Sunday, August 2, 2009
The Importance of Voting and Christian Involvement in the Political Arena
01/2000
John Adams
We electors have an important constitutional power placed in our
hands: we have a check upon two branches of the legislature, as each
branch has upon the other two; the power I mean of electing at stated
periods, one branch, which branch has the power of electing another.
It becomes necessary to every subject then, to be in some degree a
statesman: and to examine and judge for himself of the tendencies of
political principles and measures.
[John Adams, The Papers of John Adams, Robert J. Taylor, ed.
(Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1977), Vol. 1, p. 81, from "'U' to the
Boston Gazette" written on August 29, 1763.]
Samuel Adams
Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote
that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an
individual - or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is
executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for
which he is accountable to God and his country.
[Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo
Cushing, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1907), Vol. IV,
. 256, in the Boston Gazette on April 16, 1781.]
Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a
State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust
be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too
curious concerning the character of public men.
[Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo
Cushing, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1907), Vol. III,
p. 236-237, to James Warren on November 4, 1775.]
Matthias Burnett
Consider well the important trust . . . which God . . . [has] put into
your hands. . . . To God and posterity you are accountable for
[your rights and your rulers]. . . . Let not your children have reason
to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those
institutions which your fathers delivered to you. . . . [L]ook well to
the characters and qualifications of those you elect and raise to office
and places of trust. . . . Think not that your interests will be safe in
the hands of the weak and ignorant; or faithfully managed by the
impious, the dissolute and the immoral. Think not that men who
acknowledge not the providence of God nor regard His laws will be
uncorrupt in office, firm in defense of the righteous cause against
the oppressor, or resolutly oppose the torrent of iniquity. . . . Watch
over your liberties and privileges - civil and religious - with a
careful eye.
[Matthias Burnett, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Norwalk,
An Election Sermon, Preached at Hartford, on the Day of the
Anniversary Election, May 12, 1803 (Hartford: Printed by Hudson
& Goodwin, 1803), pp. 27-28.]
Frederick Douglass
I have one great political idea. . . . That idea is an old one. It is widely
and generally assented to; nevertheless, it is very generally trampled
upon and disregarded. The best expression of it, I have found in the
Bible. It is in substance, "Righteousness exalteth a nation; sin is a
reproach to any people" [Proverbs 14:34]. This constitutes my
politics - the negative and positive of my politics, and the whole of my
politics. . . . I feel it my duty to do all in my power to infuse this idea
into the public mind, that it may speedily be recognized and practiced
upon by our people.
[Frederick Douglass, The Frederick Douglass Papers, John
Blassingame, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982),
Vol. 2, p. 397, from a speech delivered at Ithaca, New York,
October 14th, 1852.]
Charles Finney
[T]he time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and
take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them. . . .
Christians have been exceedingly guilty in this matter. But the time
has come when they must act differently. . . . Christians seem to act
as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell
you He does see it - and He will bless or curse this nation according
to the course they [Christians] take [in politics].
[Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (New York:
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1868), Lecture XV, pp. 281-282.]
James Garfield
Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character
of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt,
it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption.
If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand
these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . .
[I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be
because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the
morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.
[James A. Garfield, The Works of James Abram Garfield, Burke
Hinsdale, editor (Boston: James R. Osgood and Company, 1883),
Vol. II, pp. 486, 489, "A Century of Congress," July, 1877.]
Francis Grimke
If the time ever comes when we shall go to pieces, it will . . . be . . .
from inward corruption - from the disregard of right principles . . .
from losing sight of the fact that "Righteousness exalteth a nation, but
that sin is a reproach to any people" [Proverbs 14:34]. . . .[T]he
secession of the Southern States in 1860 was a small matter with the
secession of the Union itself from the great principles enunciated in
the Declaration of Independence, in the Golden Rule, in the Ten
Commandments, in the Sermon on the Mount. Unless we hold, and
hold firmly to these great fundamental principles of righteousness, . . .
our Union . . . will be "only a covenant with death and an agreement
with hell."
[Rev. Francis J. Grimke, from "Equality of Right for All Citizens, Black
and White, Alike," March 7, 1909, published in Masterpieces of Negro
Eloquence, Alice Moore Dunbar, editor (New York: Dover Publications,
Inc., 2000), pp. 246-247.]
Alexander Hamilton
A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the
citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important
rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the
estimation of the law.
[Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C.
Syrett, ed. (New York, Columbia University Press, 1962), Vol III,
pp. 544-545.]
John Jay
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is
the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation,
to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
[John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry
P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. IV, p. 365.]
The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an
opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government
under which they should live.
[John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry
P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. I, p. 161.]
Thomas Jefferson
The elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably
dissipate all combinations to subvert a Constitution, dictated by the
wisdom, and resting on the will of the people.
[Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh,
ed. (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903),nt [lack] good
men and be abolished or invaded by ill men; but good men will never
want good laws nor suffer [allow] ill ones.
[William Penn quoted from: Thomas Clarkson, Memoirs of the Private
and Public Life of William Penn (London: Richard Taylor and Co., 1813)
Vol. I, p.303.]
Daniel Webster
Impress upon children the truth that the exercise of the elective
franchise is a social duty of as solemn a nature as man can be called to
perform; that a man may not innocently trifle with his vote; that every
elector is a trustee as well for others as himself and that every measure
he supports has an important bearing on the interests of others as well
as on his own.
[Daniel Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown,
and Company, 1853), Vol. II, p. 108, from remarks made at a public
reception by the ladies of Richmond, Virginia, on October 5, 1840.]
Noah Webster
In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the
particular sect or denomination of the candidate - look to his character. . . .
When a citizen gives his suffrage to a man of known immorality he
abuses his trust; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his
neighbor, he betrays the interest of his country.
[Noah Webster, Letters to a Young Gentleman Commencing His
Education to which is subjoined a Brief History of the United States
(New Haven: S. Converse, 1823), pp. 18, 19.]
When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public
officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you
to choose for rulers, "just men who will rule in the fear of God." The
preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this
duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in
office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not
for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or
incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public
revenues will be sqandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the
citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government
fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the
citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and
administer the laws.
[Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie &
Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, �49.]
John Witherspoon
Those who wish well to the State ought to choose to places of trust
men of inward principle, justified by exemplary conversation. . . .
[And t]he people in general ought to have regard to the moral
character of those whom they invest with authority either in the
legislative, executive, or judicial branches.
[John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon Edinburgh: J.
Ogle, 1815), Vol. IV, pp. 266, 277.]
This site belongs to WallBuilders, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability
Corporation PO Box 397 Aledo, Texas 76008 Contact Us Site
designed and powered by Blepo.
Website for Wallbuilders http://www.wallbuilders.com/ Check it out!
John Adams
We electors have an important constitutional power placed in our
hands: we have a check upon two branches of the legislature, as each
branch has upon the other two; the power I mean of electing at stated
periods, one branch, which branch has the power of electing another.
It becomes necessary to every subject then, to be in some degree a
statesman: and to examine and judge for himself of the tendencies of
political principles and measures.
[John Adams, The Papers of John Adams, Robert J. Taylor, ed.
(Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1977), Vol. 1, p. 81, from "'U' to the
Boston Gazette" written on August 29, 1763.]
Samuel Adams
Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote
that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an
individual - or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is
executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for
which he is accountable to God and his country.
[Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo
Cushing, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1907), Vol. IV,
. 256, in the Boston Gazette on April 16, 1781.]
Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a
State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust
be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too
curious concerning the character of public men.
[Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo
Cushing, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1907), Vol. III,
p. 236-237, to James Warren on November 4, 1775.]
Matthias Burnett
Consider well the important trust . . . which God . . . [has] put into
your hands. . . . To God and posterity you are accountable for
[your rights and your rulers]. . . . Let not your children have reason
to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those
institutions which your fathers delivered to you. . . . [L]ook well to
the characters and qualifications of those you elect and raise to office
and places of trust. . . . Think not that your interests will be safe in
the hands of the weak and ignorant; or faithfully managed by the
impious, the dissolute and the immoral. Think not that men who
acknowledge not the providence of God nor regard His laws will be
uncorrupt in office, firm in defense of the righteous cause against
the oppressor, or resolutly oppose the torrent of iniquity. . . . Watch
over your liberties and privileges - civil and religious - with a
careful eye.
[Matthias Burnett, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Norwalk,
An Election Sermon, Preached at Hartford, on the Day of the
Anniversary Election, May 12, 1803 (Hartford: Printed by Hudson
& Goodwin, 1803), pp. 27-28.]
