Democrat Nominee for S.C. Senate Alvin Greene

South Carolina’s Democrats are poised to decide whether to overturn the results of the primary election that saw Alvin Greene, an unemployed military veteran, win the nomination for U.S. Senate. The state party’s executive committee is meeting Thursday in Columbia to hear a protest by former state lawmaker Vic Rawl, whom Greene defeated in the June 8 primary. Rawl has said malfunctions in voting machines or software may have caused him to lose race. He said voters have told him they meant to vote for him but saw Greene’s name on their screens instead. The executive committee could uphold the election, order a new primary or find that problems were so significant that Rawl should be declared the winner. So far no evidence of tampering or voting abnormalities have been determined and South Carolina’s Board of Elections told FoxNews.com it has no plans to investigate the vote.

Greene, who managed to win 59 percent of the vote, raised no funds and did no campaigning, baffling leaders of the South Carolina Democratic Party.

“It’s very suspicious,” South Carolina Democratic Party Communications Director Keina Page said in an interview last week.

U.S. House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., meanwhile, has called Greene a “plant” and has demanded an investigation into his candidacy. 

Greene’s father first told Fox News that his son would not be attending Thursday’s state party’s meeting but then said “maybe” he would show up.

Fox News’ Carl Cameron and The Associated Press contributed to this report 

Last week President Obama signed a law authorizing the United States Treasury to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion, during that time he did another one of his favorite paradoxical quips in a speech in which he discussed his commitment to frugality. Terrence P. Jeffrey of Human Events, suggests we all review the White House website and review the President’s Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) own figures.

I love the title on the top of the OMB page: “A new era of responsibility.” This from a budget that is adding to the deficit annually, what was the entire national debt for the first 180 plus years of this republic. The propagandists at the White House have nothing over the advocates of “newspeak” in Orwell’s 1984.

Jeffrey observes that:

When calculated by the average annual percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) that Obama will spend during his presidency, he is on track to become the biggest-spending president since 1930, the first year reported on the OMB’s historical chart of spending as a percentage of GDP.

When calculated by the average annual percentage of GDP that Obama will borrow during his presidency, he is on track to become the greatest spender and debtor since Franklin D. Roosevelt in terms of real spending.

Thought George Bush was bad? Obama will outspend and out-borrow the man that the Obama Administration routinely uses as a punching bag because of Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility and who, when in office, was often seen by friends and foes alike as a “Big Government Republican.”

Obama does not enjoy the excuses that FDR had for his dramatic expansion of government. After all, we do recall the Great Depression and World War II. In spite of this, Obama will even out spend this icon of big government.

Spending as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product is the gold standard for determining real spending. Under FDR (from 1933 to 1945), federal spending averaged 19.35 percent of the GDP. Under Obama, the estimates from the President’s own Office of Management and Budget is 24.13 percent of the GDP. That is about 25 percent more than FDR’s expenditure during the two greatest challenges of the 20th century — worldwide war and global depression.

What may be most startling is the unique distinction that both Obama and FDR share. According to the OMB’s calculations, they are the only two presidents since 1930 to have annual deficits that reached double figures as a percentage of GDP.

In the same vein, Obama will have a deficit this year of 10.6 percent of the Gross Domestic Product; the last time the deficit hit double digits as a percentage of GDP was 1945 — at the end of World War II.

Jeffrey’s most profound observation in the article was in regards to comparing our current challenges with those of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s in the latter’s efforts to end the Cold War. Without firing a shot and without having a budget that exceed 6 percent of our GDP, Reagan put the Soviets into bankruptcy and ended the Cold War. Obama is going to have a difficult time explaining the fiscal mess he has created for us.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Kevin Price is the host of “Price of Business”, M-F at 11 am on CNN 650 and CBS Radio and can be frequently found in the “Strategy Room” at FoxNews.com. A syndicated columnist whose article appear at Reuters, Chicago Sun Times, USA Today, and other media, his BizPlusBlog.com is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati. His articles also appear regularly at AmericanDailyReview.com and RenewAmerica.com, Examiner.com, and others.

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Other articles of interest:

My race is “American”

Will Stupak be bought on Demcare?

Weapon of Massa distraction: Cold showers and hot conspiracies

Video flashbacks: Eric Massa attacks Rush Limbaugh, embraces Eliot Spitzer

WASHINGTON (AP) – It’s alive.

