Governor Palin


4/7 3pm EDT Palin Bachmann Overdrive !


Minneapolis !

Tune In to our Live Rally with Governor Sarah Palin


My friends,

Tomorrow, I have the honor and privilege of welcoming Governor Sarah Palin to my home state of Minnesota, where she will join me on the campaign trail for a rally at the Minneapolis Convention Center.

I want to let you know that just because you’re not in the area, it doesn’t mean you can’t take part in the event. The rally will start at 2pm CT, and it will be streaming live on my website:

www.michelebachmann.com.

Sean Hannity will also be joining us in Minnesota tomorrow, and he will be filming his TV show right from the rally. I hope you are able to tune in and help me make this a memorable occasion!

It’s an exciting time to be a conservative in this country right now, and I ask you all to stay engaged and keep up the fight! I also wanted to take this opportunity and encourage you to contribute to my campaign. Let’s send a message to Washington this November that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi won’t ever forget!

Please follow this link to make a donation of $25, $50, $100 or more to my campaign.

Thank You for your continued support, prayers and encouragement.

Sincerely,

Michele Bachmann

Prepared and paid for by Bachmann for Congress, P.O. Box 25950, Woodbury, MN 55125, info@michelebachmann.com.
Advertisements
For Immediate Release

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Contact: Dave Dziok-dave@michelebachmann.com

Governor Palin to Join Representative Bachmann on the Campaign Trail

U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-06) announced today that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will come to Minnesota to assist Bachmann’s re-election campaign on April 7, 2010.
“There is absolutely no one more in tune with the hearts and minds of everyday Americans than Governor Palin, and I’m excited to welcome her back to our beautiful state this spring,” Bachmann said.

Both Governor Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann are well-known and respected conservative leaders whose bold and unwavering stances in defending the U.S. Constitution and commonsense approaches to issues like health care, taxes and government bailouts have attracted millions to their message.
“It didn’t take the American people long to see through the extreme liberal agenda of President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress,” Bachmann said. “We saw American’s frustration start in the form of tea party protests in states from coast to coast. It continued with the health care town halls throughout last summer. But we saw it come into full focus yesterday in conservative Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, taking back a Senate seat that was held by Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy for decades. The American people have spoken, and the momentum is clearly at the backs of conservatives heading into the 2010 elections.”
Details about Governor Palin’s visit will be released as they become available. In the coming weeks, please visit www.michelebachmann.com for more information.

###

Prepared and paid for by Bachmann for Congress, P.O. Box 25950, Woodbury, MN 55125, info@michelebachmann.com.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Bachmann: A Conservative Call to Acti…“, posted with vodpod

Thanks to RJ at Paul Revere’s Riders for posting this clip. This government has to be brought under control. Get involved. Post your comments. Get involved and do it NOW. Obama’s agenda is an Obammunist nation, followed by a socialist NWO with one world governance. They will live in luxery sucking the life blood from people like the leeches they are. They will not lift the third world to our standard of living but will drive this nation down to the level of Obama’s native Kenya. We must start now and effect a change in 2012 and finish by 2012. Thereafter we must be forever vigilent.

Please pass this video around. Re-post it or e-mail the link.

WANNA SEE SOME LIBERAL HEADS EXPLODE ?

THE VIEW CRITIQUES SARAH PALIN 2012 PRESIDENTIAL AD

It would be great if either Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann ran in 2012. Any way it makes a point of what a dud we have with President Pussyboy. Pass this around or re-post it. A thanks to MJ for posting these over at The Mad Jewess. Take a visit.

SPformagazinecoverImage1

October 16, 2009 4:0

By Sarah Palin

Given that we’re spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to think about what we’ll be driving on them. For years to come, most of what we drive will be powered, at least in part, by diesel fuel or gasoline. To fuel that driving, we need access to oil. The less use we make of our own reserves, the more we will have to import, which leads to a number of harmful consequences. That means we need to drill here and drill now.

We rely on petroleum for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides to pharmaceuticals. Ac­cord­ing to the Energy Information Ad­min­is­tra­tion, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest extent.

