Cigarette Nazi's at it AGAIN!

The nanny-state nitwits have convinced the Goose-Stepping Secretary of Health & Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, to force cigarette companies into printing color photos of tobacco related diseases and corpses of lung cancer victims on cigarette packs....

From Legacy for Health --

Legacy applauds HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the

leadership at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its bold new effort announced today to dramatically reduce the number of American lives lost annually to tobacco-related disease. Still the number one preventable cause of death, tobacco continues to claim more than 400,000 lives each year in the United States.

Today’s announcement included a proposed rule, Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements, requiring more prominent warnings to better communicate the deadly effects of tobacco. As Secretary Sebelius shared with us today, anyone who picks up a pack of cigarettes will soon clearly understand the risk that comes with smoking. Placing prominent color photos and warning statements will hopefully help young smokers make more informed decisions about lighting up, and give current smokers a renewed commitment to quit their addiction for good.

The proposed graphic warnings would significantly cover the front of cigarette packs, replacing the current warnings on the narrow side of cigarette packs, and would be required as part of the new proposed rule. The proposed warnings include images of tobacco-related cancers and even the corpse of an individual who has passed away from lung cancer. More....

So you hate smoking and don't care that the governement Brown Shirts are stepping on someone's rights?  That's great fast-food Sparky -- because besides other things, the HHS Hamburgler's are already attacking  Happy Meals, salt intake, banning of trans fats, drinking of Coke/Pepsi, etc...

I wonder if this means they will put a picture of Nancy Pelosi's face on the door of all plastic surgeon offices? 

National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility & Reform releases Report

Co-Chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility & Reform, former Sen. Alan Simpson and Bill Clintons ex Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, released their bipartisan plan for reducing federal spending and deficits. Needless to say, many of the "feed at the federal trough" entitlement groups were less than thrilled spitless.

Below is a statement from Tax Payers for Common Sense President Ms. Ryan Alexander & some info supporting some of the proposals in the plan....

The co-chairs’ proposal makes clear that they are serious about leaving no budgetary stone unturned. While many sacred cows were put up for sacrifice, some remain. And just as no one likes to see their tax dollars wasted, no one likes to see their favorite program on the chopping block. Policymakers and interest groups across the spectrum are already leaping to attack almost every proposed reform. To overcome opposition the proposals cannot simply be aspirational instead of implementable and projected savings need to be real and realistic.

But political challenges should not deter the Commission and Congress as we move ahead. This is a great starting place for the commission’s work. These proposals challenge the Commission and Congress to make the kind of hard decisions it is going to need to make if there is any hope of putting the government’s finances on a more sustainable path. We cannot afford to squander this opportunity to rid the budget of ineffective and wasteful spending – from energy and agriculture subsidies to wasteful defense spending practices – and put the country in a better position to face the challenges ahead, whether from global economic shocks or threats from terrorism.

Taxpayers for Common Sense looks forward to working with the Commission to adopt a strong proposal that is adopted by Congress
Research by TCS on some of the Co-Chair’s Proposals

Defense:


We are less convinced savings from Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ proposed Pentagon reforms should be applied toward deficit reduction. Laudable as the reforms are, we’re unsure the methods he’s outlined will produce the savings he’s promised. Likewise with defense contracting reforms: Though we have long advocated for such steps, it’s difficult to measure just how much savings these reforms will produce and foolhardy to budget around it.

Energy:


Issues in the Report in General:Bridge the Partisan Budget Divide

Highway Trust Fund:Finding New Fixes for the Highway Trust Fund
Highway Trust Fund Fix Hurts Taxpayers

Abandoned Mines:More than 161,000 Abandoned Mines in the West

Market Access Project:Representatives Murphy and Garrett Introduce Bill to End the Wasteful Market Access Program

Congressional Pay Raise:Let’s Stop the Congressional Pay Raise

Army Corps of Engineers:Taxpayers Must Not Carry Water for Bad Projects: Comments on the Draft Principles and Standards for Water Resource Projects

Doc Fix:Intensive Care Budgets

Medicare Part D:Prescription Propaganda

Medicare and Social Security:Next President’s Challenge: Medicare and Social Security

Agriculture Disaster Aid:Taxpayers Plowed Under
Cultivating Cash As in today’s proposal, we have historically called for eliminating business tax expenditures, including the LIFO method of accounting and energy tax preferences for the oil and gas industry. We would go further to include loan guarantees to mature industries, like nuclear power, and eliminating other subsidies to energy companies. We applaud the Commission for taking on some sacred cows in its defense proposals. Budget-watchers agree Defense Department health care programs such as Tricare are in desperate need of reform despite political aversion to taking them on. We are also confident our military can absorb the suggested topline cuts in procurement and research & development without compromising our security.  

