24thState

GoVote.com - The Newest Resource For all Patriots

What Andrew Breitbart's "Bigs" have done for conservative message distribution, GoVote.com will do for communicating with politicians.

Have you ever put a sign in your yard for a politician only to be disappointed later that the same politician ignored your desires?  What if you could turn that around and stick your sign in his yard?

GoVote.com brings every candidate and office holder from the State House to the White House to one website where voters can instantly access relevant data such as every candidate in the race, how they rate with various pressure groups, and what embarrassing information they wish people would stop posting on their sites.  You heard that right.  At GoVote.com, anyone with a beef or a "like" can drop $20 bucks for a state lawmaker or $50 for a Congressman and stick their sign in the politicians "yard" for a week.

Imagine that.  You buy an ad on your Congressman's page and he gets an email informing him what you said to the world about him on his own page.   There is also a survey on his page.  If a politician is responsive, he can expect nice ratings.  If he is polling poorly, he may want to make adjustments or people will move beyong polling and commenting and start buying negative ads against him.  That, is power where it belongs.

GoVote.com.  Discover, Participate, Influence

Publicly Available Contribution Reports For Ann Wagner Campaign

The following two links are to documents containing public information crowdsourced from FEC.gov.

It is the campaign contribution reports from Ann Wagner's campaign for Missouri's Second Congressional District.  

The first is the total for donations from Enterprise Rent-A-Car employees, spouses, holding companies, financial companies and subsidiaries.  The second is a list of those donations solely in the third quarter.

The information has been unaltered from its form in the FEC reports. 

 

Download AnnEnterprise

Download Enterprise3Q

 

Make your own decisions about what they mean, but let's not pretend these don't exist, or that transparency in campaign finance is a bad thing, or that posting publicly available information is a dirty tricks campaign.   

This information was collected by St Louis Tea Party members.  The decision to collect, publish and share with the media was done independent of Ed Martin, Ann Wagner, or the official St Louis Tea Party Coalition.

It is fact.  It is undisputed. The totals get bigger when we do it again January 30th.  If one company wants to have this much influence on a primary election in a conservative district, it it our obligation to make sure voters know the full extent of that influence.  

Radicals Resign Because They Were First Tolerated

Van Jones.  Shirley Sherrod.  ACORN employees.  NPR. And now Don Giljum.  When radicals with far-left views are finally brought to the public, the immediate answer from those in power is to force them to resign. 

Sherrod was told to pull over to the side of the road and fired by phone after the video of her telling a story with racist overtones while the NAACP members laughed first aired.  She first blamed the NAACP and Tom Vilsack, then after the Left got its story right, she turned around and sued Breitbart for editing videos (the videos were available to play in full from the beginning.

Van Jones was sent away when Gateway Pundit aired his extreme views, and today he's considered the victim of a hit job.  His words were taken out of context, they claim. 

The NPR executive, was forced to resign, even though the claim was made that videos were doctored.  

ACORN first denied their employees did anything wrong, then turned around and fired them anyway.  Of course, they sued.

And now Don Giljum has been forced to resign from teaching, and booted from Ameren by the union's own lawyer.  The response?  The video was edited.

The videos that led to the outing of radical communists from the University of Missouri did not cause the demand for a resignation, anymore than any of the other stories BigGovernment has published in the last two years.  It would be very easy for school administrators, ACORN Executives, union officials, NPR Executives and the head of the Department of the Interior to investigate the matter thoroughly before firing or demanding the resignation of minor employees in their ranks. 

So why are they all let go so quickly?  Politics.  Each of the people above has loathsome ideals that when exposed to the general public, cause great damage to the institutions controlled by the left.  Sherrod wasn't fired for speaking to the NAACP.  She was fired because she was like Kryptonite to the Obama Administration once her role in the Pigford scandal came to light.  They knew she was a communist with radical beliefs.  They tolerated her until she was exposed, and then dropped her quickly, claiming they didn't know. 