The Medicare end-of-life planning provision that 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said was tantamount to ‘death panels’ for seniors is staying in the latest Democratic health care bill unveiled Thursday.

The provision allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and painful decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death.

For years, federal laws and policies have encouraged Americans to think ahead about end-of-life decisions, and make their wishes known in advance through living wills and similar legal documents. But when House Democrats proposed this summer to pay doctors for end-of-life counseling, it touched off a wave of suspicion and anger.

Prominent Republicans singled it out as a glaring example of government overreach.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, at the time a lead negotiator on health care legislation, told constituents at a town hall meeting they had good reason to question the proposal.

“I don’t have any problem with things like living wills, but they ought to be done within the family,” he said. “We should not have a government program that determines you’re going to pull the plug on grandma.”

Thursday, the sponsor of the provision said the barrage of criticism may have actually helped.

“There is nothing more basic than giving someone the option of speaking with their doctor about how they want to be treated in the case of an emergency,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. “I think the outrageous and vindictive attacks may have backfired to help raise awareness about this problem, which is why it’s been kept in the bill.”

The legislation would allow Medicare to pay for a counseling session with a doctor or clinical professional once every five years. The bill calls for such sessions to be “completely” voluntary, and prohibits the encouragement or promotion of suicide or assisted suicide.

The counseling provision is supported by doctors’ groups and AARP, the seniors’ lobby. It was not included in health care bills passed by two Senate committees.

This belongs to the party of our President!  My children are growing up in a country I do not recognize!!!!

Why Joe Lieberman caucuses with the democrats, I will  never know.  But between him and Sen. Robert Byrd (D), the Democrats have no chance of gaining 60 votes to pass Reid’s health care plan.  Still, the fight is not over until the liberals plan is dead and true health reform, that is in the publics best interest, is passed. 

From Politico:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he’d back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care reform bill. 

Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program — even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid’s has said the Senate bill will. 

“We’re trying to do too much at once,” Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now.” 

Lieberman added that he’d vote against a public option plan “even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line.” 

His comments confirmed that Reid is short of the 60 votes needed to advance the bill out of the Senate, even after Reid included the opt-out provision. Several other moderate Democrats expressed skepticism at the proposal as well, but most of the wavering Democratic senators did not go as far as Lieberman Tuesday, saying they were waiting to see the details. 

Lieberman did say he’s “strongly inclined” to vote to proceed to the debate, but that he’ll ultimately vote to block a floor vote on the bill if it isn’t changed first. 

“I’ve told Sen. Reid that if the bill stays as it is now I will vote against cloture,” he said.

“I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company,” Lieberman added. “It’s just asking for trouble – in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay and probably all people will have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up because there’s going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid.” 

Lieberman said he “very much” wants to vote for health care reform but that he’s worried about stifling “the economic recovery we’re in” or adding to the federal debt. 

“I feel this way about a national, government-created health insurance company – whether it’s a trigger or not,” he said. “My answer is – we’re – we have the opportunity to do some great reforms here. These exchanges that we’re talking about, I think, are going to drive competition and probably bring the cost of health insurance down or at least contain the cost increases for a lot of people. Let’s give that two or three years to see how it works to see how it works before we talk about creating another entitlement that will end up increasing the national debt and putting more of a burden on taxpayers.”

In the last Presidential election, the only two serious contenders on the Democrats side were Barack Obama (who eventually won) and Sen. Hillary Clinton. Both used very populist rhetoric and to varying degrees, both sounded as thought they were pulling chapters out of the works of Karl Marx. Yet there is a cloud that hangs over these “poor Democrats.” That is the political realities that financially drove both of their political campaigns.

Personal income is a strong indicator of ones relationship to the constituents they represent. Barack Obama made ten times more than Sen. John McCain (who became the Republican nominee in the last year) accounted, with over $4 million in income. Meanwhile his wife cries poverty over having to have to make “outrageous” student loan payments to their old schools — Princeton, Columbia, and Harvard (where’s the violin music when you need it?).

In the same vein, Sen. Hillary Clinton, made an impressive five times more than Obama at approximately $20 million. My mathematical skills suggests I refrain from attempting to calculate the difference between McCain and her.

But personal wealth is only the beginning, there is also the lesson we learn from those who supported their campaigns. From the media we would have to assume that McCain certainly received much more from his rich Republican buddies than either (or even both) of the Democrats. The reality could not be further from the truth, Sen. John McCain raised a fraction of what Obama raised (who broke a presidential campaign record) and during the primaries, he could not keep pace with Clinton.