Frederick Douglass
I have one great political idea. . . . That idea is an old one. It is widely
and generally assented to; nevertheless, it is very generally trampled
upon and disregarded. The best expression of it, I have found in the
Bible. It is in substance, "Righteousness exalteth a nation; sin is a
reproach to any people" [Proverbs 14:34]. This constitutes my
politics - the negative and positive of my politics, and the whole of my
politics. . . . I feel it my duty to do all in my power to infuse this idea
into the public mind, that it may speedily be recognized and practiced
upon by our people.
[Frederick Douglass, The Frederick Douglass Papers, John
Blassingame, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982),
Vol. 2, p. 397, from a speech delivered at Ithaca, New York,
October 14th, 1852.]
Charles Finney
[T]he time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and
take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them. . . .
Christians have been exceedingly guilty in this matter. But the time
has come when they must act differently. . . . Christians seem to act
as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell
you He does see it - and He will bless or curse this nation according
to the course they [Christians] take [in politics].
[Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (New York:
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1868), Lecture XV, pp. 281-282.]
James Garfield
Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character
of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt,
it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption.
If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand
these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . .
[I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be
because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the
morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.
[James A. Garfield, The Works of James Abram Garfield, Burke
Hinsdale, editor (Boston: James R. Osgood and Company, 1883),
Vol. II, pp. 486, 489, "A Century of Congress," July, 1877.]
Francis Grimke
If the time ever comes when we shall go to pieces, it will . . . be . . .
from inward corruption - from the disregard of right principles . . .
from losing sight of the fact that "Righteousness exalteth a nation, but
that sin is a reproach to any people" [Proverbs 14:34]. . . .[T]he
secession of the Southern States in 1860 was a small matter with the
secession of the Union itself from the great principles enunciated in
the Declaration of Independence, in the Golden Rule, in the Ten
Commandments, in the Sermon on the Mount. Unless we hold, and
hold firmly to these great fundamental principles of righteousness, . . .
our Union . . . will be "only a covenant with death and an agreement
with hell."
[Rev. Francis J. Grimke, from "Equality of Right for All Citizens, Black
and White, Alike," March 7, 1909, published in Masterpieces of Negro
Eloquence, Alice Moore Dunbar, editor (New York: Dover Publications,
Inc., 2000), pp. 246-247.]
Alexander Hamilton
A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the
citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important
rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the
estimation of the law.
[Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C.
Syrett, ed. (New York, Columbia University Press, 1962), Vol III,
pp. 544-545.]
John Jay
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is
the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation,
to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
[John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry
P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. IV, p. 365.]
The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an
opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government
under which they should live.
[John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry
P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. I, p. 161.]
Thomas Jefferson
The elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably
dissipate all combinations to subvert a Constitution, dictated by the
wisdom, and resting on the will of the people.
[Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh,
ed. (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903),nt [lack] good
men and be abolished or invaded by ill men; but good men will never
want good laws nor suffer [allow] ill ones.
[William Penn quoted from: Thomas Clarkson, Memoirs of the Private
and Public Life of William Penn (London: Richard Taylor and Co., 1813)
Vol. I, p.303.]
Daniel Webster
Impress upon children the truth that the exercise of the elective
franchise is a social duty of as solemn a nature as man can be called to
perform; that a man may not innocently trifle with his vote; that every
elector is a trustee as well for others as himself and that every measure
he supports has an important bearing on the interests of others as well
as on his own.
[Daniel Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown,
and Company, 1853), Vol. II, p. 108, from remarks made at a public
reception by the ladies of Richmond, Virginia, on October 5, 1840.]
Noah Webster
In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the
particular sect or denomination of the candidate - look to his character. . . .
When a citizen gives his suffrage to a man of known immorality he
abuses his trust; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his
neighbor, he betrays the interest of his country.
[Noah Webster, Letters to a Young Gentleman Commencing His
Education to which is subjoined a Brief History of the United States
(New Haven: S. Converse, 1823), pp. 18, 19.]
When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public
officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you
to choose for rulers, "just men who will rule in the fear of God." The
preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this
duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in
office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not
for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or
incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public
revenues will be sqandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the
citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government
fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the
citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and
administer the laws.
[Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie &
Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, �49.]
John Witherspoon
Those who wish well to the State ought to choose to places of trust
men of inward principle, justified by exemplary conversation. . . .
[And t]he people in general ought to have regard to the moral
character of those whom they invest with authority either in the
legislative, executive, or judicial branches.
[John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon Edinburgh: J.
Ogle, 1815), Vol. IV, pp. 266, 277.]
This site belongs to WallBuilders, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability
Corporation PO Box 397 Aledo, Texas 76008 Contact Us Site
designed and powered by Blepo.
Website for Wallbuilders http://www.wallbuilders.com/ Check it out!
Fox: Rep. Maxine Waters has a socialist freudian slip
“And guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will
be all about socializing, uh, uh… would be about basically about
taking over the government running all of your companies.”
Obama courts world's worst human rights abusers in fight against Taliban
A dangerous game. Those who subscribe to the foolish notion that
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" have often found that the new
friend does not consider the friendship mutual. "Barack Obama courts
human rights abusers in Taliban fight," by Richard Spencer in the
Telegraph, July 31 (thanks to Alan of England):
President Barack Obama is resurrecting relations with some of the
world's worst human rights abusers in Central Asia as he attempts
to secure new allies in the fight against the Taliban.
In a repeat of the 19th Century "Great Game", when the Russians
and British competed for relations with Muslim leaders on the out-
posts of their empires, Mr Obama's envoys are scuttling between the
palaces of Central Asia's post-Soviet dictators.
In the last three months, Mr Obama has cut deals with Presidents
Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan and Kurmanbek Bakiyev of Kyrgyzs-
tan. Mr Karimov has been accused by a former British ambassador
of ordering two opponents boiled alive. One of Mr Bakiyev's critics
was recently stabbed 26 times in the buttocks by unknown assailants.
US diplomats have also paid calls on Ashgabad, the capital of Turk-
menistan, a country still reeling from the personality cult of "Turk-
menbashi", as the late President Sapurmurat Niyazov styled himself
during his eccentric 19-year rule.
"The United States is fixated by Afghan issues and does not care if it
supports dictators," Tashbulat Yuldashev, a former Uzbek government
official turned dissident told The Telegraph.
He fled Uzbekistan last year under threat from gangs of heavies after
criticising Mr Karimov, president since the fall of the Soviet Union
eighteen years ago.
Mr Obama has brought a new pragmatism to foreign policy, disappoint-
ing those who expected his liberal idealism to dominate all aspects of his
administration.
That pragmatism is now being employed on one of the great diplomatic
battlegrounds of history: the Silk Road through Central Asia, for decades
closed off as part of the Soviet Union but now once again open to the ex-
change of goods, people – and unrest.
In the Fergana Valley, which straddles Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and
is close to Afghanistan, Islamic militants have found ready recruiting
grounds in the hundreds of thousands of migrant workers who have lost
their jobs in the financial crisis.
Nine jihadists were killed in gun-battles near the city of Osh, on the
Kyrgyz side of the border in June alone, while Uzbek identity cards
have been found on dead Taliban fighters in Pakistan....
Posted by Robert at August 1, 2009 5:33 AM
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" have often found that the new
friend does not consider the friendship mutual. "Barack Obama courts
human rights abusers in Taliban fight," by Richard Spencer in the
Telegraph, July 31 (thanks to Alan of England):
President Barack Obama is resurrecting relations with some of the
world's worst human rights abusers in Central Asia as he attempts
to secure new allies in the fight against the Taliban.
In a repeat of the 19th Century "Great Game", when the Russians
and British competed for relations with Muslim leaders on the out-
posts of their empires, Mr Obama's envoys are scuttling between the
palaces of Central Asia's post-Soviet dictators.
In the last three months, Mr Obama has cut deals with Presidents
Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan and Kurmanbek Bakiyev of Kyrgyzs-
tan. Mr Karimov has been accused by a former British ambassador
of ordering two opponents boiled alive. One of Mr Bakiyev's critics
was recently stabbed 26 times in the buttocks by unknown assailants.
US diplomats have also paid calls on Ashgabad, the capital of Turk-
menistan, a country still reeling from the personality cult of "Turk-
menbashi", as the late President Sapurmurat Niyazov styled himself
during his eccentric 19-year rule.
"The United States is fixated by Afghan issues and does not care if it
supports dictators," Tashbulat Yuldashev, a former Uzbek government
official turned dissident told The Telegraph.
He fled Uzbekistan last year under threat from gangs of heavies after
criticising Mr Karimov, president since the fall of the Soviet Union
eighteen years ago.
Mr Obama has brought a new pragmatism to foreign policy, disappoint-
ing those who expected his liberal idealism to dominate all aspects of his
administration.