It was the same with NPR.  With ACORN. With Van Jones.  And now with Don Giljum. 

You don't fire good people without cause. The only place that happens is in political campaigns when the story hurts the image of the candidate.  In companies and organizations and schools, people are not fired because video is taken of them speaking their minds.  They are fired when the organization realizes the backlash at having employed a whackadoodle who believes in violent revolution is going to be greater than dumping the person out the backdoor. 

The claims of edited video are foolish.  Just by looking at the videos, you can see very sick individuals taking pleasure in power politics, in causing discomfort and fear to company executives.  The full context is available in the current version of the videos, as in the glee in their voices, the laugher, and the gleam in their eye when they talk about killing cats, shutting down factories, and even initimidating a CEO into being fearful of being shot while on the plant floor. 

Those views are radical views, and when they see the light of the day, the administration at U of M did what all cowards do - they tried to hide the problem, all while claiming they were set up.  We know what kinds of people are being exposed in our institutions, and we know there are thousands who are still tolerated.  These people are poison to American culture, and it's time we stop paying them to poison our children and the public.  

They have every right to speak their mind, but they won't get paid to do it anymore.

Taking The Red Pill: The Tea Party Outside The Matrix

Do you recall the end of the Matrix?  You hear a phone ring.  It's picked up and connected to a modem. And then you hear Neo (Keanu Reeves) say:

I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid.  You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I  didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to  tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and  then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm  going to show them a world … without you. A world without rules and  controls, without borders or boundaries; a world where anything is  possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.

The message is a powerful one, even if it is yoked to a science fiction movie, and it's worth exploring in context of the Tea Party and modern politics.  It's not for the you, the successful American people who stood up and took a step towards greater freedom.  It's for the statists, and the bureaucrats, and the global governance types who just can't stand the idea of a free people shrugging off its chains.

The power of film is not to be taken lightly.  The ability to influence people with pictures and music is well-known, and yet it still retains the power to move us.  The modern cinema, just barely a hundred years old, is as valid as medium as the live theater performances of the ancient world. It gives us a common language to discuss the human condition, something to ponder when it's done.  It allows you to ask yourself, if I were a character in the movie, what would I have done?

The science fiction and fantasy fiction genres succeed because they make fans confront moral choices in stark contrast.  In Star Wars, you're either on the side of the Empire or the Rebels.  In Star Trek, you're either an explorer with a good heart or a barbarian/robot intent on destruction or assimilation.  In Lord of the Rings, you're either with the Dark Lord or the Men of the West.  The storyline revolves around a character or group of characters with the power to make a difference.  Some know they have the power, others don't (with that discovery forming the basis of the story), but the end conclusion is the same.  Given power, would you use it wisely, even to your own destruction?

The Matrix Trilogy is the same basic plot.  A powerful champion discovers his gift, decides to use it for the good of the people, and then discovers that it is not enough.  Ultimately he sacrifices himself against all odds and teams up with a former competitor to defeat a greater evil, which turns out to be the amoral Mr. Smith, a being who simply seeks to grow by consuming what others have made.  Mr. Smith steals the identity of others and replicates himself, creating a mindlesss mass of automatons in a dark world. 

And that's where you come in.

Three Solutions For TSA Gate Rape

The first, and best tongue-in-cheek solution by far is to send the TSA employees down to the border and have them working with Border Control to prevent illegal immigration.

The second is to apply the same standards to terrorist detention in Guantanamo (or on the battlefield) as we currently have for American citizens who fly.  Start groping the junk of a couple of terrorists and watch the ACLU and others scream.  And then ask yourself what kind of government would treat murderers the same as people who bought a ticket to fly an airplane.

The third solution is for those who claim we give up certain rights when we purchase a plane ticket.  If we have to give up the Fourth Amendment right to search and seizure, as well as the "zone of privacy," then surely profiling by age, gender, and religion is acceptable.  If the TSA and the Obama administration truly believe that we give up certain rights when we fly, then list them.  And explain why some rights are still inviolate, and others tossed aside at the security gate.