Taxpayers for Common Sense has also put out a list of Common Sense Reforms for the incoming 112th Congress that can read by clicking here.

CBO Confirms Obamacare Will INCREASE Drug Prices

Last week we made a post regarding the misleading report from the Dept. of Health & Human Services claiming that the average Medicare beneficiary will save $3,500 a year in out-of-pocket health care costs under the Affordable Care Act. At that time the CBO disputed that assertion. 

Now in a letter to House Budget Committee Ranking Member Paul Ryan, the CBO highlights the latest broken promises of Obamacare...

WASHINGTON – In response to a request from House Budget Committee Ranking Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] confirmed that President Obama’s massive health care law will increase prescription drug prices. The CBO confirms the range of onerous restrictions and requirements will drive health care costs up, at odds with the claims made by its proponents. CBO’s letter specifies that manufacturers will have an incentive to raise drug prices and that, as a result, health care costs will increase for some seniors and for those who are uninsured.

In response to the findings, Ranking Member Ryan issued the following statement:

"On Tuesday, the American electorate forcefully repudiated President Obama’s agenda, including his massive health care overhaul. Today, the Congressional Budget Office refuted President Obama’s claims, making clear that his policies will drive health care costs up, not down. Especially troubling for many seniors is the news that their prescription drug costs and premiums will increase as a result of this legislation. I will continue to work to repeal this deeply flawed overhaul, advancing instead patient-centered health care reform and reforms to secure Medicare for current and future generations."

- "[The] increase in prices would make federal costs for Medicare’s drug benefit and the costs faced by some beneficiaries slightly higher than they would be in the absence of those provisions…"
　
- "The legislation also imposes an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of brand-name drugs. CBO expects that the fee will probably increase the prices of drugs purchased through Medicare and the prices of newly introduced drugs purchased through Medicaid and other federal programs by about 1 percent. Those increases will be in addition to the ones described above that stem from the new requirements for discounts and rebates."
　
- "The premiums of drug plans will increase along with the increase in net drug prices, so the premiums paid by beneficiaries will increase slightly."

To read CBO Director Doug Elmendorf’s Letter to Ranking Member Ryan: http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11674/11-04-Drug_Pricing.pdf   Highlights from the CBO’s letter to Ranking Member Ryan:

Help Stop the Earmarks! (Action Alert)

Our first battle with the newly empowered GOP

For two years we have told the media and the rest of the country that we are nonpartisan and that we intend to hold all lawmakers to a higher standard, and now is our first chance to hold accountable the newly empowered Republican Party.

Next week, Senate Republicans will meet privately to elect their leaders and to consider changes to their conference rules. This is incredibly important and could determine whether or not they were serious about their campaign promises to reduce spending and the size of government.

Earmark ban being introduced

Senator Jim DeMint is introducing an amendment to ban all Republican earmarks in the Senate for the 112th Congress in their closed-door caucus meetings next week. Representative Boehner will be introducing a similar amendment in the House. Senator DeMint and Senator Cornyn will also submit an amendment making it the policy for the Republican conference to support an amendment that forces Congress to balance the budget without raising taxes.

The Senate earmark ban has been co-sponsored by Senators Tom Coburn (OK), John Ensign (NV), Mike Enzi (WY), and John Cornyn (TX) along with Senators-elect Pat Toomey (PA), Marco Rubio (FL), Rand Paul (KY), Mike Lee (UT), Ron Johnson (WI), and Kelly Ayotte (NH).