That pragmatism is now being employed on one of the great diplomatic
battlegrounds of history: the Silk Road through Central Asia, for decades
closed off as part of the Soviet Union but now once again open to the ex-
change of goods, people – and unrest.
In the Fergana Valley, which straddles Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and
is close to Afghanistan, Islamic militants have found ready recruiting
grounds in the hundreds of thousands of migrant workers who have lost
their jobs in the financial crisis.
Nine jihadists were killed in gun-battles near the city of Osh, on the
Kyrgyz side of the border in June alone, while Uzbek identity cards
have been found on dead Taliban fighters in Pakistan....
Posted by Robert at August 1, 2009 5:33 AM
4% FOR FREEDOM
Protect America, Stop OBAMA’s Defense Cuts
Our country still needs Defense protection during these trying days. Sign up for America!
As They Say On Twitter: SEIU FAIL
The Foundry
Posted July 29th, 2009 at 6.39pm in Health Care.
As the old saying in Washington goes: if you can’t attack the message,
attack the messenger. Nobody knows this strategy better than the
Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a big labor union
known for bullying anyone it disagrees with into submission. And that
is why they are turning their “activists” against the Lewin Group, a
nonpartisan, independent health care research firm.
In the past couple weeks, thousands of conservatives have taken to
Twitter to say #handsoff and push for health care reform that leaves
medical decisions in their hands and not the government’s. Now SEIU
leaders are urging their members to tweet “Lewin Group FAIL” to
Members of Congress on Twitter, FAIL being the ultimate dig on the
social networking site. And by doing this they are showing that with-
out a coherent health care message, they have shamefully resorted
to attacking those who crunch economical models for a living.
In fact, the Lewin Group is an independent and well-respected
national health care and human services policy research and consult-
ing firm with expertise in modeling, statistics, and actuarial analysis
and more than 35 years of experience. They regularly analyze pro-
posals from Democrats and Republicans, non-profit foundations,
associations and for-profit corporations, across the ideological spect-
rum. While their estimates may differ from the Congressional Budget
Office, they are not alone in projecting that millions of Americans will
lose their private coverage if there is a government-run health plan.
In 2007, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Senator Bob Bennett
(R-UT) said in a joint op/ed in the Wall Street Journal: “The Lewin
Group [is] the gold standard of independent, health-care analysis.”
SEIU stands to gain handsomely from President Obama’s health care
reform, as it currently represents 17% of hospital employees across
the nation. Its end goal is to unionize 100% of those employees, and
how better to do that than to help President Obama ”reform” the
industry in its favor? Our children’s public schools are gripped into
submission and substandard care by teacher’s unions, and now SEIU
hopes to duplicate this money and power in the health care industry.
SEIU President Andy Stern will tell you that he wants to “build a
health care system that works for everybody.” Hmm, that seems
genuine. But SEIU’s history shows greater care for union dues than
your health.
In October 2005, the SEIU and their sister organization ACORN ruth-
lessly bussed in vanloads of sick supporters to two Chicago emergency
rooms to teach them a lesson for not unionizing by overloading the ER
and harassing the doctors and nurses on duty. The result was a very
long day and insufficient care for all.
Even former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala
called out SEIU for endangering their members during a hunger
strike in Florida saying: “We are devastated that the union is risking
the health and well-being of our students and the Unicco employees
by sanctioning an activity as drastic as a hunger strike.” Apparently,
five demonstrators were taken to the hospital, one with a mild stroke.
So when the SEIU attacks an independent organization revered by
people on all sides of the political spectrum in the name of improving
American health care, it stands to reason you should be skeptical of
their motives. Resorting to these “Chicago style” tactics won’t bring
about reform, and it won’t elevate this debate. What it will do is
distract America from the facts: millions stand to lose their private
insurance coverage if the President’s plan for health reform is enact-
ed. Period.
http://twitter.com/Heritage for the latest news, research, and
analysis on health care reform.
Posted July 29th, 2009 at 6.39pm in Health Care.
As the old saying in Washington goes: if you can’t attack the message,
attack the messenger. Nobody knows this strategy better than the
Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a big labor union
known for bullying anyone it disagrees with into submission. And that
is why they are turning their “activists” against the Lewin Group, a
nonpartisan, independent health care research firm.
In the past couple weeks, thousands of conservatives have taken to
Twitter to say #handsoff and push for health care reform that leaves
medical decisions in their hands and not the government’s. Now SEIU
leaders are urging their members to tweet “Lewin Group FAIL” to
Members of Congress on Twitter, FAIL being the ultimate dig on the
social networking site. And by doing this they are showing that with-
out a coherent health care message, they have shamefully resorted
to attacking those who crunch economical models for a living.
In fact, the Lewin Group is an independent and well-respected
national health care and human services policy research and consult-
ing firm with expertise in modeling, statistics, and actuarial analysis
and more than 35 years of experience. They regularly analyze pro-
posals from Democrats and Republicans, non-profit foundations,
associations and for-profit corporations, across the ideological spect-
rum. While their estimates may differ from the Congressional Budget
Office, they are not alone in projecting that millions of Americans will
lose their private coverage if there is a government-run health plan.
In 2007, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Senator Bob Bennett
(R-UT) said in a joint op/ed in the Wall Street Journal: “The Lewin
Group [is] the gold standard of independent, health-care analysis.”
SEIU stands to gain handsomely from President Obama’s health care
reform, as it currently represents 17% of hospital employees across
the nation. Its end goal is to unionize 100% of those employees, and
how better to do that than to help President Obama ”reform” the
industry in its favor? Our children’s public schools are gripped into
submission and substandard care by teacher’s unions, and now SEIU
hopes to duplicate this money and power in the health care industry.
SEIU President Andy Stern will tell you that he wants to “build a
health care system that works for everybody.” Hmm, that seems
genuine. But SEIU’s history shows greater care for union dues than
your health.
In October 2005, the SEIU and their sister organization ACORN ruth-
lessly bussed in vanloads of sick supporters to two Chicago emergency
rooms to teach them a lesson for not unionizing by overloading the ER
and harassing the doctors and nurses on duty. The result was a very
long day and insufficient care for all.
Even former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala
called out SEIU for endangering their members during a hunger
strike in Florida saying: “We are devastated that the union is risking
the health and well-being of our students and the Unicco employees
by sanctioning an activity as drastic as a hunger strike.” Apparently,
five demonstrators were taken to the hospital, one with a mild stroke.
So when the SEIU attacks an independent organization revered by
people on all sides of the political spectrum in the name of improving
American health care, it stands to reason you should be skeptical of
their motives. Resorting to these “Chicago style” tactics won’t bring
about reform, and it won’t elevate this debate. What it will do is
distract America from the facts: millions stand to lose their private
insurance coverage if the President’s plan for health reform is enact-
ed. Period.
http://twitter.com/Heritage for the latest news, research, and
analysis on health care reform.
ACORN’s “Muscle for Money” does the bidding of SEIU
Corporate and political officials who defy workplace and community
organizers risk being made objects of scorn by bright red-clad
protestors in public and private, courtesy of an activist union and its
close allies in the nation’s most controversial liberal non-profit
advocacy group.
It’s officially called the “Muscle for Money” program within the
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) where it was started,
and unofficially by the same name among activists of Association of
Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN).
ACORN is under investigation in at least 14 states over voter registra-
tion fraud allegations stemming from the 2008 presidential campaign.
The group endorsed President Barack Obama, despite federal laws
barring partisan political activities by tax-exempt groups.
THE EMPLOYEE FREE(FORCED) CHOICE ACT: BAD FOR
WORKERS, GOOD FOR UNION BOSSES.
New Poll: 82% of Americans Don’t Want to Join a Union
The Center for Union Facts (CUF) released a unique new poll which
found that 82% of non-unionized American workers would not like
their jobs to be unionized. The poll, which was conducted by the
Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, clearly
demonstrates that an overwhelming number of Americans have no
interest in joining a union.
organizers risk being made objects of scorn by bright red-clad
protestors in public and private, courtesy of an activist union and its
close allies in the nation’s most controversial liberal non-profit
advocacy group.
It’s officially called the “Muscle for Money” program within the
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) where it was started,
and unofficially by the same name among activists of Association of
Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN).
ACORN is under investigation in at least 14 states over voter registra-
tion fraud allegations stemming from the 2008 presidential campaign.
The group endorsed President Barack Obama, despite federal laws
barring partisan political activities by tax-exempt groups.
THE EMPLOYEE FREE(FORCED) CHOICE ACT: BAD FOR
WORKERS, GOOD FOR UNION BOSSES.