 Let's start putting warning labels on our boarding passes that you can be sexually assaulted and verbally abused upon purchase of a ticket.  Let's click a box on the airline website that states you might have your junk touched as a condition of flying. 

If they're serious about any of this, let's see them say it out loud.  But of course, they aren't.  They simply say it's necessary.  This isn't about safety, and never has been.  After 9/11, with the country united, George Bush decided to give the bureaucrats what they wanted.  He decided, along with a compliant Congress, to tell the American people to become sheep. They never trusted us, even though it was the American public who won so many early battles, from United 93 to the DC Sniper to Richard Reid.

We are the front line of defense in the War on Terror.  At no point have any of our elected leaders recognized this or passed laws or regulations supporting this. 

And so today, the best that can be said of Barack Obama and his administration is that he is just as bad on civil liberties and domestic terror prevention than George Bush.  The difference, is we have had 9 years of this, and it has been exposed as less than worthless.  The difference is that Obama won't even call it a War on Terror.  If we aren't in danger - then why the crazed security policies?  And why isn't Congress taking up Ron Paul's bill?  If we're going to give up rights, I want politicians to put their name and words on those laws.  Which ones of those rat bastards think this is a good idea?  Call your Congressperson and Senator and demand answers.

 

Uncertainty Gives Way In The Business Community, For A Time

Enterpreneurs and small businessman are all atwitter about the impending gold rush.  Not real gold, but instead a massive infusion of capital that will sweep across American business in the next year or two.  The crisis in 2008 forced a lot of people to the sidelines in terms of preserving capital.  The fear was of the unknown, and it has lasted for over two years.  Don't be fooled by the stock market - the gains have been mostly illusory in the last five months.  The real money in investment is working its way in as investors seek to jump in with both feet and make money now, while the government is divided.

Contrary to popular belief, government incentives don't do much for the economy.  They help pad bottom lines and subsidize unprofitable industries, but it's rare to find a government program that can really goose hiring or business creation.  The truth is government just isn't smart enough or fast enough to respond to the market.  We can see this in California bureaucrats signing incredibly short-sighted energy contracts or small business stimulus bills that come 12 months too late, all with the result of meaning very little to wealth creation.

Here's a little peek into what was going on in the minds of small businesses in 2008, and what they are going through now.

2008:

The big news story in late 2008 and early 2009 was the drying up of credit.  Without credit, businesses don't have a safety net should their AR fall behind or a client go bankrupt.  A lack of sources of funding  made it difficult for newly retired and laid-off workers start microbusinesses to keep them going after their severance and unemployment benefits ran off.  This is a traditional source of new businesses, from franchises to small shops and cafes.  Lack of credit added to the uncertainty, and so many people took their money and sat out, searching for safe harbor in municipal bonds and gold, if not just their bank accounts. 

And then the banking crisis hit, and the recognition that large amounts of cash in banks was a dangerous strategy.  Even thought the FDIC raised the limit, many small businesses with a cash cushion pulled their money out of the banks and put in into several different accounts.  Think for a moment what this does to your expansion and hiring plans.  When you're scared of losing all of your wealth in a run on the bank, are you going to invest in your business?  Are you going to make hiring decisions quickly, or only when absolutely necessary?  You hold off on everything and cross your fingers.

2009:

For those small businesses who were already in debt (most of us), a different dynamic occurred.  We all had lines of credit that were use to prevent shortfalls of cash, and with the bank crisis came the fear of elimination of those lines of credit.  Anyone in the home building business saw unatapped HELOC's getting cranked down, sometimes in the middle of refurbishing the kitchen, and while I personally didn't hear of it happening, I know several business owners who pulled out the maximum of their business line of credit and put the cash in multiple accounts.

