Palin Strikes Out w/ Fiorina Endorsement … enter Chuck DeVore.

May 7, 2010

TBV readers:

Sarah Palin struck out on her endorsement of Carly Fiorina today in the California U.S. Senate Republican Primary. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36916.html

Notwithstanding the reality that Fiorina is a horrible candidate, her political stances are simply not rooted in any principled view but …rather shift with the wind of convenience. Palin’s endorsement highlights the following: the real deal in the U.S. Senate primary race is Chuck DeVore. Join his FB page, send a Lincoln his way, and remember to vote on June 8th.



“Opt-Out” … read: “Trojan Horse” a la “Free Magazine Trial”

October 27, 2009

     Republicans in Congress understand a trojan horse when they see one.  Why not let individuals buy health insurance across state lines?  Why not try to let market forces do their thing?  Well, clearly if a provision opening up the market for individual health insurance were in any reform bill coming out of Congress, it would undercut the premise necessary for the Democrat’s latest repackaging (“Opt-Out”) of their true love: the Public Option.

Opt Out … sounds sort of like those free 3-issue magazine trial offers where you sign up, get three free issues, then you are billed UNLESS you call and cancel.  Except, Harry Reid’s vision is a bit different.  You cancel that magazine trial and you stop getting those magazines … but you also won’t have to pay anything.  Harry Reid wants the allure of “opting out” of the public option, nice Obamamarketing, but paying for it … well that is a different story.  Don’t think you won’t have to pay … pay you will.  It may take a few days to get this bill out from behind those closed doors it was hammered out in, and available publicly, but it is in there – make no mistake.  Harry Reid and the Dems in the Senate seem to be using the strategy that if people are put-off by the “public option,” let them opt-out of it at the state level, and give those on the fence some “feel good” .. but in his world, Harry’s World that is, you can’t opt out of paying your it.   And eventually, who likes to pay for something and get nothing,,, may as well get yours … it will be easier than the hoops necessary to opt out.  So … in the end, what will be left?

1.  Large entitlement that all taxpayers across fifty states will have to pay for.

2.  A public option trojan horse, albeit with an ambiguous and confusing opt-out provision when the legislation was drafted and voted on … but alive in all states upon passage. 

3. Undefined and non-articulated process for opting out at the state level … who has the power? Governor, Legislature, Ballot Proposal? 

4. That magazine keeps coming, their toll-free number is either busy or has an hour wait-time to cancel, and since your card was already billed and you are too busy … well … someone will read the magazine so just take that “cancel magazine” off of your to-do list.


Bottom line: the damage will begin immediately upon passage .. with the first few years consisting of everyone paying for this huge new government program with no tangible benefits coming out for the first few years.  Meanwhile, the damage will begin to take place : a still segmented health insurance industry with very low profit margins (apx 2%) operating in 50 individual state markets taking it on the chin from the referee-and-competitor … Uncle Sam.  Opting Out sounded good when you signed up .. but now that you are paying for it … each of the 50 states have had their credit card billed … how many of those 50 states will want to jump through all those hoops, the waiting time, etc to cancel that subscription … to opt out .. especially when the payment has been tendered and can’t be refunded?  That magazine subscription and the “public option” will be here to stay.  Like everything else ‘Obama-esque” …. clever marketing.  Nice sales job.  Republicans need to get to “nice try” … and forget about the free trial.

Democrats clearly need to position and advertise the “short term” and avoid the discussion about the long term effects of taking over 1/6th of the entire U.S. economy.  If they don’t, people ask questions, people brainstorm less intrustive market-oriented solutions, and November of 2010 looms closer.  This latest strategy to get to their end game .. the public option … is all marketing.  People don’t like getting the wool pulled over their eyes .. the messaging and analogizing needs to be blaring from the GOP bullhorns asap.  Get ready for a fight .. the next few weeks will be an all out battle and that trojan horse needs to get burned to the ground.

– Trust, But Verify


Obamacare: The Only Exit Strategy ….. by Krauthammer.