New Poll: 82% of Americans Don’t Want to Join a Union
The Center for Union Facts (CUF) released a unique new poll which
found that 82% of non-unionized American workers would not like
their jobs to be unionized. The poll, which was conducted by the
Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, clearly
demonstrates that an overwhelming number of Americans have no
interest in joining a union.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
From the Obama Irony File
By Harrison, on July 29th, 2009
From a 2004 interview with then-Senator Barack Obama:
BARACK OBAMA: …When you rush these budgets that are a foot high
and nobody has any idea what’s in them and nobody has read them.
RANDI RHODES: 14 pounds it was!
BARACK OBAMA: Yeah. And it gets rushed through without any clear
deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think
that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you
remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick
after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by
the administration.
Of course, when you’re a Democrat and you rush things like the
stimulus, Cap and Trade, or Obamakare these “little details” don’t apply.
From a 2004 interview with then-Senator Barack Obama:
BARACK OBAMA: …When you rush these budgets that are a foot high
and nobody has any idea what’s in them and nobody has read them.
RANDI RHODES: 14 pounds it was!
BARACK OBAMA: Yeah. And it gets rushed through without any clear
deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think
that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you
remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick
after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by
the administration.
Of course, when you’re a Democrat and you rush things like the
stimulus, Cap and Trade, or Obamakare these “little details” don’t apply.
5 Freedoms You'd Lose in Health Care Reform
by Shawn TullyMonday, July 27, 2009
Fortune on CNN Money.com
If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that
a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.
In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeat-
edly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health
plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced
through reform.
A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in
the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health
committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't
easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language.
But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and
mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.
If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your
company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your
employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced
premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that
insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the
freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest
drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you
could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two
bills that herald a health-care revolution.
In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expen-
sive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people
would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a
highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and
tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the
wrong direction.
Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under
Obamacare:
1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance
through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that
would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really
compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal
government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan
is required to offer.
Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" --
and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every
group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying
to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement
for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.
The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs,
mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also
requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just
the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and
Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on
recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, there-
fore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're
required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills
become law.
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal
law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating.
Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of
community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that
all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless
of their age or medical condition.
Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan,
but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care.
The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have
lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual
cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big
discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so
many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.
Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any
more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with
the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to
insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would
pay no more than $5,000.
Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums
based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable
for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding
people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-
conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car
insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic
speeders with a history of accidents.
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven
by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market,
and health care needs more of it, not less.
Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5
million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the
accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They
can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major
medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but
patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own
money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more
cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority
of their care.
The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care
in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent
patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major
medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deduct-
ibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National
Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they
could do it after the bills are passed."
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills
appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the terri-
tory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.
The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two
groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The
first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act
of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning
they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance.
Those are the GEs and Time Warners and most other big companies.
The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are
"grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what
they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community
rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in re-
strictive states. But read on.
The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they
can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified"
policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would
have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already
discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own
plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dump-
ed into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.
The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees
who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own
or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers
that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to
offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.
The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect
can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes
in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching
coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop
through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies
every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans
in 12 months.
5. Freedom to choose your doctors
The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges
-- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get
their care through something called "medical home." Medical home
is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the
doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians
will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are
best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists
or orthopedists.
Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients
to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The
danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as
were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage
over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed
what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.
The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to
be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they
exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more
than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the
system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-
for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-ser-
vice in a hurry," says Goodman.
In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the
landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster
than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.
Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a
fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their
employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait
a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely
that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs,
especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under
control in the righteous name of job creation.
The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high de-
ductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state
shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that's strictly
taboo in the bills). I'll propose my own solution in another piece soon
on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system,
but we still have our Five Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered
Freedoms.
Fortune on CNN Money.com
If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that
a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.
In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeat-
edly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health
plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced
through reform.
A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in
the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health
committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't
easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language.
But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and
mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.
If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your
company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your
employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced
premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that
insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the
freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest
drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you
could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two
bills that herald a health-care revolution.
In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expen-
sive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people
would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a
highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and
tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the
wrong direction.
Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under
Obamacare:
1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance
through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that
would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really
compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal
government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan
is required to offer.
Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" --
and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every
group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying
to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement
for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.
The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs,
mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also
requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just
the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and
Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on
recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, there-
fore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're
required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills
become law.
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal
law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating.
Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of
community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that
all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless
of their age or medical condition.
Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan,
but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care.
The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have
lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual
cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big
discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so
many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.
Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any
more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with
the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to
insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would
pay no more than $5,000.
Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums
based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable
for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding
people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-
conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car
insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic
speeders with a history of accidents.
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven
by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market,
and health care needs more of it, not less.
Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5
million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the
accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They
can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major
medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but
patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own
money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more
cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority
of their care.
The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care
in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent
patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major
medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deduct-
ibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National
Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they
could do it after the bills are passed."
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills
appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the terri-
tory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.
The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two
groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The
first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act
of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning
they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance.
Those are the GEs and Time Warners and most other big companies.
The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are
"grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what
they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community
rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in re-
strictive states. But read on.
The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they
can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified"
policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would
have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already
discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own
plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dump-
ed into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.
The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees
who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own
or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers
that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to
offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.
The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect
can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes
in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching
coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop
through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies
every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans
in 12 months.
5. Freedom to choose your doctors
The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges
-- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get
their care through something called "medical home." Medical home
is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the
doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians
will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are
best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists
or orthopedists.
Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients
to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The
danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as
were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage
over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed
what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.
The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to
be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they
exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more
than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the
system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-
for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-ser-
vice in a hurry," says Goodman.
In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the
landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster
than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.
Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a
fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their
employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait
a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely
that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs,
especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under
control in the righteous name of job creation.
The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high de-
ductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state
shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that's strictly
taboo in the bills). I'll propose my own solution in another piece soon
on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system,
but we still have our Five Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered
Freedoms.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Obama moves to dampen uproar over comment on race
This is a recent post by Associated Press about Obama's Big Slip
on National TV...
By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer Nancy Benac,
Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 30 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama concedes his words
— that a white police officer "acted stupidly" when he arrested
a black university scholar in his own home — were ill-chosen. But,
while he invited both men to visit him at the White House,
Obama stopped short of publicly apologizing for his remark.
The president personally telephoned the two men, Harvard
professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge, Mass., police
Sgt. James Crowley, in an effort to end the rancorous back-and
-forth over what had transpired and what Obama had said about
it. Trying to lighten the situation, he even commiserated with
Crowley about reporters on his lawn. Hours earlier, a multiracial
group of police officers had stood with Crowley in Massachusetts
and called on Obama to say he's sorry.
It was a measure of the nation's keen sensitivities on matters of
race that the fallout from a disorderly conduct charge in
Massachusetts — and the remarks of America's first black
president about it — had mushroomed to such an extent that he
felt compelled to make a surprise appearance in the White House
briefing room to try to put the matter to rest. The blowup had
dominated national attention just as Obama was trying to
marshal public pressure to get Congress to push through health
care overhaul legislation — and as polls showed growing doubts
about his performance.
"This has been ratcheting up, and I obviously helped to contribute
ratcheting it up," Obama said of the racial controversy. "I want
to make clear that in my choice of words, I think I unfortunately
gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police
Department and Sgt. Crowley specifically. And I could've
calibrated those words differently." The president did not back
down from his contention that police had overreacted by
arresting the Harvard professor for disorderly conduct after
coming to his home to investigate a possible break-in. He added,
though, that he thought Gates, too, had overreacted to the police
who questioned him. The charge has been dropped.
Obama stirred up a hornet's nest when he said at a prime-time
news conference this week that Cambridge police had "acted
stupidly" by arresting Gates, a friend of the president's. Still,
Obama said Friday he didn't regret stepping into the controversy
and hoped the matter would end up being a "teachable moment"
for the nation.
"The fact that this has garnered so much attention, I think, is
testimony to the fact that these are issues that are still very
sensitive here in America," Obama said.
on National TV...
By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer Nancy Benac,
Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 30 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama concedes his words
— that a white police officer "acted stupidly" when he arrested
a black university scholar in his own home — were ill-chosen. But,
while he invited both men to visit him at the White House,
Obama stopped short of publicly apologizing for his remark.
The president personally telephoned the two men, Harvard
professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge, Mass., police
Sgt. James Crowley, in an effort to end the rancorous back-and
-forth over what had transpired and what Obama had said about
it. Trying to lighten the situation, he even commiserated with
Crowley about reporters on his lawn. Hours earlier, a multiracial
group of police officers had stood with Crowley in Massachusetts
and called on Obama to say he's sorry.