Credit lines were down near 1.5% (and today are only 2.5%), a pittance to pay for access to credit.  It's just $1000 a year (written off in business interest) for every $40,000 you take out.  It makes no sense to pay that line of credit off at those rates.  You're better off investing, for a time.  It's better to pay $80 a month for access to money than need it and find the bank saying no.  If you have the means, you pack the money away and work on creating a cash surplus before you pay off the line of credit.  It's a good place to start from, as you take the loss in the first year, but spread it out over the better years, dropping your tax burden (say in 2011 when rates go up).  If you pay off the line of credit in your best year, the value of that payment is a dollar to dollar reduction in income taxs for limited partnerships and S-corps. 

2010:

Of course, that strategy depends entirely on your ability to make more money than you spend.  You look for a way to

For those businesses with thin margins, or those in industries the most affected by the housing crash (retail manufacturing and consumer spending are included in that), a different kind of calculation takes place. They're already in debt.  They already maxed out their lines of credit.  And while the low interest rates help you stay in business, you lack the ability to pay them off.  If interest rates go up, you lose everything.  But for the moment, you're at least in business.  And for many people, they could maintain their lifestyle if they just closed their eyes and pretended it was all going to work out.   Business ticked up a little, enough to prevent you from going out of business, but you aren't making headway on your debt.

That's more small businesses than you think.

2011:

The banking standard for a line of credit review was 5 years from your last review.  In the good times, you could go in and ask for more based on your revenue (typically 20% of the gross), and after five years the bank would review it.  Knowing this gave you time in 2009 and 2010, and as I pointed out, if you worked at it, you could cut spending and boost sales and use cash going forward.

Stop for a moment and ask yourself a question.  How many small businesses understand this?  Credit was easy to get for a long time, and then it was impossible.  For businesses that don't normally make large investments, the line of credit is not regularly tapped. It's a safety net that is convenient, but there is little oversight.  You just take it and put it back and check it at the end of the year.  So what happens if you're still in debt when the review comes?  You better hope your financials are sound - way better than when you started.  Banks don't want you to default, but if you do, they want to spread the losses over time.  A massive wave of defaults would break the bank, so to speak.  Those credit reviews are important for them to assess the health of their accounts.

So in 2011, with taxes probably going up, and bank reviews from 2006 coming due, businesses need to have made smart decisions if they want to stay in business.  All those people who maxed their line of credit in late 2008 need to have boosted their balance sheets to pay it off and create a cash surplus.  For those who can, or those who already did, 2011 will be a very, very good year.  Legislation will be stalled, so there won't be any nasty government surprises.  Companies have been stockpiling cash and are ready to spend it.  As more and more companies spend, their competitors will join in. 

Hiring of talented workers away from large corporations will increase, as the fear of leaving stability will decrease, as that resulting churn will mean more employment (though not enough to impact the overall rate).  In short, we're going to see a lull of the storm before the impact of QE2 is realized.  For those companies and people prepared and flush with cash, it's going to be a big opportunity to grow.

2012:

The presidential election, along with the continued decline in the finances of the mainstream media will lead to a bullish 2012.  Democrats will be focused on economic armageddon, recognizing that while the economy has stabilized and improved, the conditions for core blocs of their voters (the young and minority) won't see a lot of improvement.  In fact, failing cities and states will continue to see massive cuts in spending, affecting Democratic constituencies most of all (unions, government workers, and those dependent on state aid).  The media, beset by its own woes, will be affected and their reporting will share that pessimism.  Attempts to talk up the economy to benefit Obama won't work, and bailouts of states and industry sectors won't make it through the Republican House.

The resulting financial implosion of blue states will doom the re-election chances of Obama, while pushing more state legislatures into Republican hands.  The gridlock in 2012 will be good for business, but the recognition of the failure of statism will cause tremendous turmoil in the middle classs.  Some businesses will do spectalularly, bouyed by amazing techological advances and smart employee management.  Others will flame out, and these big names will  be the big stories in the press.  While the economy continue to grow, it still won't make a significant dent in the unemployment numbers, and Gen Y, in particular, will find themselves learning the hard lessons that the Depression Generation learned about scarcity.

