a criminal act.

Miller calls for Hearings on Flawed Climate Data

November 30, 2009 5:58 PM

WASHINGTON – U.S. Representative Candice Miller (MI-10) today requested hearings to review the United Nations report suggesting massive changes to climate policies worldwide. Recently, emails have surfaced from leading scientists involved in crafting the United Nations report that suggests that data was doctored or hidden and opposing views were improperly suppressed. Rep. Miller, a member of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Climate Change, sent a letter to Chairman Edward Markey (MA-7) and Ranking Member James Sensenbrenner (WI-5) asking them to quickly schedule hearings before the United States changes its climate policy causing needless damage to our economy.
“Drastically changing our climate policies have the potential to force massive changes on our society and drive up the cost of energy for every American,” Rep. Miller said. “Emails have surfaced calling attention to possible doctored data which was used to tilt the recommendations far to one side. I think it would be terribly wrong to make public policy that has the potential to have dramatic negative effects on our economy in the United States based upon potentially flawed science.

“I think it is imperative that we have hearings to investigate whether or not the science this policy is based upon is flawed and to determine if we should re-examine whether the steps being proposed are truly necessary in light of these revelations. I believe that in these hearings we should hear from all sides engaged in the debate so that we can have a full understanding of this issue,” said Rep. Miller. “The economy of my district and my state would be particularly hard hit by the Cap and Trade legislation with the potential of the loss of countless more jobs that we cannot afford to lose, particularly if this legislation is based upon doctored science.”

In December, leaders from across the world will gather in Copenhagen, Denmark to discuss changes to our economy to address global climate change. Rep. Miller represents the 10th District of Michigan, an area that has been ground zero of the economic downturn. Particularly hard hit has been the manufacturing sector, which is in line to be even harder hit if climate change legislation based on this report is passed.

No Civilian Trials for Terrorists

Stop what you are doing.  I need your help real quick.

Go here and sign this petition.  

It is to protest the civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City.

Human Events put it together and I'm glad to put my name on it.  We're going to deliver this petition to the government and protest this senseless act by Barack Obama.

I don't know how many people are going to get killed because Obama would rather lawyer up than soldier up, but we need to make sure the government knows the American people think this KSM trial is nuts.

Please sign the petition.  If you want more info, please read Jed Babbin's fantastic column today on the KSM trial.

 

by  Jed Babbin

01/06/2010

Americans are often smarter than those they elect to govern them.  According to a December 31 Rasmussen poll, “Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters say waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques should be used to gain information from the terrorist who attempted to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day.”

Instead of being shipped off to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is lawyered-up in a Detroit jail, beyond the reach of CIA interrogators.  And forget waterboarding.  Thanks to the McCain Amendment of 2005, waterboarding -- which was legal when it was applied to Abu Zubaydeh, KSM and others -- is now probably illegal under US law. I say “probably” because the McCain amendment made a clear definition of “torture” so vague that it’s probably unconstitutional.

But no matter: President Obama has prohibited the use of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” which served to save lives during the Bush administration.  

Not only have we tortured the law of torture, we have tortured the law on military commissions.  When President Bush signed an order authorizing them, he probably didn’t foresee that the trials would be delayed and modified several times by Congress and in two trips to the Supreme Court.  Congress -- in the 2009 amendments to the military commissions law -- relabeled “enemy combatants” as “unprivileged enemy belligerents.”  At least they’re not yet “underprivileged enemy belligerents.” Yet.

So now Abdulmutallab -- as well as the 9-11 plotters, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other members of the al Qaeda varsity -- will be tried in media circuses in civilian courts.  The New York trials -- announced in mid-November -- are to be paralleled by military commission trials of other big-time terrorists such as Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of planning the 2000 attack on the USS Cole which took seventeen sailors’ lives and nearly sank the ship.

Is there any reason to distinguish between the al-Qaeda varsity to be tried in New York and the others who are going to be tried -- in accordance with US constitutional and statutory law -- in military commissions?  No.  The only distinguishing factor is President Obama’s desire to close Gitmo and prove -- at all costs -- that he is wiser than his predecessor.

