Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Ky., told “FOX News Sunday” that it’s not clear who’s organized and who’s not but that Democrats’ efforts to “demonize” the protesters reflect weak spots in the substance of their plan.

“I think attacking citizens in our country for expressing their opinions about an issue of this magnitude may indicate some weakness in their position on the merits,” McConnell said. “And I also think it’s particularly absurd for the Democrats, who have over an $8 million e-mail list over at the DNC called Organize America, to be criticizing citizens for being organized.”

She should be disqualified to sit on the highest court in the land.

She has made racist remarks and engaged in reverse discrimination.  Could any white male get away with saying that white males could come to a better decision as a judge compared to a Latina woman?  Can you imagine the outrage and cries of racism?  Well this is in fact what she said.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” she said in 2001.

In addition, she has upheld a lower court decision Ricci vs Destefano which is clearly an example of reverse discrimination.  Read about the case and see for yourself.  It’s being reviewed by the Supreme Court this year and will likely be overturned.

When a supreme court justice is sworn in, they take the following oath:

“I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich. . . . So help me God.”

Does this sound anything like “empathy?”  What about just following the law and administering justice based on the constitution?  How much longer are we going to divide people into groups of different colors, sexual orientation, and special interests?  This has no place in the Supreme Court.

Charles Krauthammer in today’s Washington Post summed this up pretty well.

New homes “with slanted roofs,” for instance, will be required to meet a “solar reflectance” standard if they use “fiberglass asphalt-shingle roofing.” We’re not sure what that means either, but we do know that everything in homes will also face new efficiency regulations — including furnaces, laundry machines, dishwashers, “showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals,” even (or especially?) jacuzzis.

One of the more revealing sections focuses on products “intended for a general service or general illumination application” — i.e., lights. This isn’t surprising coming from the politicians who decided in 2007 that the public must be protected from the incandescent lightbulb, but it is excruciatingly detailed. By 2020, “the manufacture of any general service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard” will be prohibited. That includes fixtures “designed only to be mounted directly to an art work and for the purpose of illuminating that art work.” But not “decorative lighting strings,” so Christmas trees will escape the lamp police. For now.

Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson probably won’t be conducting the raids personally, though we trust she’ll enjoy hearing war stories about busting up the “high-intensity discharge lamp” ring back at HQ.

On that score, as early as next week the EPA will classify carbon as a dangerous pollutant under current clear-air laws, prompting a separate avalanche of new regulations. Mr. Waxman must be jealous, considering that the EPA staff wants to regulate — among literally everything that produces CO2 — “lawn and garden equipment” and “enteric fermentation” in livestock, otherwise known as flatulence.

The Obama Administration claims it is flirting with this “endangerment finding” and the economic havoc it would wreak only to force Congress into falling in line with its climate agenda. But if Democrats ever do get around to passing an anticarbon bill, Waxman-Markey is the going favorite, and so Americans should begin to understand the micromanagement over their daily lives that Congress has in store. All you have to do is read Mr. Waxman’s plan.

The modern liberal believes in the supremacy of the state…

Levine describes the modern liberal as a “statist.”  Our founding fathers knew that the greatest threat to freedom and liberty is an all powerfull central government.

Keep your eyes open and watch closely what is happening in Washington.  As Washington gains more control, there is a direct correlation with loss of individual freedom.  Obama is a statist and believes that an individual’s imperfection and personal pursuits impede his objective of achieving a utopian state which is  ever mindful of bringing down achievers and redistributing wealth on a global scale.  This will make it “fair” and we can all “feel” good about our attempts to punish the successful.  It’s the evil corporations and CEO’s that have corrupted our society.  Never mind that they create jobs which create wealth and put people to work.  Wake up and see the great deception that is unfolding before our eyes. 

Obama wants Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to manage your health care, the car industry,  banking and much much more.  They want to control the temperature, the winds and the rain.  America was built on rugged individualism and we should not tamper with God given rights.  Just as our founding fathers stated so well.

I’ll have more to say about this book as I continue reading.  I’d encourage everyone to read the book whether you agree with conservatism or not.  The truth is the truth.   What are you telling yourself?

You think price controls and government regulation is the answer? The truth is, drug companies have been a real engine of innovation. If we destroy their profitability through price controls and government rationing, the costs would be very real. The recent slow-down in the introduction of new blockbuster drugs is in part the delayed result of underinvestment in the 1990s — the last time the political class (read Bill and Hillary) toyed with national health insurance.
Drug companies are looking to merge to save costs and diversify both geographically and into biotechnology. Yet neither one is all that safe a haven. The U.S. is the last major pharmaceutical market without universal price controls, and as such has been the world’s main financier of new drug discoveries. In a world of government-run and -priced health care, biotech innovation will also be as much at risk as traditional drug development. The biggest price we may pay for a health-care system run from Washington are the therapies we never get as a result.
For investors and the economy, the recent rout in health stocks is a case of wealth destruction. For the rest of us, it’s also a sign of the health destruction that will result if Washington’s current policy trajectory becomes law.