August 29, 2009

  By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, August 28, 2009

 Obamacare Version 1.0 is dead. The 1,000-page monstrosity that emerged in various editions from Congress was done in by widespread national revulsion not just at its expense and intrusiveness but also at the mendacity with which it is being sold. You don’t need a PhD to see that the promise to expand coverage and reduce costs is a crude deception, or that cutting $500 billion from Medicare without affecting care is a fiction.

But there is an exit strategy. And a politically clever one, if the Democrats are smart enough to seize it.

(1) Forget the public option. Whatever the merits, and they are few, it is political poison. It dies by the Liasson Logic, the unassailable observation by NPR’s Mara Liasson that there are no liberal Democrats who will lose their seats if the public option is left out, while there are many moderate Democrats who could lose their seats if the public option is included.

(2) Jettison any reference to end-of-life counseling. People see (correctly) such Medicare-paid advice as subtle encouragement to voluntarily refuse treatment. People don’t want government involvement in a process they consider the private province of patient, family and doctor. The Senate is already dropping it. The House must follow.

(3) Soft-pedal the idea of government committees determining “best practices.” President Obama’s Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research was sold as simply government helping doctors choose the best treatments. But there are dozens of medical journal review articles that do just that. The real purpose of such councils is ultimately to establish official criteria for denying reimbursement to less favored (because presumably less effective) treatments — precisely the triage done by the NICE committee in Britain, the Orwellian body that once blocked access to a certain expensive anti-blindness drug until you went blind in one eye. (NICE: the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.)

(4) More generally, abandon the whole idea of Obamacare as cost-cutting. True, it was Obama’s original rationale for creating a whole new entitlement at a time of a sinking economy and a bankrupt Treasury. But, as many universal-health-care liberals complain, selling pain is poor salesmanship.

(5) Promise nothing but pleasure — for now. Make health insurance universal and permanently protected. Tear up the existing bills and write a clean one — Obamacare 2.0 — promulgating draconian health-insurance regulation that prohibits (a) denying coverage for preexisting conditions, (b) dropping coverage if the client gets sick and (c) capping insurance company reimbursement.

What’s not to like? If you have insurance, you’ll never lose it. Nor will your children ever be denied coverage for preexisting conditions.

The regulated insurance companies will get two things in return. Government will impose an individual mandate that will force the purchase of health insurance on the millions of healthy young people who today forgo it. And government will subsidize all the others who are too poor to buy health insurance. The result? Two enormous new revenue streams created by government for the insurance companies.

And here’s what makes it so politically seductive: The end result is the liberal dream of universal and guaranteed coverage — but without overt nationalization. It is all done through private insurance companies. Ostensibly private. They will, in reality, have been turned into government utilities. No longer able to control whom they can enroll, whom they can drop and how much they can limit their own liability, they will live off government largess — subsidized premiums from the poor; forced premiums from the young and healthy.

It’s the perfect finesse — government health care by proxy. And because it’s proxy, and because it will guarantee access to (supposedly) private health insurance — something that enjoys considerable Republican support — it will pass with wide bipartisan backing and give Obama a resounding political victory.

Isn’t there a catch? Of course there is. This scheme is the ultimate bait-and-switch. The pleasure comes now, the pain later. Government-subsidized universal and virtually unlimited coverage will vastly compound already out-of-control government spending on health care. The financial and budgetary consequences will be catastrophic.

However, they will not appear immediately. And when they do, the only solution will be rationing. That’s when the liberals will give the FCCCER regulatory power and give you end-of-life counseling.

But by then, resistance will be feeble. Why? Because at that point the only remaining option will be to give up the benefits we will have become accustomed to. Once granted, guaranteed universal health care is not relinquished. Look at Canada. Look at Britain. They got hooked; now they ration. So will we.


Young Policy-Minded Conservatives Get in the Game – Ashok Chandra Running for New York City Council

July 8, 2009


TBV Members,

I am writing to ask that you support Ashok Chandra in his race for New York City Council – 4th District, Manhattan.

