Monday, August 31, 2009

Deeds Visits Prince William

Creigh Deeds, who seems to still be stuck in "me-too" mode in his campaign, followed Bob McDonnell into eastern Prince William County today, to open a field office in Ridgewood, where Obama had his office last year I think.

McDonnell was in town to meet with "Tito the Builder", and talk about support among hispanic voters. Even the Media General coverage noted how Deeds seemed to be mimicking the McDonnell campaign:

Munoz, though, while firmly backing McDonnell, said the needs of Hispanic voters are no different than those of other Virginians.

“We share the same values as any other American,” he said.

Ironically, his words were remarkably similar to what Deeds said when asked about what he could do for Virginia’s Hispanic voters, many of whom live in Prince William.

Deeds went on to sound his major campaign theme, which is that he has no plans for anything:

But that doesn’t mean his campaign has formulated policies for individual ethnic groups, he said.
“I’m focused on creating economic hope and opportunity in every part of the state for every single Virginian,” Deeds said.

I don't think anybody ever thought the Deed's campaign had formulated any policies, for individual groups or for the state. That's why most of the time Deeds seems to be running around repeating whatever McDonnell says.

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Why should I care what AAA does?

The AFA sent out an alert complaining about AAA giving "family" memberships to homosexual couples:

During a face-to-face meeting yesterday between Equality Florida and AAA South, top management at the 4th largest AAA affiliate in the country committed to recognizing all spouses, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The policy allows gay married couples to receive spousal discounts under AAA's Associate Membership program.

First of all, this is not the "AAA"; it is one part of AAA. AAA is a private entity, and they have decided to grant family memberships to couples that are gay.

This is not the same as a company spending money pushing a homoesexual agenda. This isn't even a company trying to force gay marriage on the country. It's just a company trying to make money by getting people who live together to pay more money for a family membership.

A lot of companies grant family memberships without regard to marriage; their goal is to get more members and money, not make judgments one whether people are legally married or not.

So long as a company isn't using profits from my business to actively promote gay marriage, I don't have a problem with them. People in this country have the right to enter into voluntary associations, and companies have a right to recognize those associations as they see fit.

I don't want the government to use my tax dollars to reward homosexual marriages, because such marriages are not beneficial to society. I don't want government to force churches to recognize marriage, or to force children to learn about and welcome gay sexual activity as normal.

And if people want to stop using AAA because of their policies, that's fine with me -- it's a free country. And I want to keep it a free country, something that is increasingly hard with Obama and the Democrats in charge, taking over companies and dictating to the rest of us how we have to live our lives. Soon we won't be able to buy incandescent bulbs; we won't have the choice of cars we want, we'll be paying taxes if our health care is too good, we'll be forced into health insurance whether we want it or not, we'll be forced to buy insurance that covers things we don't want or need coverage for.

So pardon me if I don't get worked up over AAA giving family discounts to gay couples.

Black President Opposed by Citil Rights Organization?

One thing you would have expected from America's First Black President was a strong support for civil rights. After years of contention between civil rights leaders and George Bush, you would expect smooth sailing for a Democratic administration led by an African-American, especially with a justice department headed up by another first African-American.

But in the six short months that Obama has been destroying the country we know, he has shown that the old expectations simply do not apply to the man who is now President, especially when it comes to treatment of people without regards to who they are or which candidate they supported in the election. This administration has made it their mission to use the entire force of government, and both our tax dollars and the tax dollars of our children and grandchildren, to reward those who support them, and to pay off those who worked for them or support their causes.

So I guess it shouldn't be surprising that this administration has run afoul of the U.S. Civil Rights commission, over of all things the clearest case of voter discrimination from the past year. From the Washington Times, "Panel Blasts Panther Case Dismissal":

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is demanding that the Justice Department explain why it recently dismissed a civil complaint against members of the New Black Panther Party who disrupted a Philadelphia polling place during last year's election, saying the department has offered only "weak justifications."
In January, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia against the New Black Panther Party after two of its members in black berets, black combat boots, black shirts and black jackets purportedly intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick. A third party member was accused of managing, directing and endorsing their behavior. The incident was captured on videotape.

Here is that videotape:

The government had already won the lawsuit against the Black Panthers; so why did Eric Holder's justice department decide to drop the charges?

The Black Panthers were doing the bidding of the Democratic party, that's why. They were keeping whites from voting against Obama.

We had a local complaint about voter intimidation last year, because the Help Save Manassas members showed up at a polling place with a sign reminding people they had to be citizens to vote, and a camera recording them. This was considered "vote suppression" by some because illegal immigrants would be worried about getting deported, even though illegals aren't supposed to vote.

Well, imagine if Greg Lettiecq had been standing at an hispanic polling place with a baseball bat. You can be sure there'd be a prosecution for voter intimidation. But in the Obama administration, it's not about what you do, it's about who you know, and how much money you gave to support Obama. Sotomeyer will soon be a Supreme court justice who thinks that you should be judged on the color of your skin rather than what the law says. People get stimulus dollars based on their support for democrats.

Monday, August 03, 2009

Obama, Democrats plan to destroy private health care

Despite claims to the contrary, there can be little doubt that Obama and the Democrats seek to destroy private health care in this country. Pelosi and the Democrat's summer attacks on the "evil Health Insurance Industry" is just one clear sign that they mean to eliminate all private health insurance, forcing people to accept government-run health care. After all, why would they pass a plan supporting private health insurers if they think those insurers are evil?

Then there are "slips", like Charles Rangel noting that the current plan is just an incremental step on the way to universal public health care.

The latest indication though, is a comment made by one of the Democrat's closest allies, Planned Parenthood. The Political reports that, speaking about how important it was for the public health care option to cover abortions, Laurie Rubiner, vice president for public policy and advocacy at Planned Parenthood, lets the cat out of the bag once again:

On “Fox News Sunday” this past weekend, budget director Peter Orszag said he is “not prepared to rule ... out” taxpayer financing for abortions.

Planned Parenthood’s Rubiner said the alternative would be slashing benefits for millions of women who currently have coverage for abortions and cited polling suggesting such services have popular support.

The anti-abortion activists’ demand “violates the first principle of health care reform, which is: Don’t make people worse off under health care reform than they are today,” she said.

Why would limiting abortion in the public option "slash benefits" for anybody who have coverage now under private plans?

Only if those private plans are going away.

Which is obviously what the liberal expect. It's the only way that Rubiner's statement makes any sense.

The Obama administration, with Pelosi, Reid, and the Democratic majority, plan on replacing people's private coverage with the public option. So if the public option doesn't cover abortions, millions of women WILL lose abortion coverage, when the Democrats wipe out their private health insurance benefits.

Thank you, Planned Parenthood, for providing more evidence for the real plans of this administration. When Obama promises you can keep your insurance, just remember: Your insurance company is evil, Obama will tax your plan, your company will want to push you into the public option, and Planned Parenthood expects millions of women to lose their private coverage.

And note: not one major news organization has asked WHY Planned Parenthood thinks women will lose their private insurance -- because they all know that is the plan under Obama.