Businesses that have not cleaned up their balance sheet won't last much past 2012.  Credit lines from 2007 and 2008 will force the hard decisions about staying open or giving up the ghost.

2013:

This is where we find out what we're made of.  Is the era of American exceptionalism over? Are the problems of a complex, wealthy society to great to manage? Do we have the leadership to weather the storm as responsible adults, and the voter populace to avoid flipping back and forth between political philosophies?  We'll be into our fifth year of the "new normal" at this point.  Entrepreneurs will understand the new rules and either discover new ways to grow, or will instead play it safe and start heading back inside major corporations who receive lots of government regulations to help them stay afloat.  In 2013 is where we'll make our real decisions.  Will we turn into France, or continue to run a fre market where small businesses can grow and swallow their former name-brand competitors?  Will we put a fix to our entitlement program, or will we just push it out further?  The crisis will be real in 2013.

Summary:

2013 is three years away.  If you want to prosper, you'll need to have eliminated all of your personal and business debt and be ready to handle whatever comes.  This is true for all households.  We've been granted a reprieve by the money system, but it's short-term.  Can you alter your habits for now, and for good? 

Glenn Beck and Dave Ramsey talk about this all the time. If you are in debt, you cannot be free.  Push comes to shove and most men are tempted to sacrifice their principles for the safety of their family.  If you have lived the last ten or twenty years as a debtor, it's going to be hard, but you don't want to find yourself desperate in desperate times.  If too many of us find ourselves there, then freedom will be lost.

A nation in debt doesn't have the luxury of ignoring the siren calls of a savior.  The strength of this country has always been its economy and the will of the people. If we don't prepare now, we won't be able to resist the tide.  Your job in the next three years is to prepare yourself for the future, and be a voice of reason to those around you.  If you don't, you'll be tempted by the voices of fear who promise you bread and shelter at the mere cost of your free will.

 

 

Those Who Believe In Violent Revolution Dismiss The Success Of Democracy

The blogosphere is abuzz over comments made by crazed cartoonist Ted Rall exhorting his fellow leftists to drop the mask and prepare for violent revolution.

No, really.  He's serious. 

We are here because the U.S. is going to end soon. There’s going to be an intense, violent, probably haphazard struggle for control. It’s going to come down to us versus them. The question is: What are you going to do about it?…

Rall asks where peaceful protest has gotten us on MSNBC. {video at the link}

Boy, scratch a leftist, find a totalitarian thug, right?  Well, not right, because the kind of person pitching this kind of nonsense on the Left is equivalent to those Hutaree Militia folks who talked a big game about starting a revolution until the feds came.  They were then exposed as a dozen, frightened people who couldn't run a lemonade stand without federal subsidy.   

Let me state my position very clearly.  Violent revolution would destroy the Republic.  Any person who takes up arms against the government in hopes of overthrowing the social order or cleansing the nation of one side or another is a civilizational enemy on par with Islamic extremists.  On the Left and on the Right, people who suggest violence as a way of solving their political problems should be shunned and driven off the airwaves.  I'm serious about that.

Planning For The Future: Missouri Tea Parties

The election is over, and the natural inclination is to drop our guard and wait until 2012, but the role of the Tea Parties is just beginning.

1)  The Lame Duck session: 

Harry Reid somehow managed to hold on, and he has made it clear he plans to ram more legislation through in the lame duck.  I know it's the holidays, but we have to be ramped up and make it clear to Claire McCaskill that we are going to hold her to account for her actions.  Lame ducks are not meant to jam legislation through after a historic loss.  We must hold the line.