Ashok represents what we want in our party – a very intelligent, policy-minded young conservative who’s campaign is generating support from a very broad and diversified group of voters. Ashok is delivering the conservative message to voters who never realized that conservative principles are in sync w/ what they seek in their representatives, while also reminding existing conservatives that we have great young candidates that can get us one more “W” in the WIN column.

“Chandra for New York” ON FACEBOOK:                                 




If you want to help the campaign in any way – we have a primary to win in early Sept. and a Democrat to unseat after that.                                       

campaign number – 646-841-2152

All the Very Best,
Trust, But Verify


The Settlement Myth by Charles Krauthammer

July 1, 2009

A big Thank You to the Washington Post – we are sharing this great op/ed by Charles Krauthammer, one of our favorites –  a very good articulation of the Obama policy on Israel / Israeli settlements and how it departs from the President’s articulated “listen first, not dictate first” position towards the rest of the broader Middle East.   The Obama administration’s position is clearly concerning when one realizes they are even against “natural growth exceptions” to existing settlements (e.g., growing families/children) affecting many thriving towns, even suburbs of Jerusalem, near the 1949 armistice line.  Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is scheduled to meet Obama aides Tuesday (June 30th) in the U.S. in the latest bid to find a compromise.  Hopefully the administration bends on their demand and invites reasonableness to the negotiating table.

– AP


By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 5, 2009

President Obama repeatedly insists that American foreign policy be conducted with modesty and humility. Above all, there will be no more “dictating” to other countries. We should “forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions,” he told the G-20 summit. In Middle East negotiations, he told al-Arabiya, America will henceforth “start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating.”

An admirable sentiment. It applies to everyone — Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, even Venezuela. Except Israel. Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton imperiously explained the diktat: “a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions.”

What’s the issue? No “natural growth” means strangling to death the thriving towns close to the 1949 armistice line, many of them suburbs of Jerusalem, that every negotiation over the past decade has envisioned Israel retaining. It means no increase in population. Which means no babies. Or if you have babies, no housing for them — not even within the existing town boundaries. Which means for every child born, someone has to move out. No community can survive like that. The obvious objective is to undermine and destroy these towns — even before negotiations.

To what end? Over the past decade, the U.S. government has understood that any final peace treaty would involve Israel retaining some of the close-in settlements — and compensating the Palestinians accordingly with land from within Israel itself.

That was envisioned in the Clinton plan in the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and again at Taba in 2001. After all, why expel people from their homes and turn their towns to rubble when, instead, Arabs and Jews can stay in their homes if the 1949 armistice line is shifted slightly into the Palestinian side to capture the major close-in Jewish settlements, and then shifted into Israeli territory to capture Israeli land to give to the Palestinians?

This idea is not only logical, not only accepted by both Democratic and Republican administrations for the past decade, but was agreed to in writing in the letters of understanding exchanged between Israel and the United States in 2004 — and subsequently overwhelmingly endorsed by a concurrent resolution of Congress.

Yet the Obama State Department has repeatedly refused to endorse these agreements or even say it will honor them. This from a president who piously insists that all parties to the conflict honor previous obligations. And who now expects Israel to accept new American assurances in return for concrete and irreversible Israeli concessions, when he himself has just cynically discarded past American assurances.

The entire “natural growth” issue is a concoction. Is the peace process moribund because a teacher in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem is making an addition to her house to accommodate new grandchildren? It is perverse to make this the center point of the peace process at a time when Gaza is run by Hamas terrorists dedicated to permanent war with Israel and when Mahmoud Abbas, having turned down every one of Ehud Olmert’s peace offers, brazenly declares that he is in a waiting mode — waiting for Hamas to become moderate and for Israel to cave — before he’ll do anything to advance peace.