Those who oppose domestic drilling are motivated primarily by environmental considerations, but many of the countries we’re forced to import from have few if any environmental-protection laws, and those that do exist often go unenforced. In effect, American environmentalists are preventing responsible development here at home while supporting irresponsible development overseas.

My home state of Alaska shows how it’s possible to be both pro-environment and pro-resource-development. Alaskans would never support anything that endangered our pristine air, clean water, and abundant wildlife (which, among other things, provides many of us with our livelihood). The state’s government has made safeguarding resources a priority; when I was governor, for instance, we created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for any potential environmental risks.

Alaska also shows how oil drilling is thoroughly compatible with energy conservation and renewable-energy development. Over 20 percent of Alas­ka’s electricity currently comes from renewable sources, and as governor I put forward a long-term plan to increase that figure to 50 percent by 2025. Alaska’s comprehensive plan identifies renewable options across the state that can help rural villages transition away from expensive diesel-generated electricity — allowing each community to choose the solution that best fits its needs. That’s important in any energy plan: Tempting as they may be to central planners, top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions are recipes for failure.

For the same reason, the federal government shouldn’t push a single, uni­versal approach to alternative-powered vehicles. Electric cars might work in Los Angeles, but they don’t work in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. And while electric and hybrid cars have their advantages, producing the electricity to power them still requires an energy source. For the sake of the environment, that energy should be generated from the cleanest source available.

Natural gas is one promising clean alternative. It contains fewer pollutants than other fossil fuels, it’s easier to collect and process, and it is found throughout our country. In Alaska, we’re developing the largest private-sector energy project in history — a 3,000-mile, $40 billion pipeline to transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas to markets across the United States. Onshore and offshore na­tural gas from Alaska and the Lower 48 can satisfy a large part of our energy needs for decades, bringing us closer to energy independence. Whether we use it to power natural-gas cars or to run natural-gas power plants that charge electric cars — or ideally for both — natural gas can act as a clean “bridge fuel” to a future when more renewable sources are available.

In addition to drilling, we need to build new refineries. America currently has roughly 150 refineries, down from over 300 in the 1970s. Due mainly to environmental regulations, we haven’t built a major new refinery since 1976, though our oil consumption has increased significantly since then. That’s no way to secure our energy supply. The post-Katrina jump in gas prices proved that we can’t leave ourselves at the mercy of a hurricane that knocks a few refineries out of commission.

Building an energy-independent Amer­ica will mean a real economic stimulus. It will mean American jobs that can never be shipped overseas. Think about how much of our trade deficit is fueled by the oil we import — sometimes as much as half of the total. Through this massive transfer of wealth, we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could be invested in our economy. Instead it goes to foreign countries, including some repressive regimes that use it to fund activities that threaten our security.

Reliance on foreign sources of energy weakens America. When a riot breaks out in an OPEC nation, or a developing country talks about nationalizing its oil industry, or a petro-dictator threatens to cut off exports, the probability is great that the price of oil will shoot up. Even in friendly nations, business and financial decisions made for local reasons can de­stabilize Amer­i­ca’s energy market, since the price we pay for foreign oil is subject to rising and falling exchange rates. Decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy will reduce the impact of world events on our economy.

In the end, energy independence is not just about the environment or the economy. It’s about freedom and confidence. It’s about building a more secure and peaceful America, an America in which our energy needs will not be subject to the whims of nature, currency speculators, or madmen in possession of vast oil reserves.

Alternative sources of energy are part of the answer, but only part. There’s no getting around the fact that we still need to “drill, baby, drill!” And if those in D.C. say otherwise, we need to tell them: “Yes, we can!”

— Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009, and the Republican candidate for vice ­president in 2008. This article appears in the November 2, 2009, issue of National Review.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Nzc2ZjhjY2MwMWUyM2M4NTM5YWRjYTcwMTEzZTNjMTc#more

Want to host your very own radio show for free???
Go now to http://www.uswebtalkradio.com

Makes more sense than the total BS coming out of Washington D. C. Source.

