Sen. Mitch McConnell: President Lobbying Against Keystone XL Pipeline Jobs

Sen. McConnell:
“Last night the two parties reached agreement on amendments to the Highway Bill. I’m happy to report that there are a number of strong job creating measures in the mix. One that stands out is Senator Hoeven’s amendment on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

“Most Americans strongly support building this pipeline and the jobs that would come with it. And it’s incomprehensible to me that the President of the United States is lobbying against it.

“There’s a report this morning that President Obama is personally making phone calls to Democrat Senators he thinks might vote for this amendment. He’s asking them not to. And, frankly, it’s hard to even comprehend how out of touch he is on this issue.

“I mean, think about it: at a moment when millions are out of work, gas prices are skyrocketing and the Middle East is in turmoil, we’ve got a president who’s up making phone calls trying to block a pipeline here at home. It’s unbelievable.



From The Right Sphere:

Well if this doesn’t beat all. Just a couple of weeks after blaming the GOP for the Keystone XL iol pipeline not being built, he’s… wait for it… LOBBYING SENATE DEMOCRATS TO REJECT IT. No, I’m not kidding and this isn’t some joke. It’s 100%  true. From Politico:

President Barack Obama is intervening in a Senate fight over the Keystone XL oil pipeline and personally lobbying Democrats to reject an amendment calling for its construction, according to several sources familiar with the talks.

The White House lobbying effort, including phone calls from the president to Democrats, signals that the vote could be close when it heads to the floor Thursday. The president is trying to defeat an amendment that would give election-year fodder to his Republican critics who have accused him of blocking a job-creating energy project at a time of high gas prices.

OK, let me get this straight.  Just a few weeks ago Obama caved to the far left and rejected the job-creating pipeline himself, then blames Republicans. Now, he’s going to ask Democrats in the Senate to also reject the job-creating pipeline while also blaming Republicans? On what planet does that even make sense?

If Democrats in the Senate vote to kill this pipeline, that’ll be not once but twice that Democrats have rejected creating jobs for Americans in favor of doing favors for their far left base. You know why? It’s because President Obama is only concerned with creating one job this year: a second term for himself.

Yesterday, Senate Democrats blocked the Keystone Pipeline Bill. It is sad folks when a sitting President and his Party lobbies against jobs for the American people.  And, they actually want us to believe that they are for the middle-class?  O.K. When pigs fly.

Republicans Introduce Bill to Eliminate Obama's 39 Czars

                          (Moonbattery)

House Republicans introduced a bill today to eliminate Obama’s 39 czars.
The Hill reported:

A group of House Republicans introduced a bill on Wednesday to rein in the various “czars” in the Obama administration.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and 28 other House Republicans introduced legislation to do away with the informal, paid advisers President Obama has employed over the past two years.

The legislation, which was introduced in the last Congress but was not allowed to advance under Democratic control, would do away with the 39 czars Obama has employed during his administration.

The bill defines a czar as “a head of any task force, council, policy office within the Executive Office of the President, or similar office established by or at the direction of the President” who is appointed to a position that would otherwise require Senate confirmation.

This is great news! These radical czars need to be reined in, big time. I hope that the GOP eliminates the "Czar" position completely or at least adds an amendment which would state that if Czars want to be advisers of the president they must be confirmed by the Senate. 

H/T Gateway Pundit 

Joe Sestak: A CINO Pro-Abortion Extremist Who is Wrong for Pennsylvania

Chris Coons - The REAL out of touch and Extreme Candidate Running for the Delaware Senate

Chris Coons is so out of touch with the American people that on his website he states that matters such as his following Marxism and promoting the Marxist agenda are a distraction.  He wants us to consider it a distraction since it reveals his extremist views and policies which are very much aligned with Obama's extremist policies, which are harming America.  He'll have to talk to Dingy Harry about the "pet" thing and his strange fetish with thinking of Coons as a "pet".  