Under Obama’s plans, inmates at the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba will either be transferred to nations such as Yemen (from whence came Abdulmutallab’s attack, mounted by an al-Qaeda cell comprised, in part, of at least two Gitmo alumni previously released to Yemen), moved to New York for celebrity trials or to Thomson, Illinois for continued incarceration.

In his weekly address, President Obama described Yemen as a nation that is suffering from crushing poverty and threatened by deadly insurgencies, as if one created the other.  He assured us that we were “strengthening our partnership” with the Yemeni government to fight those “insurgents.”

Obama has strengthened our “partnership” with Yemen by closing our embassy there because -- according to White House terrorism advisor John Brennan (the same John Brennan who was a key member of George Tenet’s pre-9-11 CIA team) -- there is intelligence indicating an intended al-Qaeda attack against them. But Obama’s action in Yemen is a retreat: it reduces our presence in Yemen by one key base for CIA (and other agencies’) operations there.
Yesterday, the president announced that he was suspending the transfer of Gitmo inmates to Yemen.  Not barring, mind you. And the State Department announced it was revoking Abdulutallab's visa. It's enough to make you weep.
On last weekend’s Sunday talk shows, Brennan repeatedly said that the Obama administration was still considering -- on a case-by-case basis -- releasing some Gitmo inmates to the Yemenis.  Brennan also said that there are probably hundreds of al-Qaeda members in Yemen.

Closing Gitmo is still more important to Obama than keeping dedicated terrorists off the global battlefield.  He repeated yesterday his decision to close it, persevering in the false assertion that it's a principal cause in al Queda's success in recruiting terrorists. He said it was the proximate cause of al Queda's forming its "al Queda in the Arab Peninsula" branch. Which, of course, is al Queda's assertion. What the president doesn't understand is that terrorist groups form and re-form, moving and taking new names as often as they see an advantage in doing so.
Obama's decision to close Gitmo remains a reckless one, as are the decisions that flow from it.  There’s proof enough of why no Gitmo inmates should be released to Yemen or any other nation in which terrorists find sanctuary and support.  But Obama’s arguments for moving the KSM trial to New York are risible, as are and those of his team, Attorney General Holder, hapless Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and the rest.

There is no legal reason to do so, and every reason not to.  In July 1942, in , the US Supreme Court decided that eight German saboteurs captured by the FBI in New York and Chicago after having been landed on the US coast by submarine, were properly tried before military commissions.  (Six of the eight were executed shortly afterward.) As Attorney General Holder reluctantly admitted in Senate testimony last year, we have never before tried terrorists captured abroad -- such as KSM -- in civilian courts.

First, there is the very real danger to New Yorkers in bringing KSM and his pals there. Yes, New Yorkers take pride in their grit. But that won’t protect them from a terrorist attack meant to free the prisoners.

Second, there is jury intimidation.  What juror will vote to convict KSM if he believes his family will be murdered?  There have been four trials of “recovered” mobster John Gotti, Jr. in the Southern District of New York in the last five years.  All have resulted in mistrials because of hung juries. (After the latest, his mother shouted, “We’re going to Disney World.”)

And then what?  Holder said that even if KSM were acquitted, he’d still be kept in custody.  How?  What judge would refuse a habeas corpus writ after an acquittal?

None of this is necessary.  None of this would happen in a military commission.  Which is why HUMAN EVENTS asks you to sign this petition to General Holder. Stop these trials. KSM and the others -- including Abdulmutallab -- should be in Gitmo and there subjected to the constitutional -- and legal – remedy of trial in a military commission.

Help Defeat Harry Reid And The Ad That Will Do It.Pass this video around to all your friends and blogs and help put the Democrats back on the streets where they belong.

