By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold – 

As conservative Republicans living in the same village who believe in the tenants of The Heritage Foundation, we rarely find our opinions to be at odds with one another, but we did recently over the efforts by Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee to defund Obamacare as part of the Continuing Resolution.

After sharing how each of us felt about the recent happening, which is still generating bad feelings among the Republican apparatus and its conservative base, we decided there was no way we could collaborate our thoughts into a unifying force for presentation.

As such, it was deemed feasible by Ed Ingold and Nancy Thorner to set out their thoughts as separate entities, with Ingold taking the “con” side and Thorner the “pro” side over how the efforts of Cruz and Lee were perceived in defunding Obamacare.

As the story is still ongoing at this point, and it promises to have legs that will extend into the future, whether or not the so-called Tea Party efforts was right or wrong can not be determined at this point.  But one thing is certain, the Republican Party must stand firm and united against the scourge that is Obamacare.

Con Side: Ed Ingold

Ed Ingold’s thoughts have been reinforced through observed happenings in the wake of the disastrous Obamacare roll-out of September 1st, such as expressed in this article.

Instead of a futile and self-destructive attempt to defund Obamacare, we should have let it collapse under its own weight. Even the main stream media have caught on to the lies behind the “Affordable” Health Care Act. In the end, at least 60% of the country will lose their current health care, and premiums will double (or more) for most. Those signing on to Obamacare will consist mainly of those who could not get or afford health insurance.

Unless young, healthy people sign on to the plan, premium costs will explode, and Obamacare will bankrupt the country. Unfortunately the people needed to pay for the unfunded mandates can’t find well paying jobs, and are likely to pay the fine rather than buy insurance they can’t afford. Obama’s plan to achieve “fairness” is to crush the many rather than elevate the few.

It is incumbent on Republicans to make sure the true situation is kept in the public’s eye. Just as important, they must agree on solutions to the problems of health care cost and availability, not just bash the Democrats. The 2014 elections are paramount. Success in restoring the “health” of the economy hinges on Republicans gaining control of the Senate, and certainly not losing the House.

Possible solutions include …

  • Establish a high risk pool to accommodate those with chronic diseases and pre-existing conditions. Eliminate these unfunded mandates for everyone else.
  • Encourage high deductible policies, along with an expansion of pre-tax health care accounts. Increase the amount which can be set aside, and allow them to accumulate from year to year if not used.
  • Eliminate the “Cadillac” tax on private policies and health care benefits. As it stands, the rate increases will drive all existing plans into this category, with a 40% tax.
  • Raise or eliminate the threshold for the number of employees making health benefits mandatory. At the current 50, we will see a Francification* of small businesses, which will cease to grow in order to stay under the threshold.
  • Restore the definition of full-time employment to 40 hours or more.
  • Stop counting temporary employees against the threshold. If benefits are due, they should come from the agency supplying the temporary employees.
  •  Eliminate the proposed cuts in payments to hospitals and doctors from Medicare. Take back the $700B stolen from Medicare to fund Obamacare. Artificial attempts to control costs will severely reduce availability.
  • Allow consumers to shop across state lines for insurance (omitted from Obamacare to appease big-government states like New York and California).
  • Make the cost of services and procedures available to consumers up front. Let them shop for value, and manage their health care dollars.
  • Encourage pre-paid services, such as so-called “concierge” medical practices.
  • Labor unions, members of Congress and the Executive branch should be subjected to the same taxes and regulations as the rest of the country.

*France imposes a heavy burden of mandated benefits on companies with 50 or more employees. As a result, companies rarely grow above that size.

Pro Side: Nancy Thorner

Many Republicans, including conservative Republicans, continue to believe that so-called Tea Partyites made a strategic miscalculation by focusing on the shutdown which limited the attention that could be given to the miserable failure of the Obamacare website roll out on Oct. 1.  Opposition was voiced even by Conservative Columnist, Charles Krauthammer, that because conservatives lacked the tactics necessary to win, an effort had to be made to work with the other side.  But where does working with the other side lead Republicans when the other side is united and not willing to bend?