 R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. of the American Spectator gives us some insight into how Coons became a "Bearded Marxist" and exposes some of his extreme beliefs.  He also reveals one of Coons broken promises:
"As county executive of New Castle County, Coons promised voters he would keep taxes down. Once elected, he raised property taxes by 5% in 2006, by 17.5% in 2007, and by 25% in 2009. He loves taxes. Lord tells us he has proposed to raise hotel taxes, paramedic taxes, and something heretofore unheard of. Lord tells us that Coons has a proposal to raise taxes on 911 calls. Lord discovered that by reading Byron York's report in the Washington Examiner."

I found Chris Coons essay on nj.com:

"College is supposed to be a time of change, a time to question our assumption about the world and define our basic values. For me, the transformations of the last few years have been especially acute. I came to Amherst from a fairly sheltered, privileged, and politically conservative background. I campaigned for Reagan in 1980, and spent the summer after freshman year working for Senator Roth (of Kemp-Roth tax-cut fame.) In the fall of 1983, I was a proud founding member of the Amherst College Republicans. In November 1984, I represented the Amherst Democrats in a hotly contested pre-election debate against my former roommates, co-founders and leaders of the Republicans. As the debate progressed it became obvious how unreconcilably different our opinions had become. What caused such a shift in only one year?

I spent the spring of my junior year in Africa on the St. Lawrence Kenya Study Program. Going to Kenya was one of the few real decisions I have made; my friends, family, and professors all advised against it, but I went anyway, My friends now joke that something about Kenya, maybe a strange diet, or the tropical sun, changed my personality; Africa to them seems a catalytic converter that takes in clean-shaven, clear thinking Americans and sends back Bearded Marxists.

The point that others ignore is that I was ready to change. Experiences at Amherst my first two years made me skeptical and uncomfortable with Republicanism, enough so that I wanted to see the Third World for myself to get some perspective on my beliefs. Certainly Kenya provided a needed catalyst; I saw there poverty, and oppression more naked than any in America, and I studied under a bright and eloquent Marxist professor at the University of Nairobi. Nevertheless, it is only too easy to return from Africa glad to be an American and smugly thankful for our wealth and freedom. Instead, Amherst had taught me to question, so in return I questioned Amherst, and America.

When I first arrived at Amherst, I was somewhat of a Republican fanatic. I fit Churchill’s description, namely, that a fanatic is “Someone who can’t change their mind, and won't change the subject.” While other freshman share care packages from home, I was equally generous with my inherited political opinions giving them to anyone who would listen. It was in this manner that I soon met a creature I had never known before—a Democrat, several of them. Some of the “Leftists” that I met early on were terrifyingly persuasive, although I never admitted that. A few became my friends and provided a constant nagging backdrop of doubt, for which I am now grateful.

More importantly, during sophomore year, several professors challenged the basic assumptions about America and the world relations with which I had grown up. Cultural Anthropology inspired a fascination with other peoples, and undermined the accepted value of progress and the cultural superiority of the West. In examining the role of myths in “primitive” cultures, we also studied the myth of equal opportunity in this country, a myth I had never questioned. A course on the Vietnam War painted in gory detail a picture of horrible failures made possible by American hubris and dogmatism. I came to suspect, through these and other courses, that the ideal of America as “a beacon of freedom and justice, providing hope for the world” was not exactly based in reality. So, I went to Africa, hungry for a break from Amherst and eager to gain some broader political insight from the brutally real world. What do other nations think of us? Can private enterprise and democracy solve the problems of developing nations? Is Marxism an evil ideology, leading millions into totalitarian slavery? These were some of the questions in the back of my mind as I left for Kenya.