It was a measure of the nation's keen sensitivities on matters of
race that the fallout from a disorderly conduct charge in
Massachusetts — and the remarks of America's first black
president about it — had mushroomed to such an extent that he
felt compelled to make a surprise appearance in the White House
briefing room to try to put the matter to rest. The blowup had
dominated national attention just as Obama was trying to
marshal public pressure to get Congress to push through health
care overhaul legislation — and as polls showed growing doubts
about his performance.
"This has been ratcheting up, and I obviously helped to contribute
ratcheting it up," Obama said of the racial controversy. "I want
to make clear that in my choice of words, I think I unfortunately
gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police
Department and Sgt. Crowley specifically. And I could've
calibrated those words differently." The president did not back
down from his contention that police had overreacted by
arresting the Harvard professor for disorderly conduct after
coming to his home to investigate a possible break-in. He added,
though, that he thought Gates, too, had overreacted to the police
who questioned him. The charge has been dropped.
Obama stirred up a hornet's nest when he said at a prime-time
news conference this week that Cambridge police had "acted
stupidly" by arresting Gates, a friend of the president's. Still,
Obama said Friday he didn't regret stepping into the controversy
and hoped the matter would end up being a "teachable moment"
for the nation.
"The fact that this has garnered so much attention, I think, is
testimony to the fact that these are issues that are still very
sensitive here in America," Obama said.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Anybody ready to Petition Pelosi...
I heard in the news today that some of the House and Senate Democratic members are wanting Pelosi to step down. She has been an embarassment to her party and this country.
You know I thought about starting a petition of about 10,000 signatures to have Pelosi step down and send it in to Washington.
What do you think? Any takers?
You know I thought about starting a petition of about 10,000 signatures to have Pelosi step down and send it in to Washington.
What do you think? Any takers?
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
HealthCare Reform
Here is a link where you can go to check out this healthcare reform
bill for yourself. Read it and come to your own conclusions.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text
I have been told this is not the only healthcare reform bill out there. The original has over 1,000 pages. I think there are 3 or more.
We feel that we do need healthcare reform, but not this one!
Did You Know Your Politician Can Be Sued!
What is Political Malpractice?
Political malpractice is an instance of negligent or unethical conduct
on the part of an elected official. Like medical malpractice and legal
malpractice, political malpractice involves a breach of duty, and a
failure to offer professional services as expected. Political mal-
practice usually hurts the taxpayers and citizens whom the politician
is accountable to. This term is often thrown around pejoratively in
political rhetoric, with politicians accusing opponents of “malpractice”
when they really just mean that their opponents have made
controversial decisions.
There are a number of different kinds of political malpractice. The most
innocent, though not necessarily the least harmful, is negligence. If a
politician fails to fully review a bill, for example, and it later
turns out to be a disaster, this could be viewed as negligence by the
voters. Negligence is sometimes paired with incompetence, an inability
to perform the job. When a politician fails to adhere to an expected
standard of behavior, this can also be viewed as political malpractice.
On the more sinister end of things, political malpractice can involve
improper or unethical conduct undertaken deliberately. Accepting bribes
is a form of political malpractice, as are other activities which
demonstrate favoritism to particular constituents or organizations. In
some cases, this type of political malpractice can result in criminal
charges for corruption.Citizens rely on their elected officials to
advocate for them in legislative bodies, and to make good choices which
will benefit their communities. When politicians fail to hold up their
end of the bargain, this can have unfortunate consequences for the
citizens. An accusation of political malpractice indicates that citizens
are deeply unhappy with the way in which a politician has handled a
situation, and it can threaten a political career.
In some cases, political malpractice can be the grounds for a tort suit.
In the law, a tort is a civil wrong, and if proved, such a suit can
result in fines and other consequences for the convicted party. When the
citizens feel that they have experienced direct harm as a result of
political malpractice, many nations allow them to bring suit against
their elected officials to recover damages or remove those officials from
office. Citizens can also petition their elected officials to lobby for
the removal of a superior, such as a President or Prime Minister.
Discuss this Article
How about suing for violation of their oath which they swear to "defend
and protect" the constitution.--John Flinn
In other words they could be taken to court and sued for not reading the
billsthat they are given to read. If this Healthcare Reform is put in
place and fails-we have a right to sue and get a petition going to take
them out of office. Wow that is some interesting piece of News isn't it...
What is a Petition?
A petition is a formal written document which is submitted to an
authority in an attempt to get that authority to accede to a request.
Typically, a written petition is signed by multiple people, indicating
that a large group of people supports the request detailed in the
petition. In some countries, the right to petition members of government
is protected by law; many of these countries have legal systems based
on the English legal system, which has a right to petition dating back
to the Magna Carta.
Politically, a petition can be used to get an initiative on the ballot
in some countries, assuming that enough people sign the ballot. In the
United States, voter originated initiatives are common on many ballots,
and they cover a diverse array of issues which the authors of the
petition feel are not being addressed by figures in government. Petitions
can also be used in an attempt to repeal laws or to recall elected
officials. In other cases, petitions may be used for community appeals;
a group of people who wants an off-leash dog park, for example, might
create a petition to bring to a city council meeting for the members
to consider.
Here is the site if you want more info on Political malpractice.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-political-malpractice.htm
Political malpractice is an instance of negligent or unethical conduct
on the part of an elected official. Like medical malpractice and legal
malpractice, political malpractice involves a breach of duty, and a
failure to offer professional services as expected. Political mal-
practice usually hurts the taxpayers and citizens whom the politician
is accountable to. This term is often thrown around pejoratively in
political rhetoric, with politicians accusing opponents of “malpractice”
when they really just mean that their opponents have made
controversial decisions.
There are a number of different kinds of political malpractice. The most
innocent, though not necessarily the least harmful, is negligence. If a
politician fails to fully review a bill, for example, and it later
turns out to be a disaster, this could be viewed as negligence by the
voters. Negligence is sometimes paired with incompetence, an inability
to perform the job. When a politician fails to adhere to an expected
standard of behavior, this can also be viewed as political malpractice.
On the more sinister end of things, political malpractice can involve
improper or unethical conduct undertaken deliberately. Accepting bribes
is a form of political malpractice, as are other activities which
demonstrate favoritism to particular constituents or organizations. In
some cases, this type of political malpractice can result in criminal
charges for corruption.Citizens rely on their elected officials to
advocate for them in legislative bodies, and to make good choices which
will benefit their communities. When politicians fail to hold up their
end of the bargain, this can have unfortunate consequences for the
citizens. An accusation of political malpractice indicates that citizens
are deeply unhappy with the way in which a politician has handled a
situation, and it can threaten a political career.
In some cases, political malpractice can be the grounds for a tort suit.
In the law, a tort is a civil wrong, and if proved, such a suit can
result in fines and other consequences for the convicted party. When the
citizens feel that they have experienced direct harm as a result of
political malpractice, many nations allow them to bring suit against
their elected officials to recover damages or remove those officials from
office. Citizens can also petition their elected officials to lobby for
the removal of a superior, such as a President or Prime Minister.
Discuss this Article
How about suing for violation of their oath which they swear to "defend
and protect" the constitution.--John Flinn
In other words they could be taken to court and sued for not reading the
billsthat they are given to read. If this Healthcare Reform is put in
place and fails-we have a right to sue and get a petition going to take
them out of office. Wow that is some interesting piece of News isn't it...
What is a Petition?
A petition is a formal written document which is submitted to an
authority in an attempt to get that authority to accede to a request.
Typically, a written petition is signed by multiple people, indicating
that a large group of people supports the request detailed in the
petition. In some countries, the right to petition members of government
is protected by law; many of these countries have legal systems based
on the English legal system, which has a right to petition dating back
to the Magna Carta.
Politically, a petition can be used to get an initiative on the ballot
in some countries, assuming that enough people sign the ballot. In the
United States, voter originated initiatives are common on many ballots,
and they cover a diverse array of issues which the authors of the
petition feel are not being addressed by figures in government. Petitions
can also be used in an attempt to repeal laws or to recall elected
officials. In other cases, petitions may be used for community appeals;
a group of people who wants an off-leash dog park, for example, might
create a petition to bring to a city council meeting for the members
to consider.
Here is the site if you want more info on Political malpractice.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-political-malpractice.htm
GOP Congressman:
Not Enough Time To Read Health Care Reform Bill
Posted by Staff on July 17, 2009
Share This By Joseph Russell-Talk Radio News Service Rep. Paul Ryan
(R-Wis.) was admittedly blurry eyed when he addressed a group from
the Better Health Bloggers on Friday. Ryan was up all night on
Capitol Hill finalizing the House Ways and Means Committee version
of the health care reform. “It’s a bill that none of us read because
we couldn’t read it possibly in the time allotted, and we have no
idea what it costs. Nevertheless, the bill is out of the Ways and
Means Committee on its way to the House floor,” said Ryan.