Conservatives:  You are needed and time is short to act.  In 5 days we will be going up on the airwaves with a TV ad campaign to defeat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - and we need your help! We here at the Tea Party Express wanted to make you aware of the FEC documents which indicate Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid has amassed over $8.7 MILLION in his campaign for re-election this year.  And that amount was as of September 30, 2009 - you can bet the tally is much higher by now. This is the reason we here at the Tea Party Express, and our principal sponsor the Our Country Deserves Better Committee, have been working so hard to raise money for the latest round of our "Defeat Harry Reid" TV ad campaign.  You can make a donation to our "Defeat Harry Reid" campaign - HERE. We don't need to match Reid dollar-for-dollar, but we do need to raise enough to get our message heard.  If we don't then who will?  If we're going to take our country back in 2010, then We The People are going to have to get involved in campaigns like the one to defeat Sen. Reid along with other politicians across the nation who have helped to advance the Obama-Pelosi-Reid march towards socialism. Please, support our "Defeat Harry Reid" campaign. We are launching the latest round of our TV ads this Monday, January 11th - and we have just 6 days to raise the money we need to be up on the airwaves.  You can contribute online - HERE. Here's the latest TV ad we are broadcasting: WATCH TV AD HERE: "Defeat Harry Reid" To help get this ad broadcast on every Nevada TV station morning, noon and night, please make a donation to our "Defeat Harry Reid" campaign - HERE. To meet our fundraising goals to "Defeat Harry Reid" we're hoping 76 more people can make a contribution of $100 or more to our campaign. Or if you prefer, you can mail in a contribution to the "Defeat Harry Reid" campaign: Our Country Deserves Better Committee ATTN: Defeat Harry Reid Campaign 770 L Street #1020 Sacramento, CA 95814 ** FORWARD THIS TO OTHERS - CLICK HERE ** ** VIEW THIS EMAIL AS A WEB PAGE - HERE **

What is the health care reform really about?

Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.
Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.
Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would "keep insurance companies honest," says President Barack Obama.
The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.
They may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet.
But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. A look at some claims, and the numbers:
THE CLAIMS
_"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers'"obscene profits."
_"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.
_"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.
THE NUMBERS:
Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.
The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.
HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.
The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.
UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.
Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.
But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?
Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.
The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.                                                                                                                                                 Now for the big question. Do you really think that our government and it's record of wasting our money, do a better job at under 6% waste? And with only a 6% profit margine it's obvious insurance companies are the real problem. So what is this Health Care Reform really about? It isn't about the profit margines of the insurance companies or about the government doing a better job at a lower profit margine then the insurance companies? We know that isn't what this is about either. It couldn't possably be about more government takeovers and the power that comes with it? It isn't about our government tawking over our lives and our health care is it? Could it be about money? The unions have a lot to gain from a one payer system and the Democrats do what the unions tell them to do no matter what harm it causes we the people and the country. This ain't about the 6% profit margines because everyone wishes the government would run that efficent. If the Democrats pass this health care bill then it isn't going to look good for them in the next couple of decades. And if you need proof of government waste and irresponsable managment just look at when Medicare becomes bankrupt. Yeh that happens in 2016. And if you want to know who will get stuck with the bill on all this spending just look at our youth. We aren't leaving them the SSI they payed into,Medicare they payed for and a national debt like none other. But they voted for Obama and the Democrats that are doing it to them. But at least they are preparing our future with a great education like none other the world over. LOL.  Now lets hear the liberals say that the Republicans and I are getting paid by the inserance companies. John has already shown us how much the Democrats get from insurance and big pharma. Don't worry though because right when we cover the costs of theis health care reform the unions like SEIU will tell us that their huge pessions aren't funded and we the people and the future generations will be paying for that one too. Spread the wealth,spread the wealth, while the unions are getting buttered up for a grand future. We the people need to fight back and fight back hard or this will cost us our future. And unless you want to work till your dead then you better stop this "fundamental change"  and give the government what they diserve.                 

Go To Congressman John Fleming(Louisiana physician) Website And Sign Our Petition

Please read and act, only takes a minute!

On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new  government-run health plan. It took me less than a minute to sign up to require our congressmen and senators to drink at the same trough! Three cheers for Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana !  Congressman John Fleming ( Louisiana physician) has proposed an amendment that would require congressmen and senators to take the same healthcare plan they force on us (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt).

Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go on his Website and sign his petition (very simple - just first, last and email). I have immediately done just that at:

www.fleming.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=55&sectiontree=29,55


Please urge as many people as you can to do the same!  If Congress forces this on the American people, the Congressmen should have to accept the same level of health care for themselves and their families. To do otherwise is the height of hypocrisy!  Please pass this on!!