What I learned in Africa unsettled me. I saw the deprivation and oppression of the poor and the politically disfavored in a way not possible in the U.S. In Kenya, my position was not at stake; I was not directly benefiting if the underprivileged had little hope of advancement. I lived with the struggling African family for a month and came to know the hardships that they face. What surprised me was the attitude of the elite; I became friends with a very wealthy businessman and his family and heard them reiterate the same beliefs held by many Americans; the poor are poor because they are lazy, slovenly, uneducated. “Kenya is a land of opportunity,” they said, “those who work receive their just reward.” I knew this was not true in the case of many black Kenyans; this story merely served to justify the position of many who had done well only by working for the British colonialists. I realize that Kenya and America are very different, but experiences like this warned me that my own favorite beliefs in the miracles of free enterprise and the boundless opportunity to be had in America might be largely untrue.

When I returned last summer, I traveled all over the East Coast and saw in many ways a different America. Upon arriving at Amherst this fall, I felt like a freshman at an unfamiliar school all over again. Many of the questions raised by my experiences of the last year remained unanswered. I have spent my senior year reexamining my ideas and have returned to loving America, but in the way of one who has realized its faults and failures and still believes in its promise. The greatest value of Amherst for me, then, has been the role it played in allowing me to question, and to think. I had to see the slums of Nairobi before the slums of New York meant anything at all, but with out the experiences of Amherst, I never would have seen either."

This essay certainly displays Coons youthful naivete.  It looks like ever since then, he has adhered to what is an utterly irresponsible and naive philosophy.
On Chris Coons website he talks about supporting the right for every student to have a quality public education and strengthening Head Start, Early Head Start and high-quality pre-K programs.  This is fine and well but his site states nothing on school vouchers and no specifics on how he is going to strengthen the public school system.  Is he planning on just throwing more money at the Teacher's unions and schools or is he actually planning to implement policies to make sure that children actually receive a quality education?  The policies of the teachers unions and the Democrats have not helped children and their public educational system over the years but in fact their programs have hurt our public education system with more layers of bureaucracy and continues to hurt our students chances of receiving a good public education.

Chris is calling for a nationwide cap and trade program that will help establish a price on carbon and unleash the creativity of American ingenuity to help solve this crisis.  Chris is for Cap & Trade which will tax us out of existence, tax our country out of prosperity.  This is an extreme view especially in light of further proof that man made climate change is a hoax.  Lord Monckton exposes lies of those who follow Al Gore the Environmental Whore. Here are 70 scientists who do not believe the global warming hysteria.  More information here that exposes the global warming hoax.  A scientist, named Andrew Montford, debunks the hockey stick that global warming hystericists claim "proves" man made global warming exists.  Obama even says that "prices will skyrocket" and will cause unemployment among those working in the coal industry.

Under Coons-Obama-Reid-Pelosi's policy of Cap & Trade your energy bills will skyrocket and there will be higher unemployment caused by this legislation.  Do you really want to pay prohibitive costs for all your energy bills?  Do you want a higher unemployment rate?   If not, then don't vote for the EXREMIST, Chris Coons!

Chris Coons supports public funding of all reproductive health services for women who depend on the federal government for their health care.  He supports the federal funding of abortion. Do you want to fund the killing of innocent unborn life? He believes in forcing others, who believe it is morally wrong to kill an unborn child, to fund other persons' abortions.  This is unconscionable!! This is immoral!!  

"Chris opposes proposals such as the Child Custody Protection Act; gag rules that prohibit health-care professionals from counseling patients; and bans on safe procedures that protect the life and health of the mother." 

Chris Coons believes it is okay for a stranger to take your daughter across state lines in order for her to be able to have an abortion without your knowledge or consent. 

Chris Coons is way too EXTREME to be Senator of Delaware.

 

Bailout Joe is Bad for Pennsylvania

Bailout Joe Takes a Stroll Down Memory Lane from Pat Toomey on Vimeo.

Pat Toomey Health Care Press Conference

Senator John McCain Blasts Sen. Max Baucus (video)

Sen. John McCain gets all fired up and blasts Sen. Max Baucus for making backroom deals with various organizations. It seems that Sen. McCain does have a spine - Yeah!!