Principles and convictions don’t seem to count any more in a nation where most politicians seem to exist for the express purpose of saving their own skins?   After all, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee did campaign on getting rid of Obamacare, they went to Washington, D.C. to do just that, but instead were vilified for doing so.

If truth be told, Cruz and Lee didn’t make a strategic miscalculation.  They succeeded in educating the public which is now beginning to understand (even Democrats) why conservative were willing to fight against all odds to defund Obamacare.  The disastrous rolls out of website has confirmed what the Teapartyites were proclaiming all along, that Obamacare, with big government attempting to control one-sixth of our economy, is unworkable and unaffordable.

For those who were involved in the healthcare debate even before Obamacare was passed on a strictly Democratic vote, not unexpectedly is that the biggest promise made to the American people by President Obama has been broken  —  “If you like your doctor and your plan, you can keep both”.  

Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage, mainly because the insurance they purchased fell short of what the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) now mandates starting Jan. 1, 2014.  According to an article published at Illinois Review on Tuesday, October 29, That’s the situation facing nearly 1.5 million Americans right now under Obamacare, although that’s far from a final tally.

Stay tuned as the story remains unfinished.  By election time most likely it won’t matter who was on the pro or the con side of an issue that now seems contentious, for the cry against Obamacare will override all and will enable Republicans to be triumphant, but hopefully not arrogant, in: “I told you so!”

Saturday, November 02, 2013 at 08:53 AM | Permalink



Pin It!


Monday, September 23, 2013

Part 1

Th-13By Nancy Thorner –

On Monday, September 16th, a debate took place in the Wilmette Public Library on the topic of Global climate variations:  A looming crisis or natural changes. The debate was between Steve Goreham, a speaker and researcher on environmental issues and author of two books, the most recent, The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania, and Kent Taylor, a long-time resident of the Chicago area, a 20-year volunteer at the Shedd Aquarium as a lecturer on coral reef ecology, and now an Al Gore-trained presenter through Gore’s Climate Reality Project to spread Gore’s message of anthropogenic (manmade) global warming.

Of interest was how Ken Taylor became an Al Gore global warming presenter.  It all started when Taylor and his wife visited St. John’s National Park.  A year later, when again exploring the same reef formations, they found that over a period of just one year 50 to 60 percent of the reef had been lost, prompting Mr. Taylor to conclude that if nothing were done St. John’s coral reef formations would be lost.  In 1996, learning that Al Gore was seeking volunteers to be presenters for The Climate Project, Taylor applied and was chosen to participate in a three-day training session in Nashville, Tennessee, to master Al Gore’s global warming slide presentation.

The Wilmette debate was a timely one given the release a day later, September 17th, of the newest volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series by the Heartland Institute and members of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which challenges the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC – AR5) report scheduled for release tomorrow, Sept. 24, in Stockholm, Sweden. The U.N. IPCC AR5 is supported by governments in almost every county in the industrialized world, including the Democrats in America and the Obama administration.

Despite leaked conclusions of the 2013 IPCC report to The Daily Mail in England contradicting many of the doom and gloom scenarios projected in the lauded 2007 U.N. IPCC report, what might the odds be that the new findings will throw a monkey wrench to alter the thinking of alarmists who believe that the science of global warming is settled — that the debate is over — as physics tells them so?

No chance, as the leaked 2013 IPCC report, although admitting that most of its major conclusions in 2007 were incorrect, still holds firmly to the belief — with a certainty of 95% or more — that human action was the cause of half of the warming occurring from 1957 – 2001.  Kent Taylor wavered very little in the debate as the presenter of Al Gore’position on global warming.