Ryan addressed the Better Health Bloggers as part of a nation wide
campaign for physicians to support patients’ rights. Ryan asked for
support of the “Patient’s Choice Act,” which reforms health care by
strengthening the relationship between doctors and patients while
opening competition to contain costs, rather than raising the
possibility of government rationing and restrictions. Ryan said
under his bill “more uninsured Americans can be covered by spending
current dollars more wisely and more efficiently, than throwing
trillions more at the problem.” Dr. Val Jones created Better Health,
a network of popular health bloggers, to support and promote health
care professional’s views on reform, science, research, and care,
through blogs.
Today At TRNS GOP Congressman Says Republican Approved Patient’s
Choice Act Is More Effective Than Current Proposal You can leave a
response, or trackback from your own site.
3 Responses to “GOP Congressman: Not Enough Time To Read Health
Care Reform Bill”
1. Brittancus Says:
July 17th, 2009 at 2:42 pm CHOOSING THE USUAL PROFITING
INSURANCE COMPANY, OR CHOOSING GOVERNMENT PLAN SHOULD
BE UP TO AMERICANS?
The deciding factor in implementing health care for everybody–
LEGALLY–in America, is the Publics voice? Those who want to just
follow the same old road, can do so with the profit taking commercial
insurance. Those who would be satisfied with a government run health
care program, can now start demanding it from the lawmakers. Those
who see a Universal health care system, similar to most developed
countries in Europe, should start informing every Representative
and Senate politician starting today. Rationing in places like
England, was caused by the major impact of uncontrolled immigration.
Most American working class can do–without– high premiums, pre-
existing condition clauses. deductibles, co-pays that is representa-
tive of the wealthy medical care insurers. Whatever pertains to your
family, you should start ruffling the indifferent feathers of the
people in Washington at 202-224-3121
Just like illegal immigration , we cannot afford anymore to subsidize
the business that hire them or the millions of illegal families.
2. DemocracyGirl Says:
July 19th, 2009 at 11:55 am
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Read the actual bill. It takes away
your right to choose whether you want to be in the private or govt
plan. If you are in the private, lose your job and go on the govt
plan, you can’t EVER go back to the private plan. And, America has
worse IRRESPONSIBLE, UNCONTROLLED immigration as those countries
in Europe where there is rationing. Canada has rationing–it takes
a month to get a CT scan in Canada on average. Our Government has
not done that well running Medicare and Medicaid. When they can
actually run that effectively, maybe I would consider letting the
government run a health care program for everyone. But, their track
record just doesn’t do it for now.
3. Roundup: Reactions to Putting Patients First
See First Blog Says: July 20th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Talk Radio News Service
Posted by Staff on July 17, 2009
Share This By Joseph Russell-Talk Radio News Service Rep. Paul Ryan
(R-Wis.) was admittedly blurry eyed when he addressed a group from
the Better Health Bloggers on Friday. Ryan was up all night on
Capitol Hill finalizing the House Ways and Means Committee version
of the health care reform. “It’s a bill that none of us read because
we couldn’t read it possibly in the time allotted, and we have no
idea what it costs. Nevertheless, the bill is out of the Ways and
Means Committee on its way to the House floor,” said Ryan.
Ryan addressed the Better Health Bloggers as part of a nation wide
campaign for physicians to support patients’ rights. Ryan asked for
support of the “Patient’s Choice Act,” which reforms health care by
strengthening the relationship between doctors and patients while
opening competition to contain costs, rather than raising the
possibility of government rationing and restrictions. Ryan said
under his bill “more uninsured Americans can be covered by spending
current dollars more wisely and more efficiently, than throwing
trillions more at the problem.” Dr. Val Jones created Better Health,
a network of popular health bloggers, to support and promote health
care professional’s views on reform, science, research, and care,
through blogs.
Today At TRNS GOP Congressman Says Republican Approved Patient’s
Choice Act Is More Effective Than Current Proposal You can leave a
response, or trackback from your own site.
3 Responses to “GOP Congressman: Not Enough Time To Read Health
Care Reform Bill”
1. Brittancus Says:
July 17th, 2009 at 2:42 pm CHOOSING THE USUAL PROFITING
INSURANCE COMPANY, OR CHOOSING GOVERNMENT PLAN SHOULD
BE UP TO AMERICANS?
The deciding factor in implementing health care for everybody–
LEGALLY–in America, is the Publics voice? Those who want to just
follow the same old road, can do so with the profit taking commercial
insurance. Those who would be satisfied with a government run health
care program, can now start demanding it from the lawmakers. Those
who see a Universal health care system, similar to most developed
countries in Europe, should start informing every Representative
and Senate politician starting today. Rationing in places like
England, was caused by the major impact of uncontrolled immigration.
Most American working class can do–without– high premiums, pre-
existing condition clauses. deductibles, co-pays that is representa-
tive of the wealthy medical care insurers. Whatever pertains to your
family, you should start ruffling the indifferent feathers of the
people in Washington at 202-224-3121
Just like illegal immigration , we cannot afford anymore to subsidize
the business that hire them or the millions of illegal families.
2. DemocracyGirl Says:
July 19th, 2009 at 11:55 am
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Read the actual bill. It takes away
your right to choose whether you want to be in the private or govt
plan. If you are in the private, lose your job and go on the govt
plan, you can’t EVER go back to the private plan. And, America has
worse IRRESPONSIBLE, UNCONTROLLED immigration as those countries
in Europe where there is rationing. Canada has rationing–it takes
a month to get a CT scan in Canada on average. Our Government has
not done that well running Medicare and Medicaid. When they can
actually run that effectively, maybe I would consider letting the
government run a health care program for everyone. But, their track
record just doesn’t do it for now.
3. Roundup: Reactions to Putting Patients First
See First Blog Says: July 20th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Talk Radio News Service
President Obama's Conference Call with Liberal Bloggers:
This is a Liberal Blog CrooksandLiars that President Obama attended.
Comments in ( ) are mine.
Blogger: John Amato asks Congress to work through the August recess
By John Amato Monday Jul 20, 2009 3:32pm
President Obama wanted to tell us directly what's going on..
He wants the bill to be strong with an excellent public option.
The status quo is unacceptable for Americans as premiums are
skyrocketing.. (So is government spending skyrocketing)
Doing nothing is defending the indefensible. Opponents are offering
up nothing and admit that they are just trying to stop it. He
mentioned Jim DeMint and Bill Kristol as examples of obstructionism.
Liberal Bloggers have done an excellent job of debunking right
wing myths... Bloggers have played and will play a critical role in
passing legislation... Record deficits is a myth. He inherited this
deficit and it's not an excuse for inaction... (Yeah he inherited
some, but he is making it worse)
It's important to keep pressure on members of Congress...
(Yeah, they could be voted out-we still have our votes and voices)
Sam Stein of Huff Po: Obama Calls On Bloggers To Keep Health Care
Pressure On Congress "I know the blogs are best at are debunking
myths that can slip through a lot of the traditional media outlets,"
he said. "And that is why you are going to play such an important
role in our success in the weeks to come." Very pleased that
Bloggers have been letting Congress know all about the desperation
Americans are feeling and that's been critical.
(Scared about job situation, the bill can wait a few weeks-we need jobs)
And he wants us to keep up the pressure on Congress and the media.
Doesn't want to wait.
Amato: My question is, now we have these, we'll call them conservative
democrats (they have got to be kidding) joining with some republicans
in wanting to delay the bill (we need reformed healthcare, but we don't
need to rush through it-they need to read it)and saying that they need
more time to go over it and actually read it. My question to you is will
you ask Congress to forgo their August recess and work this bill out
because while they're taking a vacation, millions of Americans are either
losing their health care or are about to go bankrupt because of health
care issues. (about to go bankrupt due to no jobs-that's priority)
So if they're going to whine about not having enough time then they
should act like real Americans and work during August.
President Obama: Well, here's what I've said. We cannot delay any
longer. If people keep on saying "what's the rush? We've been debating
this for fifty years. (so a few more weeks or months won't hurt) We've
been talking about health care reform throughout the campaign. The
day after I was elected we started contacting key leaders in Congress
about the fact that this was going to be #1 domestic priority. All
these committees have been meeting, all the experts have been talking
and knows the time to make tough decisions. I understand that people
want to put off tough decisions, but ultimately we can move the process
forward in which all the options have been considered and we go ahead
and make smarter choices that provide the American people with more
security, (more security with jobs) greater options as well as bending
the cost curve over the long term and I'm confident that we can achieve
that on the timeline that I put forward.