2) We need to be vigilant: 

The Republicans took the House and they increased their margins in statehouses all across the country.  Yes, they won, but they are politicians and still need to be watched.  Major legislation won't be coming down the pike on a national basis, but we need to listen to what Republicans are saying and be involved in the conversation.  Social media, including blogs, facebook, and twitter, are once again paramount, as the next year we spend keeping the chatter up on what is acceptable and non-acceptable behavior.

3) State and Local matters:

In Missouri, we need to turn our attention to state and local governance.  We know we are targeting the Arnold and Creve Coeur City Councils locally, but this blog is open to those statewide who need help publicizing their fights against local corruption and governance.

4) Primary considerations:

If you have a candidate that you really, really want to run in 2012, now is the time to start organizing for them.  Work on the policy briefs.  Practice speaking.  Dig through voter rolls and plan your strategy.  The Purgason/Blunt race wasn't close, and if you want to avoid a repeat for your favored candidate, start working now.

5) Voter Rolls and Robin Carnahan:   Robin Carnahan has stated in federal court that it is not her responsibility to clean the voter rolls, despite the violence done to honest elections during the time Missouri ACORN was active.  Well, if Robin won't do it, then the people will do what government can't or won't do.  In Houston, True the Vote made a major impact in the months before the election by pointing out fraudulent voter registrations.  If you really want to make a difference, than groups of volunteers all across the state need to learn how to look at the voters rolls, how to challenge them, and how to work with local election authorities and the Secretary of State to achieve results.  Our goal is to mimic the success of a blogger versus King County in Seattle and a Tea Party activist versus Harris County in Houston.

Finally, I can say this.  The results of the election are not the story of 2010.  There were major victories, and some disappointing losses, but the important trend was the involvement of voters in the political process.  All across the nation, individuals stood up and got involved, refusing to be told by the media or establishment politicians how things were going to work.  If you were involved, you won.  The only way you can ever lose is to stop participating.

There was no Taking America Back.  It was always, Waking America Up.  In the last four years, we have seen tremendous involvement in the political process from both sides.  The election of Barack Obama and the counter-election of a Republican House Majority has been good for the country, because it brought new people into the process.  Ultimately, that's all we can ask for.  As individuals, we can't take or be held responsible for campaign wins and losses.  But when we do get involved, we improve the political discourse. Don't let the media run on the story that this electoral season was about anger.

It was about responsibility.  A free people govern themselves.  Be grateful you live in a country where you can make a difference.  In January, a Republican House Majority will be sworn that will oppose a sitting leader.  The ceremony will take place withot threats of violence.  The peaceable transfer of power will occur without incident, just as it did in 2006 and 2008.  That's not to be taken lightly.  No matter your political views, your work in this political cycle and in future cycles is the basis of that transfer.

Thank you for all you do. 

Pelosi Ably Demonstrates The Rot That Is Government Healthcare

A free market system allows those with a combination of luck, talent, or hard work to amass large amounts of wealth.  The result of this is some people have more money than other, and thus more access to, well, everything, from politics to healthcare.

A centrally controlled system attempts to set rules for everything, to bring about an equality of results for the mass of people.  But the end point, is the same as a free market system. Some people have more power, and thus more access to everything, from politics to healthcare.

Set aside debates about capitalism and socialism - the real difference between the two is who you want running your lives - a cabal of people, at least some who got there through hard work and applied intelligence, or a cabal of bureaucrats and politicians who got there promising other people's money to the masses.  Both cabals will enrich themselves.  

You can guess what side I am on.  I may not like greedy bankers, but I loathe bureaucrats and politicians with no discernible skill (other than lying) who are treated with respect because they promise to steal from the productive. 

THE FUTURE OF HEALTHCARE

Nancy Pelosi has been so very kind to provide the perfect example of how the system works. She's rich, powerful, uses her influence to protect her constituents (Starkist is always getting breaks, headquartered in her district - recently Guam was not forced to pay minimum wage under Nancy's law. Guess who employs most of the people on Guam?).