The debate about wealth, poverty, and politics, is really quite cloudy. I sincerely doubt that homeless and other poor people (the alleged beneficiaries of Democrat policies) are fueling their Presidential campaigns. In fact, a Fortune Magazine article implied that business was voting for Hillary. What kind of business? The big corporations that can actually afford liberal and big government policies and see such as a way of keeping smaller competitors at bay. We saw from the so-called stimulus packages (designed by Democrats in Congress, yet supported by both parties) in September of 2008 and again in the early days of the Obama Administration, that some of the biggest beneficiaries were the largest corporations in the United States.

The truth of the matter is that the mega rich support liberals over conservatives. In fact, Obama’s support was 3 to 1 in that category. The reasons the rich supports liberal candidates might be quite cynical. Major corporations know they can absorb the regulations, tax requirements, and other obligations that come with being large. They also know such laws could put their aspiring competition — the rising enterprises often driven by the middle class — out of existence. Americans need to get serious about this issue and start by asking the question, what type of policies actually help the poor?

Kevin Price is the host of “Price of Business”, M-F at 11 am on CNN 650 and CBS Radio and can be frequently found in the “Strategy Room” at FoxNews.com. A syndicated columnist whose article appear at Reuters, Chicago Sun Times, USA Today, and other media, his BizPlusBlog.com is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.

His articles also appear regularly at AmericanDailyReview.com and RenewAmerica.com, Examiner.com, and others.

For some reason, this one is different.  Though I cannot confirm if the name of the author is genuine, or an alias, I really don’t care.  It is the message that intrigues me.  The articulate sarcasm of the content resonates with a sense of irony, and humor that strikes to the core of many patriotic conservatives.

Sometimes there is truth in humor.

DIVORCE AGREEMENT 2009

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950′s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce.  I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course.  Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let’s just end it on friendly terms.  We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion.  That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement.  After that, it should be relatively easy!  Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU, and abortion clinics.  Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell.

We’ll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens.  We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms and rednecks.  We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.  You can have the peaceniks, and war protesters.  When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.

We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.  You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain.  You can also have the U.N., but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars.  You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.  We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.  We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We’ll practice trickledown economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this?  If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete.  In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall

Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda and Nancy Pelosi with you.

WASHINGTON

The 62-year-old, moderate Maine lawmaker voted on Tuesday for a Democratic health care bill, breaking with her party and giving a major boost to President Barack Obama’s drive to expand coverage to millions of Americans.

“When history calls, history calls,” Snowe told her colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee, several hours into the debate.

Snowe had kept virtually all of Washington guessing how she would vote, not even letting Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., or Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana in on her secret. She did call her Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Tuesday morning to break the news about her plans.

When she did speak publicly in committee, she caught Washington’s attention.

“The status quo approach has produced one glaring common denominator, that is that we have a problem that is growing worse, not better,” she said in explaining her support for the bill.

There was much relief in Democratic ranks when she finally said, “Aye,” and the bill was approved 14-9. For months, Obama had pursued her support in phone calls and meetings. Snowe could be the Democrats’ 60th vote required to overcome Republican objections to the bill and give the final version the barest quality of bipartisanship.

At the White House, shortly before the vote, the president singled out “in particular Senator Snowe,” for thanks.

Republicans have for weeks grumbled about punishing Snowe should she vote “yes” at any stage of the lengthy process. One option long discussed: denying her the coveted senior Republican seat on the Senate Commerce Committee.

The best they could do publicly Tuesday was to make clear that she told them her decision before the Democrats found out and to keep communication open with her. Snowe, after all, might well be the sole Republican negotiator at the table when Reid hashes out a final measure for a Senate vote. If so, she represents the GOP’s best chance at winning votes on changes they want.

But Snowe signaled that this could be a one-shot deal.

“My vote today is my vote today. It does not forecast my vote tomorrow,” the third-term senator said.

Not so, said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.: “Trust me, trust me: A vote for this bill will be a vote for that bill.”

Breaking with her party is a role Snowe has played many times, from her vote for Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus bill to her defiance of then-President George W. Bush on a bill to provide health care to millions of uninsured children.

Snowe also was one of the “Gang of 14″ Democratic and Republican senators who resolved a standoff over judicial nominations.

In Maine, former Gov. Angus King, a political independent, compared Snowe’s decision to the late Republican Sen. Margaret Chase Smith’s “Declaration of Conscience” speech in which she called for the nation—and her own party—to reject McCarthyism.