Senator DeMint states, "If adopted, the GOP earmark ban will represent a very important step toward getting our fiscal house in order. While the cost of earmarks is not large compared to the entire budget, they are used to pressure senators into supporting budget-busting spending bills that have buried our nation under a mountain of debt. As you know, many Republicans are still addicted to earmarks and won't give them up without a fight. I know it's difficult to quit this habit because I used to request earmarks too. But once senators give them up, they're free to fight against excessive spending without fear of retaliation. It's time for Republicans to lead by example on this issue so we can effectively stand together as a party against excessive spending."

Some Republicans trying to fight the ban

Here is the bad news – there are already a group of Republican lawmakers that are trying to fight against this ban. To read the Politico article about it, click the following link: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=317CEEC0-DC88-C8A7-61499B727950D540. 

The Senators that plan to vote against Senator DeMint's amendment need to be reminded about the message that was sent to them on November 2nd. Americans are tired of these games, including earmarks that breed corruption and favor-trading.

Take action now

We need to call these Senators that are thinking of voting no on Senator DeMint's amendment. Their numbers are listed below. Let’s melt their phone lines, and let them know that the Tea Party Patriots didn't disappear just because the elections are over.

We ask that you call Ohio Sen. George Voinovich first to find out how he is voting and then call the rest of the senators. Be polite, but firm. Some of these senators have been with us on other issues, but on this issue we need to remind them that they work for the people, and the people spoke last Tuesday – no more wasteful spending.

List of Senators to call

Sen. George Voinovich (OH)

DC Phone: (202) 224-3353

Cleveland Phone: (216) 522-7095

Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY)

DC Phone: (202) 224-2541

Jim Inhofe (OK)

DC Phone: (202) 224-4721   

Lindsey Graham (SC)

DC Phone: (202) 224-5972

Lamar Alexander (TN)

DC Phone: (202) 224-4944

Jon Kyl (AZ)

DC Phone: (202) 224-4521

John Barrasso (WY)

DC Phone: (202) 224-6441

John Thune (SD)

DC Phone: (202) 224-2321

Important note: The reason that these Senators are saying they will vote no on the amendment is because earmarks are such a tiny portion of federal spending that the effort to ban them is meaningless, especially when compared to reforming entitlements and cutting spending for other federal programs. This is true in the sense that compared to all the other trillions of dollars that politicians are spending, earmarks seem inconsequential. However, make sure you let them know you fully understand the numbers, but that regardless of the comparative size, it is still important. It shows that they were serious and honest in their campaign promises. As Marco Rubio said, the Republicans were given a second chance and this is their first test.  (H/T Medina Tea Party Patriots)

CTPP Salutes our Veterans

Don't forget to thank & hug a veteran today! It is because of their sacrifices, and the ultimate sacrifice of our fallen soldiers and their fallen brothers - that we have the freedom we do!  We must all remember... if it was not for what our veterans have done and are doing -- "We the People" would not exist!

Justice Dept. emails show politics influenced Dismissal of Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case

Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Justice Department released emails to Judicial Watch that reveals how political appointees dictated the decision to abandon a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.

From Judicial Watch --

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents from the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) that provide new evidence that top political appointees at the DOJ were intimately involved in the decision to dismiss the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NBPP). These new documents, which include internal DOJ email correspondence, directly contradict sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership was involved in the decision. The new documents were obtained last week by Judicial Watch pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No.10-851)).

The new documents include a series of emails between two political appointees: former Democratic election lawyer and current Deputy Associate Attorney General Sam Hirsch and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli. Both DOJ officials were involved in detailed discussions regarding the NBPP decision. For example, in one April 30, 2009, email from Hirsch to Perrelli, with the subject title “Fw: New Black Panther Party Update,” Hirsch writes:

Tom,

I need to discuss this with you tomorrow morning. I’ll send you another email on this shortly.

If you want to discuss it this evening, please let me know which number to call and when.

These emails were put in further context by an updated Vaughn index obtained by Judicial Watch, describing NBPP documents the Obama DOJ continues to withhold. These documents, which were attached to the DOJ’s Motion for Summary Judgment filing, include a description of a May 13 email chain that seems to suggest political appointee Sam Hirsch may have been orchestrating the NBPP decision.