Our politicians on both sides just don’t get it. Time for a house cleaning or a change like a dirty diaper on a baby. Start now, make a change in 2010 and finish no later than 2012.

21 September 2009

By Adrienne Ross

President Obama could learn a thing or two from Governor Palin.

The president is in my state, the state of New York. In fact, today he will be a mere 35 miles from where I live as he speaks at Hudson Valley Community College.

Yesterday he made media round after media round, causing some to wonder if these plethora of appearances are too much of a “good” thing.

The New York Daily news reported:

Obama will push his health care reforms on five morning news shows today, an unprecedented presidential feat that has stirred debate over whether Obama has hit the point of overexposure.

[…]

Obama’s decision to hit five network shows today – ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” CNN’s “State of the Nation,” CBS’ “Face the Nation,” NBC’s “Meet the Press” and Univision’s “Al Punto with Jorge Ramos” – is known in media circles as “the Full Ginsburg.”

It is so named after William Ginsburg, who in 1998 became the first person to hit five shows in one Sunday as the attorney for White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Hillary Clinton later did it when she launched her presidential bid in 2007.

Obama is the first President to even try, which just underscores his comfort level with the medium, experts said.

Comfort level? Hmmm…Well, apparently he’s not too comfortable with one particular media outlet, and that would be Fox News. It appears he’s still pouting that they are not cheering, fainting, and getting tingly leg sensations at the mere sound of his voice. Therefore, he won’t give them the time of day. For a president many tout as a brilliant politician, why has he thumbed his nose at the cable news show that leads all others? An L.A. Times article called “Top of the Ticket” stated:

Latest ratings out for the second quarter of 2009 show the top-rated FNC having one of the best quarters in its entire history with prime-time ratings jumping an astounding 34%, not all of them Obama fans. That 8-11 p.m. slot is crucial for viewers — and ad dollars — which includes Fox’s showcase “The O’Reilly Factor.”

Throughout the viewing day, Fox News did even better with its 1.2 million viewers, on average, more than doubling CNN’s 598,000 and more than tripling third-place trailer MSNBC’s average audience of 392,000.

With the resistence of the American people to accept President Obama’s Health Care Bill, one would think it a “brilliant” political move for him to have swallowed his intense dislike for the cable news channel he’s always dissing and to have capitalized on the advantages of granting them an interview. Instead, didn’t he dodge an opportunity to reach across the aisle, show he is not the ultra-partisan president he has been accused of being, and stand up to the hardball questions he would get from Fox that he would likely not get from other media outlets? GOP lawmakers said yes.

A handful of Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Joe Wilson (S.C.), say that President Barack Obama is ignoring a large segment of the public by refusing to appear on Fox News.

Obama is scheduled this weekend to appear on every major Sunday talk show except for “Fox News Sunday.”

Fox News, which is considered more conservative-leaning than ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, confirmed Obama will not be interviewed on its network on Sunday.

Wilson, who was reprimanded this week by the House for his outburst at Obama last week, said that by excluding Fox, the president was not being fair.

“If people are going to be on the Sunday talk shows, they should be on all of them,” Wilson said.

[…]

Freshman Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) said that the White House’s media strategy is an example of the president not living up to his promise to change the tone in Washington.

“The only thing this shows is that the president is ignoring a very large segment of this country. He said he was going to reach across party lines and be a different kind of president, but so far he hasn’t followed through with real action,” Scalise said.

Some House Democrats saw nothing wrong with Obama’s decision to forgo Fox.

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said that it has become clear “which networks are really fair” while predicting that the president will eventually appear on “Fox News Sunday” in the future.

So President Obama chose to appear on “really fair” networks while ignoring the likes of Fox News? Well, how interesting is that. I say the president has a lot to learn.

Rewind to the 2008 campaign. People can say what they want about the McCain camp throwing Governor Palin to the wolves when they allowed the likes of Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson to have at her. Both Couric and Gibson had an agenda. Katie couldn’t get past the abortion question and Charlie played a gotcha game with the Bush Doctrine question. Prior to both interviews, the McCain camp clearly knew that the interviewers were in the tank for Obama. We can go round and round about that decision, but there’s one thing that stands out about the McCain camp as I consider that the President of the United States refused to appear on Fox News even as he seeks to win over the American people on health care: At least they didn’t hide. I don’t know why they refused to sit her down with Bill O’Reilly but instead sat her with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson. But I do know she went on.