John Amato: I agree, will you then make them give us a bill before
the August recess?
President Obama: We are working as hard as we can and I've told
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi that it is critical that we see serious
forward motion before people leave. Alright?
He dodged the question
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 16:32 — ConcernedCanuck
But gives great rhetoric speeches!! Everything this man has done since
the swearing in, seems to be the exact opposite of what he is saying.
He has the gift of the speech, that's for sure.
I like him, and his family but let's face it
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 16:43 — Evet
it ain't happening. (Yet)
Read and read well...
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 16:37 — Captain Kangaroo
I think the White House is reading this so here I go...
Forget about bipartisanship. The Republicans will never play along.
THAT IS OBVIOUS! Give it lip service but then forget about it. Get the
Blue Dogs and tell them they better get on board or they will not have
any help, none, when it's time for reelection. Let them know that if
they get defeated in an election because they backed a Democratic bill
you, the White House will be sure that they get a good job because they
put their old one on the line. And absolutely do not settle for some
bullshit plan that the Republicans think is alright.
Look, Their talking points say it all. And NEVER forget what Jim DeMint
said becasue it is their philosophy. They are only out to defeat you.
Nothing else will do for them.
Comments in ( ) are mine.
Blogger: John Amato asks Congress to work through the August recess
By John Amato Monday Jul 20, 2009 3:32pm
President Obama wanted to tell us directly what's going on..
He wants the bill to be strong with an excellent public option.
The status quo is unacceptable for Americans as premiums are
skyrocketing.. (So is government spending skyrocketing)
Doing nothing is defending the indefensible. Opponents are offering
up nothing and admit that they are just trying to stop it. He
mentioned Jim DeMint and Bill Kristol as examples of obstructionism.
Liberal Bloggers have done an excellent job of debunking right
wing myths... Bloggers have played and will play a critical role in
passing legislation... Record deficits is a myth. He inherited this
deficit and it's not an excuse for inaction... (Yeah he inherited
some, but he is making it worse)
It's important to keep pressure on members of Congress...
(Yeah, they could be voted out-we still have our votes and voices)
Sam Stein of Huff Po: Obama Calls On Bloggers To Keep Health Care
Pressure On Congress "I know the blogs are best at are debunking
myths that can slip through a lot of the traditional media outlets,"
he said. "And that is why you are going to play such an important
role in our success in the weeks to come." Very pleased that
Bloggers have been letting Congress know all about the desperation
Americans are feeling and that's been critical.
(Scared about job situation, the bill can wait a few weeks-we need jobs)
And he wants us to keep up the pressure on Congress and the media.
Doesn't want to wait.
Amato: My question is, now we have these, we'll call them conservative
democrats (they have got to be kidding) joining with some republicans
in wanting to delay the bill (we need reformed healthcare, but we don't
need to rush through it-they need to read it)and saying that they need
more time to go over it and actually read it. My question to you is will
you ask Congress to forgo their August recess and work this bill out
because while they're taking a vacation, millions of Americans are either
losing their health care or are about to go bankrupt because of health
care issues. (about to go bankrupt due to no jobs-that's priority)
So if they're going to whine about not having enough time then they
should act like real Americans and work during August.
President Obama: Well, here's what I've said. We cannot delay any
longer. If people keep on saying "what's the rush? We've been debating
this for fifty years. (so a few more weeks or months won't hurt) We've
been talking about health care reform throughout the campaign. The
day after I was elected we started contacting key leaders in Congress
about the fact that this was going to be #1 domestic priority. All
these committees have been meeting, all the experts have been talking
and knows the time to make tough decisions. I understand that people
want to put off tough decisions, but ultimately we can move the process
forward in which all the options have been considered and we go ahead
and make smarter choices that provide the American people with more
security, (more security with jobs) greater options as well as bending
the cost curve over the long term and I'm confident that we can achieve
that on the timeline that I put forward.
John Amato: I agree, will you then make them give us a bill before
the August recess?
President Obama: We are working as hard as we can and I've told
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi that it is critical that we see serious
forward motion before people leave. Alright?
He dodged the question
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 16:32 — ConcernedCanuck
But gives great rhetoric speeches!! Everything this man has done since
the swearing in, seems to be the exact opposite of what he is saying.
He has the gift of the speech, that's for sure.
I like him, and his family but let's face it
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 16:43 — Evet
it ain't happening. (Yet)
Read and read well...
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 16:37 — Captain Kangaroo
I think the White House is reading this so here I go...
Forget about bipartisanship. The Republicans will never play along.
THAT IS OBVIOUS! Give it lip service but then forget about it. Get the
Blue Dogs and tell them they better get on board or they will not have
any help, none, when it's time for reelection. Let them know that if
they get defeated in an election because they backed a Democratic bill
you, the White House will be sure that they get a good job because they
put their old one on the line. And absolutely do not settle for some
bullshit plan that the Republicans think is alright.
Look, Their talking points say it all. And NEVER forget what Jim DeMint
said becasue it is their philosophy. They are only out to defeat you.
Nothing else will do for them.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
ACORN Cracked
Best-selling author and Fox News analyst Dick Morris calls ACORNcracked.com a “one-stop clearinghouse to gain important intelligence on ACORN. It is a useful resource in exposing ACORN and its agenda unlike anything I've seen."
If you like what ACORN did to create the housing credit crisis, you’ll love how its leaders want to create health care “equality.” Visit ACORNcracked.com to learn more about ACORN’s radical agenda for America, its bankrollers and allies, and its lurid plans for the American health care system.
Help Stop ACORN-style Socialized Medicine!
The sad truth is that a radical, left-wing organization like ACORN is actually affecting public policy, pushing America further down the slippery slope toward European-style socialism. ACORN alumni like President Obama and White House Director of Public Affairs Patrick Gaspard are busy enacting the organization’s agenda, beginning with health care.
ACORNcracked.com is designed to keep a finger on the pulse of this type of activity and alert the American people and media.
Help Us Get The Word Out!
The new website exposes ACORN’s history, which has resulted in lawsuits in 14 states involving alleged election law violations. It also examines the group’s continued campaigns against American companies, its financial supporters within the federal government, and its breathtaking strategy of seizing and occupying private property.
Help Us Expose ACORN-style Shakedowns of American Companies!
ACORN gets away with it because our elected leaders look the other way.
Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) recently promised Americans he would investigate ACORN, but flip-flopped two months later, saying the “powers that be” blocked it.
We demand to know the identity of the “powers that be” that would block such a sensible inquiry. They obviously exist within the federal establishment, as the money trail tells us. According to Fox News, ACORN has secured “upwards of $53 million in federal grants since the early 90s.” And what ACORN activities are funded with that money? As you’ll find on ACORNcracked.com, they repossess foreclosed homes by breaking in, trespassing and encouraging people to illegally squat there.
In Baltimore, an ACORN member proudly cut the padlock off a foreclosed home in front of local TV cameras and proclaimed, “This is our house now!”
Activities of this kind, supported by the “powers that be,” can only continue if the American people turn the other cheek. We need your help to continue exposing ACORN, its agenda and its allies.
There is a growing body of research regarding ACORN, shining light on the questionable activities of the organization, but no single clearinghouse for all of the accumulated information. That’s what ACORNcracked.com is designed to be.
And the more financial resources that the site can gather, the more ammunition we at the Education Action Fund will have to further investigate and expose ACORN’s alarming misuse of the public funds it receives.
An Allegheny County judge recently ordered 7 former ACORN workers to stand trial in connection with “elections law violations. “Somebody has to go after ACORN,” Senior District Judge Richard H. Zoller said, according to the Tribune-Review. “We will,” was the reply from a county detective.
We will, too, your honor.
Thank you...
If you like what ACORN did to create the housing credit crisis, you’ll love how its leaders want to create health care “equality.” Visit ACORNcracked.com to learn more about ACORN’s radical agenda for America, its bankrollers and allies, and its lurid plans for the American health care system.
Help Stop ACORN-style Socialized Medicine!
The sad truth is that a radical, left-wing organization like ACORN is actually affecting public policy, pushing America further down the slippery slope toward European-style socialism. ACORN alumni like President Obama and White House Director of Public Affairs Patrick Gaspard are busy enacting the organization’s agenda, beginning with health care.
ACORNcracked.com is designed to keep a finger on the pulse of this type of activity and alert the American people and media.
Help Us Get The Word Out!
The new website exposes ACORN’s history, which has resulted in lawsuits in 14 states involving alleged election law violations. It also examines the group’s continued campaigns against American companies, its financial supporters within the federal government, and its breathtaking strategy of seizing and occupying private property.
Help Us Expose ACORN-style Shakedowns of American Companies!