“This is a vote of conscience and a vote of concern for her constituents and concern for the country. And I think it took plenty of courage,” King said. “I don’t think it’s possible for any of us to fully appreciate the pressure she’s under and has been under to vote with her Republican colleagues.

Said Maine Democratic Gov. John Baldacci: “She wants to move health care forward, she wants to be part of the solution.”

Snowe may face a rough time with her Republican colleagues in the Senate but not necessarily in fiercely independent Maine.

“I don’t think there’s any possible negative political implication,” said Sandy Maisel, director of Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs at Colby College in Waterville, Maine. “She is untouchable electorally in the state of Maine.”

____

Associated Press writers David Sharp and Glenn Adams in Maine contributed to this report.

Photo courtesy of www.blogs.kansas.com

The United States government has, for years, put a premium on the act of voting.  The idea is, the more people voting, the better.  Are you getting your license renewed?  Apply for a voters’ registration!  Are you applying for Food Stamps?  Go ahead and register to vote! This idea, however, goes completely against the grain of trying to maintain a responsible government.  Our Founding Fathers believed in the idea of “quality of vote” versus “quantity of vote,” which is the mantra we have today.

We all know that in the early days of our republic, an entire gender (females) and ethnic group (Blacks) were not allowed to vote.  What most of us are not taught, however is that the vast majority of the population (regardless of race) was not allowed to vote in those early years.  Voting was largely determined by states and virtually all of them had property ownership requirements that excluded, by many estimates, as much as 90 percent of the population.  The discrimination practiced by the early leaders was not nearly as inclined toward race, as it was making sure that those who participate had a vested interest in the process.  Those with property had to pay taxes directly, giving them (in the eyes of the early leaders) a right to participate in the process.

The classical economist John Stuart Mill argued that, if any person was receiving money from the government, they should be prohibited from voting until they were financially free from any assistance.  This idea would not be merely welfare recipients, but corporate “fat cats” getting subsidies from Uncle Sam.  Mill argued that there was no way to maintain a small and reasonable government if people could vote benefits for themselves.  It was similar to serving on the board of an organization and being allowed to vote on something that directly benefits you.  That would be bad form and everyone would expect you to “abstain.” “Abstain” we all should do if we are eating at the trough.

Unfortunately, that was then, and this is now.  Such a proposal would not be politically palpable.  What if there was a third way beyond the “anyone with a pulse can vote” mentality pervasive today and the elitist position found earlier in our nation’s history?  It is against the law for candidates to campaign for office within a certain distance of voting locations.  That is why, when you walk up, you are bombarded with people offering you flyers up to an invisible line.  Yet, the single most important information — party affiliation – is actually seen on your ballots.  Worse still, we allow people to vote ”straight ticket,” requiring absolutely no thought at all.

To restore integrity in the ballot box, we should remove party affiliation from every ballot entirely and from voting locations.  This will require every person who goes in to vote to know exactly for whom they are voting and why.  They should not be provided a “cheat sheet” in the form of the ballot for the most important test they take for liberty each election cycle.  Those who cry “foul” will be implying their followers cannot read or lack the faculties to make such decisions.  What an insult to their constituents.  Without party identification, our elections will become a sober task in maintaining our liberty and not a celebration of ignorance.  Will we have fewer voters?  Most definitely, but we will have more thoughtful voters.

Kevin Price is the host of “Price of Business”, M-F at 11 am on CNN 650 and CBS Radio and can be frequently found in the “Strategy Room” at FoxNews.com. A syndicated columnist whose article appear at Reuters, Chicago Sun Times, USA Today, and other media, his BizPlusBlog.com is ranked in the top 1 percent of all blogs by Technorati.

His articles also appear regularly at AmericanDailyReview.com and RenewAmerica.com, Examiner.com, and others.

In another attempt by the Democrats to create an illusion of bipartisan support for their health care proposal, they again crossed the line from misleading to false claims.  Just because Dole, like many other Republicans, continue to push for bipartisan health care reform, it does not mean that the support is for the Democrats proposed legislation.

While Dole has pushed for bipartisan reform, a spokesman for the former presidential candidate told the Times that the ad was “deceptive” because it strongly suggested Dole was supporting Democrats’ health care legislation. “That is patently false,” spokesman Michael Marshall said.

The DNC has decided to remove the ad.

Read the full story in The New York Times