I also know that when she returned to Alaska after the election, she invited Matt Lauer into her home and let him interview her. She didn’t hide.

I know, too, that upon her resignation announcement in July, Governor Palin didn’t shy away from Andrea Mitchell but while fishing granted her an interview. Again, no hiding.

The bottom line is that Governor Palin, demonstrating true leadership, has neither run away nor been shielded from those who have not exactly been in her corner. President Obama, on the other hand, has almost every media outlet in his back pocket, and he wouldn’t even rise to the challenge of the one “fair and balanced” one that was sure to ask him the toughest questions–questions to which Americans want honest answers. He’s not even campaigning anymore(or is he?); he’s already got the job. And he’s not lying about health care, right? So what’s the problem?

Maybe he’ll answer that question while he visits with David Letterman tonight. Surely that’ll be a tough interview.

By Adrienne Ross – www.motivationtruth.com

Visit Sarah Palin in the news

During the campaign the academics, liberals and the Make Believe Media portrayed Governor Palin as having no experience and unqualified  for the position of VP. Now we have learned through experience that these same people have elected an indecicive, inexperienced, unqualified, bumbling  idiot to the office of Presidency. He is leading our republic down the road of a hybrid form of fascist socialism called Obammunism.

October 11th, 2009

21 September 2009

By Adrienne Ross

President Obama could learn a thing or two from Governor Palin.

The president is in my state, the state of New York. In fact, today he will be a mere 35 miles from where I live as he speaks at Hudson Valley Community College.

Yesterday he made media round after media round, causing some to wonder if these plethora of appearances are too much of a “good” thing.

The New York Daily news reported:

Obama will push his health care reforms on five morning news shows today, an unprecedented presidential feat that has stirred debate over whether Obama has hit the point of overexposure.

[…]

Obama’s decision to hit five network shows today – ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” CNN’s “State of the Nation,” CBS’ “Face the Nation,” NBC’s “Meet the Press” and Univision’s “Al Punto with Jorge Ramos” – is known in media circles as “the Full Ginsburg.”

It is so named after William Ginsburg, who in 1998 became the first person to hit five shows in one Sunday as the attorney for White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Hillary Clinton later did it when she launched her presidential bid in 2007.

Obama is the first President to even try, which just underscores his comfort level with the medium, experts said.

Comfort level? Hmmm…Well, apparently he’s not too comfortable with one particular media outlet, and that would be Fox News. It appears he’s still pouting that they are not cheering, fainting, and getting tingly leg sensations at the mere sound of his voice. Therefore, he won’t give them the time of day. For a president many tout as a brilliant politician, why has he thumbed his nose at the cable news show that leads all others? An L.A. Times article called “Top of the Ticket” stated:

Latest ratings out for the second quarter of 2009 show the top-rated FNC having one of the best quarters in its entire history with prime-time ratings jumping an astounding 34%, not all of them Obama fans. That 8-11 p.m. slot is crucial for viewers — and ad dollars — which includes Fox’s showcase “The O’Reilly Factor.”

Throughout the viewing day, Fox News did even better with its 1.2 million viewers, on average, more than doubling CNN’s 598,000 and more than tripling third-place trailer MSNBC’s average audience of 392,000.

With the resistence of the American people to accept President Obama’s Health Care Bill, one would think it a “brilliant” political move for him to have swallowed his intense dislike for the cable news channel he’s always dissing and to have capitalized on the advantages of granting them an interview. Instead, didn’t he dodge an opportunity to reach across the aisle, show he is not the ultra-partisan president he has been accused of being, and stand up to the hardball questions he would get from Fox that he would likely not get from other media outlets? GOP lawmakers said yes.

A handful of Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Joe Wilson (S.C.), say that President Barack Obama is ignoring a large segment of the public by refusing to appear on Fox News.