The rules of the debate were set by Robert Armbruster, President of Armbruster Company, specializing in new works and restoration of historic concrete.  Taylor and Goreham were each given 30 minutes to advance their positions on global warming, accomplished through detailed slide presentations.  Following the presentations, a 10-minute rebuttal period was allotted each to counter the facts presented by their challenger. The event ended with a question and answer period.

Robert Armbruster cautioned those in attendance that he expected the debate to be civil in nature, which left no room for rabble rousing in keeping with Wilmette’s image and its people.

For the most part Armbruster’s caution was heeded, although the announcement to end the event to honor the closing time of the library did bring some vocal protestations from those who still had questions to ask of Goreham and Taylor.  Evident was that the index card system used to note questions, which were then screened, was not well received by all.

For those present at the Wilmette debate who had knowledge of the global warming debate and all of its twists and turns, and who likewise have  experienced the animosity and name-calling that goes along with being a skeptic who doesn’t accept the “science is settled argument” spewed forth regularly by the media, the debate was a no-brainer.

For readers who are less knowledgeable about global warming and the arguments used in trying to convince the public that global warming is either happening or it isn’t, the views expressed by Kent Taylor’s and Steve Goreham will be noted below each other in Part 2 so the two divergent and opposite viewpoints can readily be observed and evaluated.

Part 2 will explore three question through contrasting the global warming statements made by Kent Taylor (a believer) and Steve Goreham (a skeptic) during the course of the debate.

1.  If no action is taken what will happen?
2.  How do CO2 levels affect climate change?
3.  Is CO2 the main culprit of climate change?

Related articles

Monday, September 23, 2013 at 09:00 AM | Permalink


By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold –

As expected, the President stuck to his talking points in Tuesday night’s second presidential debate without anything to back them up. But how could his approach have been any different? Obama’s failed record speaks for itself. But to Obama, if distortions of his dismal four-year record are repeated often enough, without deviating from the script, they will resonate with voters and stick in their minds come election time. But will this approach work? The second presidential debate on Tuesday, October 16 seems to have engendered a different result.

In a championship fight, the challenger can’t win on points. He needs a knockout! In a split decision, the champion prevails. In the first debate, Governor Romney was the clear champion, in what the boxing world would call a TKO – Technical Knockout. When the contender can’t count to ten on his own, the referee counts for him. In the second debate, Romney stayed on his feet, punched and counterpunched. Obama tried to regain the belt, but failed to knock Romney to the mat. He didn’t even win on points, unless “Talking” points count.

When people act like victims, they often become victims. That’s how it works in the schoolyard or on the job. When our ambassador to Libya was killed, and the consulate burned and looted, the President and his representatives apologized for the act of a phony movie producer, and failed to defend the basic international law, not to mention our founding principles. Our embassies are legally on United States soil. We have a right to defend them from within, with force if necessary, and the host nation has an obligation to defend them from without.

He failed to denounce terrorism, as though that word freezes his tongue to the roof of his mouth. On or off the record, he has never denounced sectarian violence, as though that would offend the sectarians. Those apologies, which continued well after the facts were known, say that we were the victim in Libya, and invite further attacks. How do you “offend” someone who wants to kill you? Why would you care?

The victim mentality went a step further when a question about Libya was asked during the 2nd presidential debate. CNN debate moderator, Candy Crowley, quickly stepped forward and out of her official moderator role to defend Obama, from what she perceived as a Romney attempt to victimize Obama, when Romney suggested the President had failed to call the Benghazi attack a” terror” attack in the Rose Garden on the day after 9/11, or for many days thereafter. The next day Obama was no longer a victim when Crowley had to walk back her untimely and uncalled statement and admit that Romney had been correct in his debate analysis.

According to an article by Dave Boyer published in the Washington Times on Thursday, October 18, Obama has yet to confirm the “terrorist” act in Libya, as he attempts to avoid the stench and the fall out from the 9/11 consulate attack.