Acting DAAG [Steven Rosenbaum] advising his supervising Acting AAG [Loretta King] of DASG’s [Hirsch’s] request for a memorandum by the Acting DAAG reviewing various options, legal strategies, and different proposals of relief as related to each separate defendant. Acting DAAG forwarding emails from Appellate Section Chief’s and Appellate Attorney’s with their detailed legal analyses including the application of constitutional provisions and judicial precedent to strategies and relief under consideration in the ongoing NBPP litigation, as well as an assessment of the strength of potential legal arguments, and presenting different possible scenarios in the litigation. [Emphasis added]

Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Thomas Perez testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political appointees were involved in the NBPP decision. Perez suggested that the dispute was merely “a case of career people disagreeing with career people.”

In fact, political appointee Sam Hirsch sent an April 30, 2009, email to Steven Rosenbaum (then-Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General in the Civil Rights) thanking Rosenbaum for “doing everything you’re doing to make sure that this case is properly resolved.” The next day, the DOJ began to reverse course on its NBPP voter intimidation lawsuit.

Judicial Watch also obtained two email reports sent by former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Loretta King to Attorney General Eric Holder.

The first report, entitled “Weekly Report for the Week ending May 8, 2009,” and sent on May 12, 2009, notes: “On May 15, 2009, pursuant to court order, the Department will file a motion for default judgment against at least some of the defendants” in the NBPP lawsuit. The report further notes that the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense “has been identified as a racist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League and the founders and members of the original Black Panther Party.”

The second report, entitled “Weekly Report for the Week ending May 15, 2009,” and sent on May 18, 2009, demonstrates that the DOJ did an abrupt reversal on the NBPP issue: “On May 15, 2009, the Department voluntarily dismissed its claims” against the NBPP and two of the defendants, the report noted. The DOJ moved for default judgment against only one defendant.

“It is now obvious to me why the Obama administration continues to be so secretive regarding the Justice Department’s decision to abandon its lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party. These documents show that not only was the Black Panther decision shamelessly politicized by the Obama administration but also that Obama officials lied to cover up the scandal. And these documents raise more questions about Attorney General Holder’s involvement. The American people need to know if racism and political favoritism are corrupting the nation’s highest law enforcement agency,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

The DOJ filed its lawsuit against the NBPP following an incident that took place outside of a Philadelphia polling station on November 4, 2008. A video of the incident, showing a member of the NBPP brandishing police-style baton weapon, was widely distributed on the Internet. According to multiple witnesses, members of the NBPP blocked access to polling stations, harassed voters and hurled racial epithets. Nonetheless, the DOJ ultimately overruled the recommendations of its own staff and dismissed the majority of its charges. Current and former DOJ attorneys have alleged in sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that the Holder DOJ’s NBPP and other civil rights-related decisions are made on the basis of race and political affiliation.

k

Senator Jim DeMint Under Attack by RINO's

It looks as if SC Senator Lindsey Grahamnesty wants to be the next RINO victim of the Tea Party Movement.  Senator Jim DeMint has been a strong supporter of the Tea Party Patriots and the Tea Party movement as a whole from the very beginning.

From ABC News -- (emphasis added)

South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint is in the midst of the Tea Party vs. GOP establishment debate. McClatchy’s James Rosen notes that DeMint “faces criticism that the millions he spent on hard-right candidates cost Republicans control of the U.S. Senate” and some Republican elected officials and pundits have already sent warning shots DeMint’s way.

Conservative Republicans are having none of it, however, and they are instead sticking close by DeMint. “The big winners of 2010 are Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin and liberal and moderate Republicans can’t stand it,” conservative leader Brent Bozell said in an interview with ABC News. “The Republican Party owes Jim DeMint a massive debt of gratitude and a standing ovation for what he did.” Bozell fired back at prominent Republicans, including DeMint’s South Carolina colleague, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, who have suggested that endorsing insurgent candidates was a mistake.

“If the moderates in the Republican Party want war, they’re going to lose,” Bozell said, holding up Graham as an example. “I guarantee you we will see their political carcasses when they come up for re-election.” Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, one of the most active conservative groups of the 2010 election cycle, called DeMint one of the “shining lights” of the Senate. “Our movement is better off without having Mike Castle as the 51st vote,” said Phillips, who also participated in Friday’s meeting.