Obama is scheduled this weekend to appear on every major Sunday talk show except for “Fox News Sunday.”

Fox News, which is considered more conservative-leaning than ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, confirmed Obama will not be interviewed on its network on Sunday.

Wilson, who was reprimanded this week by the House for his outburst at Obama last week, said that by excluding Fox, the president was not being fair.

“If people are going to be on the Sunday talk shows, they should be on all of them,” Wilson said.

[…]

Freshman Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) said that the White House’s media strategy is an example of the president not living up to his promise to change the tone in Washington.

“The only thing this shows is that the president is ignoring a very large segment of this country. He said he was going to reach across party lines and be a different kind of president, but so far he hasn’t followed through with real action,” Scalise said.

Some House Democrats saw nothing wrong with Obama’s decision to forgo Fox.

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said that it has become clear “which networks are really fair” while predicting that the president will eventually appear on “Fox News Sunday” in the future.

So President Obama chose to appear on “really fair” networks while ignoring the likes of Fox News? Well, how interesting is that. I say the president has a lot to learn.

Rewind to the 2008 campaign. People can say what they want about the McCain camp throwing Governor Palin to the wolves when they allowed the likes of Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson to have at her. Both Couric and Gibson had an agenda. Katie couldn’t get past the abortion question and Charlie played a gotcha game with the Bush Doctrine question. Prior to both interviews, the McCain camp clearly knew that the interviewers were in the tank for Obama. We can go round and round about that decision, but there’s one thing that stands out about the McCain camp as I consider that the President of the United States refused to appear on Fox News even as he seeks to win over the American people on health care: At least they didn’t hide. I don’t know why they refused to sit her down with Bill O’Reilly but instead sat her with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson. But I do know she went on.

I also know that when she returned to Alaska after the election, she invited Matt Lauer into her home and let him interview her. She didn’t hide.

I know, too, that upon her resignation announcement in July, Governor Palin didn’t shy away from Andrea Mitchell but while fishing granted her an interview. Again, no hiding.

The bottom line is that Governor Palin, demonstrating true leadership, has neither run away nor been shielded from those who have not exactly been in her corner. President Obama, on the other hand, has almost every media outlet in his back pocket, and he wouldn’t even rise to the challenge of the one “fair and balanced” one that was sure to ask him the toughest questions–questions to which Americans want honest answers. He’s not even campaigning anymore(or is he?); he’s already got the job. And he’s not lying about health care, right? So what’s the problem?

Maybe he’ll answer that question while he visits with David Letterman tonight. Surely that’ll be a tough interview.

By Adrienne Ross – www.motivationtruth.com

Visit Sarah Palin in the news

During the campaign the academics, liberals and the Make Believe Media portrayed Governor Palin as having no experience and unqualified  for the position of VP. Now we have learned through experience that these same people have elected an indecicive, inexperienced, unqualified, bumbling  idiot to the office of Presidency. He is leading our republic down the road of a hybrid form of fascist socialism called Obammunism.

By SARAH PALIN

Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans “talk with one another, and not over one another” as our health-care debate moves forward.

I couldn’t agree more. Let’s engage the other side’s arguments, and let’s allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats’ health-care proposals should become governing law.

Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that “no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds.” Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.

We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.

View Full Image

Associated Press .

Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats’ proposals “will provide more stability and security to every American.”

With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it’s a promise Washington can’t keep.

Let’s talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats’ proposals “will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control” by “cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . .”

First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such “waste and inefficiency” and “unwarranted subsidies” in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn’t think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that “in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.”

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He’s asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .”

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats’ proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we’ve come to expect from this administration.

Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats’ proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won’t reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.

The economic effects won’t be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they’ll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats’ proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise “the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers.” Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.

Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats’ proposals “will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable.” Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it’s true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats’ proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.

Instead of poll-driven “solutions,” let’s talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let’s give Americans control over their own health care.

Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don’t need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats’ proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not “provide more stability and security to every American.”

We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we’re not buying it.

Ms. Palin, Sen. John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 presidential election, was governor of Alaska from December 2006 to July 2009.

Source

Next Page »