In his much-heralded “Muslim world” address in Cairo yesterday, Obama declared that the Palestinian people’s “situation” is “intolerable.” Indeed it is, the result of 60 years of Palestinian leadership that gave its people corruption, tyranny, religious intolerance and forced militarization; leadership that for three generations rejected every offer of independence and dignity, choosing destitution and despair rather than accept any settlement not accompanied by the extinction of Israel.

That’s why Haj Amin al-Husseini chose war rather than a two-state solution in 1947. Why Yasser Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in 2000. And why Abbas rejected Olmert’s even more generous December 2008 offer.

In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders built no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, none of the fundamental state institutions that would relieve their people’s suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.

Obama says he came to Cairo to tell the truth. But he uttered not a word of that. Instead, among all the bromides and lofty sentiments, he issued but one concrete declaration of new American policy: “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” thus reinforcing the myth that Palestinian misery and statelessness are the fault of Israel and the settlements.

Blaming Israel and picking a fight over “natural growth” may curry favor with the Muslim “street.” But it will only induce the Arab states to do like Abbas: sit and wait for America to deliver Israel on a platter. Which makes the Obama strategy not just dishonorable but self-defeating.


Obama’s Ice Age: The Chilling of Speech

June 9, 2009

I got wind of a story yesterday during  a local (Las Vegas, NV) AM radio show that may be the inspiration of an Orwellian sequal called 1985…or 1984 part II. 

Apparently, some comments on the Las VegasReview-Journal’s blog site have ruffled some feathers at the US Attorney’s Office.  None of the comments were criminal, libelous, nor did they seem to incite a clear and present danger to anyone.  The comments were normal for any online blog or website.  However, according to the Review-Journal, a Federal subpoena mandated the presentation of the:

full name, date of birth, physical address, gender, ZIP code, password prompts, security questions, telephone numbers and other identifiers … the IP address,” of all commenters on a certain post.

The Review Journal has decided to fight the subpoena “tooth and nail”.  For starters, the majority of the commenting public use pseudonyms, fake e-mail addresses, and the RJ does not require registration to comment; i.e., physical addresses, names, phone numbers (etc.).  It is impossible to find this information.  Further, these subpoenas will have a chilling effect on public discourse, and are in direct violation of the Supreme Court and the US Constitution’s views on the Freedom of Speech and the internet. 

Unlike child pornography and terorrist websites, the government does not have a compelling governmental interest in what I comment on the Las Vegas Review Journal or what websites I have visited.  This is in direct violation of everything the First Amendment stands for; public discourse.  I hope the Review Journal stands up for my liberties and rights as an American Citizen.  I enjoy participating in local politics and I have commented many times on such websites.  If these subpoenas are allowed, a horrible precedent would be set for future Federal Magistrates regarding subpoenas and warrants.  People will stop commenting and participating.  I agree that many of the posts are ignorant and have little to say, but the First Amendment is very clear

Congress shall make NO law respecting . . . or abridging the freedom of speech.

No sign of the ACLU just yet. 



Muslim Extremist Kills Military Recruiter vs. Abortion Doctor Killed/UPDATE 1

June 2, 2009

Before I begin I want to start by saying that I am pro-life, but I do not condone assaulting, battering, or killing doctors who perform abortions.  However, that being said, homeland security should be this country’s most important objective.  Some may disagree, and say that the economy should be target number one, but growing an economy will be moot if terrorists are allowed to attack our financial system or miltary strength. 

For those of you who did not know, a military recruiter was killed the other day by a known Muslim terror suspect. This made little ripples in the media pond, however, because of the murder of George Tiller, a known abortion doctor.  Where are this country’s priorities?  The recruiter, William Long, is nowhere to be found in any headlines.  Instead, we are hit over the head with the garbage that pro-life groups are somehow responsible for Tiller’s death.  William Long’s death is an act of terrorism right here on American soil. Not too long a go, a plot to blow up a Synagogue was duped by authorities and the terror subspect’s stupidity.  Yet the media seems to brush off such stories with the back of their snobish hands.  We have begun to fall asleep at the wheel.