10 Facts You Should Know About Reid's Government-Run Health Care

10 Things...

You Should Know About Harry Reid’s Government-Run Health Care Experiment


1. $493 Billion In Tax Increases On Health Insurance, Medical Innovation, Payroll And Small Businesses Would Pay For The Bill. (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

2. Americans Won’t See Benefits Of This Health Care Experiment Until 2014, But They Start Paying For It In 2010. (Page 13, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

3. Reid’s Bill Allegedly Reduces The Deficit By $130 Billion In Ten Years, But The Obama-Reid-Pelosi Spending Agenda Produced Deficit Of $176 Billion Last Month Alone. (Table 3, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

4. $465 Billion In Medicare And Medicaid Cuts Would Pay For Two New Unsustainable Entitlements. (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

5. Health Care Costs For The Federal Government – And Your Family – Would Increase, Not Decrease. (Page 16, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)


6. A New Medicare Commission Of Unelected Bureaucrats Would Ration Care. (Sec. 3403, H.R. 3590, Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute, “Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act,” Introduced 11/18/09)
7. The “Doc Fix” Provision That Would Add $250 Billion To The Deficit Is Not Included In The Democrats’ List Price For Their Health Care Experiment. (Page 17, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)
8. Taxpayer Dollars Would Fund Abortions. (Sec. 1303(a), H.R. 3590, Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute, “Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act,” Introduced 11/18/09)

9. A New Entitlement Program For Long-Term Care That One Democrat Senator Called “A Ponzi Scheme” Would Be Created. (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09; Shailagh Murray & Lori Montgomery, “Centrists Unsure About Reid's Public Option,” The Washington Post, 10/28/09)

10. States Burdened With $25 Billion In Unfunded Mandates From Medicaid That Would Force Them To Increase Taxes. (Page 7, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

H/T to GOP.com

Toomey and Sestak Debate at Health Care Town Hall

Last night, I watched two candidates running for the senate seat in Pa face off on the health care debate at Muhlenbergh College in Pa. Pat Toomey and Joe Sestak are two candidates who want to oust Arlen Specter from his senatorial seat in 2010. Pat Toomey is in the lead in the Republican primary, according to a Rasmussen poll. Pat Toomey's popularity spread like wildfire among Republicans, and then Sen. Arlen Specter like the opportunist that he is, ran to the Democrats like he was scared. Joe Sestak is challenging Arlen Specter in the Democratic Primary. The two both agree that health care reform is needed but disagree on how to fix it.



When Sestak spoke during his opening statement he looked like he was auditioning for Broadway. Sestak is against Tort Reform. He claims that it is only a very small percentage of the health care problem. Sestak said, competition is important but he doesn't want to open up the borders so that citizens can cross state lines to buy health insurance. As the debate moved along Sestak started with this dramatic sob stories, and then looked like he was going to cry. To me, he was acting like a drama queen. It was like he was trying to gain the sympathy vote, or something. Sestak was there defending and promoting Obama's health care bill.



Toomey said that we need to change the way we pay for health care, that access to health care is a problem, and that escalating costs is also a problem. Toomey said that big government mandates, huge new taxes on both workers and employers is not the correct way to fix the health care problem. Toomey is pro Tort Reform. Toomey is positively for opening up the borders so that there can be more competition among insurance companies and citizens will be able to cross state lines to buy health insurance policies. This type of competition would almost certainly force the health insurance companies to lower the costs related to health care. In Pat Toomey describing U.K.'s health care, he said that the U.K. has commissions who decides who gets health care and who doesn't. And, the commission has stated that one person's life for 6 months is worth $23,000. That is exactly how much Britain will spend on a person's health care over a 6 month period. Plus, Toomey stated that a huge number of Canadians cross over the border to the United States to gain better access to health care.



Sestak was like a guy in an empty suit. He wasn't very inspiring at all. He was boring. His answers seemed like they were in some type of code. Toomey was straightforward. In my opinion, he was on fire and nailed every question. Toomey, a former business owner, even made the connection of how Obama's health care bill would affect small business owners.



object width="425" height="344">





You can view either part or the whole video of the debate here.

Vote Toomey In, And Specter Out of Senate