If you believe the Obama campaign in its ongoing effort to win over women voters, Governor Romney doesn’t care about women or their votes. Translated, this means Romney is against abortions, or at least averse to paying for them with borrowed money. Ask yourself, “How many women do I know who have had an abortion?” Then ask, “How many women do I know who are looking for work or whose husbands or children are looking for work?” Instead, women are concerned with the economy and the welfare of themselves and their families, such as the increase of food prices at the grocery store, how much it costs to fill up their vehicles, and the inability of recent college graduates to find jobs. That’s why 51% of women got in step with Romney after the first debate.

How ironic that the Obama campaign should accuse Romney of a so-called war on women. A former aide to the Obama administration once called the White House “hostile” to female employees. Anita Dunn, who recently served as Obama’s moderator during debate prep, was also the former White House communications director. Dunn was quoted in Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men as saying, “This place would be in court for a hostile workplace … because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

Consider the question asked about tax policy. Once again President Obama repeated his claim that Governor Romney and the Republicans refuse to make the rich “pay a dime” to offset the deficit. Obviously, that’s not what either the Republicans nor Governor Romney said, before, during or after the debate. In fact, the “rich” pay the vast bulk of the income tax collected. The top 1% of earners pay 40%, and the top 10% pay over 80%.

The President wants to take more from the big pieces of the pie and distribute them to those with smaller pieces. But it’s always “THE pie,” as if it is the same pie yesterday, today and forever! Governor Romney’s plan would keep the same distribution of taxes at the present level, but structure it so that the makers and shakers of the economy have an incentive to make the “pie” bigger, and keep more of the “pie” they make grow. Everybody, including the government, would get bigger pieces. We need this incentive to move forward, unlike the paltry, one-time tax breaks the President would grant for hiring veterans, windmills on the rooftops, or whatever.

On energy Policy, the President countered Governor Romney by stating that oil and gas production is at an all-time high. Romney accurately responded that the growth is from drilling on private land, and that leases for government land have declined 40% under the current administration, and no new permits have been issued in the Gulf (all permits approved by this administration were initiated under President Bush.) When challenged over the drop in permits, the President dodged by repeating his claim that oil production is up, this time louder, and in Romney’s face.

Unfortunately neither candidate brought up the fact the the EPA is actively trying to shut down “fracking” operations and coal mining. Over 20% of our electric generation capacity is threatened with shutdown because they are older facilities which use coal. The pipeline from Canadian oil fields to refineries in Texas was blocked by the President, and replaced with a segment (along with 19 other pipelines) from Kansas southward. Nobody said it, but this is “The Pipeline From Nowhere.”

It is amazing that Obama’s approval ratings remain so high among the American people. One thing the two presidential debates have so far indicated is that the millions of dollars Obama spent on ads, prior to the two debate to define Romney as an unacceptable presidential candidates, seems to have represented Democratic campaign money thrown down the drain. Through his two debate appearances, Romney was elevated to an equal footing with Obama by the American people. Many asked themselves, “Where is this mean, uncaring rich person that we saw portrayed on our TV’s day-after-day?”

Romney spoke and was heard. Hopefully enough of the American people will have heard and will decide that four more years of Obama would give this nation and its people more misery with further deterioration of jobs and economic wealth, especially among the middle class. If Obama should win another four-year term, this nation might never be able to recover from the consequences of continuing Obama’s already failed policies, let alone all the executive orders and mandates he would issue as a run-around Congress to put in place the “share the wealth” philosophy that he so fervently embraces.

Obama likes to say “Everybody should have a fair shot.” What, exactly, is a “fair shot.” The only solution he offers is to tax the rich and give to the poor. Cut up the big pieces of pie and stick them to the smaller pieces. This is a destructive solution. It’s like the “bounty system” recently scandalizing the NFL, where the strategy was to injure the good players so that the weaker players would have a “fair shot” at the championship. That worked well, didn’t it.

Posted initially at Illinois Review on Monday, October 22.