During the 1990’s there were many acts of terrorism on U.S. soil.  We did not take notice, nor did we react.  There was World Trade I, USS Cole, and the multiple Embassy Bombings.  What did we do? Nothing.  We were blind to the real threats to this country’s security.  We concentrated on other issues that drew away our attention.  Baseball strikes, OJ Simpson, steroids, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, the Tech Boom, or even the death of Princess Diana pulled our attention away from what is important.  The lives of the citizens of this country.

We are headed down the same path that he walked down just a short couple of years ago.  Why can’t we learn from history? Why can’t the majority of media members see through their personal beliefs and take notice that a Military recruiter who is killed at work has far more of an impact on our safety then the murder of a Doctor?   We cannot let this happen.  We have the interworkings of the interweb at our fingertips.  Let us memorilize the name of William Long and not let the media skew our views of what is important to this country.  Don’t be like the media.  They can’t even push aside their disdain for the pro-life movement for one second to report on the life of a fallen hero and the act of a cowardly terrorist.  Nor can the media report on the many attacks on Army recruitment as an attack on this country’s security.  Let it be known from the mountain tops.  William Long is and will always be a true patriot.

What was Obama’s reaction to this attack?  Silence.

Laura Ingram had am imsight into Obama’s silence.  Obama will be going to the Middle East…as we speak.  The last thing he wants to do is upset the Muslim world when this trip is meant to “chill” anti-American setiment and improve our international perception.  What a wuss.



Nuke ’em Kimmy

May 26, 2009

For a third time in as many days, North Korea has tested nuclear missles.  Where is the Secretary of State?  Hill is nowhere to be found.  The UN has begun to write a resolution with punitive action.  We know how that worked out in Iraq from 1992-2003.  Obama is gravely concerned.  I am so glad this guy is my Commander-in-Chief.  We should all feel very safe.  In defense of Obama, making a statement might have an adverse effect on the global anti-american setiment he is unilaterally trying to fix.


Compelling Personal Story

May 26, 2009

With Obama’s nomination of Sotomayor to the Supreme Court comes a flashback to last year’s election; i.e., a young minority who was raised in poverty, aspired to make something of themself, and thrived in law school.  It sounds all too familiar, doesn’t it?  I am a Disney fan, and as one I love the under dog story which ends in a slow clap and a “happily ever after.”  However, this is real life and a “good story” should not enter the conversation when it comes to Supreme Court Justices.  Just ask Congress circa 1991 with the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.  If there is one story which diserves the title of “compelling” it is that of Justice Thomas.  Thomas’ story was rarely mentioned and his story of growing up in the segregated south was only used against him.  Thomas was seen as someone who left his roots behind him, and became a slave to the “white-man.”  Here are some examples of what was said about Justice Thomas:

Historian John Henrik Clarke called Thomas: A “frustrated slave crawling back to the plantation.”

Former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders publicly called Justice Thomas an “Uncle Tom” (see Washington Post, May 2, 1995);

The ability to sit on a bench has very little to do with how “in-touch” you are with the common man, and has everything to do with the application of the precendent law before you.  Let us hope that Sotomayor’s ability to do so is analyzed thoroughly by Congress.  Something tells me they will, again, drop the ball, and those who actually ask questions will be villified as racists



Chrysler Senior Lienholders’ Attorney Describes What is Really Going On

May 4, 2009

In an interview of momentous importance, WJR’s Frank Beckmann interviews Tom Lauria, the Head of Restructuring at top five law firm White & Case, in which the lawyer, who represents Chrysler hold-out hedge funds Stairway Capital and Oppenheimer Funds, discusses on the record the amazing treatment by the White House of Perella Weinberg, which initially had been a transaction hold out but after threats by the White House (not my words) was forced to drop their objection and go with the administration. Says Lauria:

“One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight…That was Perella Weinberg.”

…The full interview with Tom Lauria below is a must hear for everyone as it discloses not only the administration’s strong arming tactics in black and white, but also discloses some other critical facts that the president on his regular TV appearances has failed to mention