But I'm not talking about tuna.  I'm talking about asbestos, specifically the lawsuits that took billions from industry and were strongly influenced by one the recently deceased Fred Baron.  In addition to being  a trial lawyer, Baron was also the former finance chief for John Edwards and a head of the Kerry Victory campaign. He has been a major benefactor to Democrats for decades.  His ill-gotten gain helped put many of today's lawmakers in office, while putting tens of thousands out of work.  And to top it off, it was revealed that Baron was the man paying off Rielle Hunter, the mistress of John Edwards.

He was no angel,in other words.

So in 2008, having being diagnosed with late-stage cancer and needing a miracle, Fred Baron, the rich and powerful Fred Baron, wants to use a drug to give him a few weeks or months more to live.  But he can't get approval.  He asked around to celebrities and politicians.  He promises money.  But with all his fortune, the drug company wouldn't agree to make him a special case.

The younger Baron posted an open plea online to Biogen, noting that Bill Clinton, Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa and even the head of the Food and Drug Administration had urged the company to reconsider.

"You talk about mental anguish," Blue recounted. "Fred, every day, would wake up and he said, 'Am I going to get the drug?' "

Fred was out of luck. But he had one last card to play.  The Speaker of the House.

Others were supportive, she said, but Pelosi "put her heart and soul" into the cause, as did Harkin.

Somehow – Blue still isn't sure how – Pelosi cajoled the FDA to find a legal justification that let Mayo administer the drug, even without Biogen's consent.

"Nancy figured out a way," she said.

The drug beat back the cancer for a few days, but not enough.

Get that?  One of the richest men in America couldn't force a company to give him a drug.  All his rich friends and celebrity friends and his political friends couldn't help him.  With all his money, he couldn't force a company to do something.  But Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House could.  And Nancy Pelosi did.  Using the power of her office, she compelled an executive branch agency to create a special rule for a person whose only connection to Pelosi was the money he gave her and her fellow Democrats.  

Fred Baron was not a voter in her district. He was a cash cow who had performed well, and because he had a rich widow who would continue to pony up, Nancy Pelosi used her influence to break the rules.  Because she could.  Baron gave millions to Democrats, giving over $5 million to Texas Democrats in the last four years of his life, and hundreds of thousands more to national campaigns and Senate committees.  Of course he got personal attention from the "world's most powerful woman."

Melanie Shouse died of cancer.  Melanie Shouse, formerly of St Louis, has been held up as an example of why we needed healthcare by no less than the president because she didn't see a doctor when she found a lump, out of fear of the cost.  She did eventually receive help through Medicaid, once she applied, but she died last year, and her death was used as a political prop to help pass healthcare.  Local activists rallied to use her death as a moral call for universal healthcare.  But it's not really universal, is it?  

Tell me.  Would Nancy Pelosi stoop down to help someone who hadn't given millions of dollars to elect Democrats? Shouse was an activist, one so committed that she wanted her death used in a political sense.  She worked hard for what she believed in, but she was never going to get any assistance from a politician.  She wasn't connected enough.  She wasn't important enough to the Democrats.

But Fred Baron, and his surviving relatives, serve a purpose to the politically powerful.  So Fred Baron gets what none of the rest of would receive - special treatment from the Speaker.

This is what makes healthcare so shameful.  The lies we are told, in the name of power. Nancy Pelosi will move heaven and earth to give a rich donor a few days more to live, but she won't talk to the FDA about Avastin.  She won't get involved in the decisions that give precious months to cancer survivors, but she will intervene for those who write her checks.

This should be front and center in the news.  It is the clearest example of patronage politics out there, and it goes to the heart of the healthcare debate.

When the government gets to decide who gets drugs and treatments, they decide who lives and who dies, and how they live and die.  It's apparent that Nancy Pelosi likes having that power.  She craves it.  

How do you feel about it?

USA! USA! USA!

We don't need another Reagan.  We don't need new ideas.  We need to remember our own history and greatness, and do what is needed to preserve liberty for this generation, and for the next.