ACORN gets away with it because our elected leaders look the other way.
Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) recently promised Americans he would investigate ACORN, but flip-flopped two months later, saying the “powers that be” blocked it.
We demand to know the identity of the “powers that be” that would block such a sensible inquiry. They obviously exist within the federal establishment, as the money trail tells us. According to Fox News, ACORN has secured “upwards of $53 million in federal grants since the early 90s.” And what ACORN activities are funded with that money? As you’ll find on ACORNcracked.com, they repossess foreclosed homes by breaking in, trespassing and encouraging people to illegally squat there.
In Baltimore, an ACORN member proudly cut the padlock off a foreclosed home in front of local TV cameras and proclaimed, “This is our house now!”
Activities of this kind, supported by the “powers that be,” can only continue if the American people turn the other cheek. We need your help to continue exposing ACORN, its agenda and its allies.
There is a growing body of research regarding ACORN, shining light on the questionable activities of the organization, but no single clearinghouse for all of the accumulated information. That’s what ACORNcracked.com is designed to be.
And the more financial resources that the site can gather, the more ammunition we at the Education Action Fund will have to further investigate and expose ACORN’s alarming misuse of the public funds it receives.
An Allegheny County judge recently ordered 7 former ACORN workers to stand trial in connection with “elections law violations. “Somebody has to go after ACORN,” Senior District Judge Richard H. Zoller said, according to the Tribune-Review. “We will,” was the reply from a county detective.
We will, too, your honor.
Thank you...
Wise Words from the Past
“No man is good enough to govern another man without his consent...
these United States Of America can never be destroyed from the
forces outside its borders. If America falls, it will fall from within.
Brought down by apathy. When good people do nothing anarchy
reigns.” - Abraham Lincoln
The hottest place in hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in
times of great moral conflict - Martin Luther King
these United States Of America can never be destroyed from the
forces outside its borders. If America falls, it will fall from within.
Brought down by apathy. When good people do nothing anarchy
reigns.” - Abraham Lincoln
The hottest place in hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in
times of great moral conflict - Martin Luther King
Friday, July 17, 2009
Obama Tax Plan Affects Everyone
Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:07 PMBy: Dan Mangru
Read his lips.
“I can make a firm pledge,” Obama told a crowd in Dover, N.H. last September.
“Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
Famous last words: Not any of your taxes. Apparently Obama and his administration believe that the American public only listen to rhetoric and read the headlines.
Just this week, I couldn’t get on the Web or pickup a newspaper without reading The New York Times headline, “House Health Plan Outlines Higher Taxes on Rich,” or some version of taxing the rich. All of which point to Obama as Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor in the name of healthcare. While that may sound nice to the middle class, seniors, small business owners, and the poor, sometimes you have to look beyond the rhetoric and beyond the headlines. Laced into Obama’s government healthcare bill are tax increases that no one is talking about that will actually pay for the massive healthcare expansion.
First off is the new tax on soda. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel has introduced a 10-cent per can tax on sugary sodas onto Obama’s healthcare bill. Estimates indicate that this tax could generate over $112 billion.
I wonder if anyone in the Obama administration stopped to ponder if people who make less than $200,000 a year drink soda. I wonder if they thought that a soda tax only affected the rich.
News flash to Obama and Congress: People who make less than $200,000 a year drink soda.
What’s so appalling about the soda tax is not that Obama is going to hurt millions of American families by raising their cost of living. It is that Obama is doing so without anyone realizing it.
The middle class and the poor have been duped by Obama and his $600 stimulus checks and his tax rebates (which have really been increases in welfare spending and not direct tax rebates). Obama wants to go on the PR tour and talk about how he’s putting money back in the pockets of American families.
Well, as Obama giveth, Obama taketh away.
What the middle class and the poor don’t see is that Obama is taking back that money and then some with his hidden tax hikes. For instance, Obama is taking an extra 62 cents for every pack of cigarettes that you smoke.
Insignificant you might say.
The National Taxpayers Union notes that tobacco taxes take a 50 times larger share of income from households making less than $20,000 in annual income than those earning more than $200,000 in annual income.
In addition, families making less than $30,000 a year shell out more than 50 percent of all taxes levied on cigarettes, and households earning over than $60,000, let alone those making over $200,000, pay only 14 percent.
After taking away your money by taxing sodas and cigarettes, Obama also wants to hit you where it really hurts, your energy bill.
By limiting tax breaks for domestic production of energy and a host of other energy tax hikes, Obama’s new budget is expected to raise U.S. energy bills by $105 billion over the next 10 years. All of that is without even mentioning cap and trade, which is projected to cost American families billions more.
But to repeat the Obama mantra, we’re only going to raise taxes on the rich.
Let’s take a further look at that. If Obama raises taxes on all individuals making more than $200,000 a year, will that affect working families?
According to a recent Joint Committee on Taxation analysis of President Obama’s budget proposal, almost half (47 percent) of the income that would be exposed to Obama’s tax hikes would be income produced by small business men and women who file as individuals.
If small businesses are being taxed more, they are just going to swallow it up and pay more money, and chalk it up to bad luck. As Vice President Joe Biden would say about paying more taxes, it’s the patriotic thing to do.
However, as British poet John Donne once said, “No man is an island.”
We are all interconnected. When small businesses and businesses in general see higher taxes, they respond by raising the prices of their goods and services to pay for those taxes. So when your local plumber, whose business brings in over $200,000 a year, decides to raise the rates, just thank Obama for that. When the price of getting your car fixed at your local mechanic shop goes up, just thank Obama for that. And when it comes time to send your kids to school and you can’t afford to put gas in your car, just thank Obama for that.
What the administration doesn’t understand is that when you go to buy a gallon of gas, they don’t ask you whether you earn over $200,000 a year or not. They tax you just the same as everyone else.
Taxes have a way of trickling down our economy, and when you tax one of us, you tax all of us because we are all interconnected. So when Obama speaks of just taxing the rich, remember that you just can’t tax the rich, because eventually, in some way or another, you’ll end up bearing the burden for at least some of those taxes.
Whether it is higher food costs, higher energy costs, or just a higher cost of living, in the end, everyone has to pay for tax hikes. Obama and his PR team don’t want you to know that. They just want you to collect your $600 stimulus check and be happy.
Read his lips.
“I can make a firm pledge,” Obama told a crowd in Dover, N.H. last September.
“Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
Famous last words: Not any of your taxes. Apparently Obama and his administration believe that the American public only listen to rhetoric and read the headlines.
Just this week, I couldn’t get on the Web or pickup a newspaper without reading The New York Times headline, “House Health Plan Outlines Higher Taxes on Rich,” or some version of taxing the rich. All of which point to Obama as Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor in the name of healthcare. While that may sound nice to the middle class, seniors, small business owners, and the poor, sometimes you have to look beyond the rhetoric and beyond the headlines. Laced into Obama’s government healthcare bill are tax increases that no one is talking about that will actually pay for the massive healthcare expansion.
First off is the new tax on soda. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel has introduced a 10-cent per can tax on sugary sodas onto Obama’s healthcare bill. Estimates indicate that this tax could generate over $112 billion.
I wonder if anyone in the Obama administration stopped to ponder if people who make less than $200,000 a year drink soda. I wonder if they thought that a soda tax only affected the rich.
News flash to Obama and Congress: People who make less than $200,000 a year drink soda.
What’s so appalling about the soda tax is not that Obama is going to hurt millions of American families by raising their cost of living. It is that Obama is doing so without anyone realizing it.
The middle class and the poor have been duped by Obama and his $600 stimulus checks and his tax rebates (which have really been increases in welfare spending and not direct tax rebates). Obama wants to go on the PR tour and talk about how he’s putting money back in the pockets of American families.
Well, as Obama giveth, Obama taketh away.
What the middle class and the poor don’t see is that Obama is taking back that money and then some with his hidden tax hikes. For instance, Obama is taking an extra 62 cents for every pack of cigarettes that you smoke.
Insignificant you might say.
The National Taxpayers Union notes that tobacco taxes take a 50 times larger share of income from households making less than $20,000 in annual income than those earning more than $200,000 in annual income.
In addition, families making less than $30,000 a year shell out more than 50 percent of all taxes levied on cigarettes, and households earning over than $60,000, let alone those making over $200,000, pay only 14 percent.
After taking away your money by taxing sodas and cigarettes, Obama also wants to hit you where it really hurts, your energy bill.
By limiting tax breaks for domestic production of energy and a host of other energy tax hikes, Obama’s new budget is expected to raise U.S. energy bills by $105 billion over the next 10 years. All of that is without even mentioning cap and trade, which is projected to cost American families billions more.
But to repeat the Obama mantra, we’re only going to raise taxes on the rich.
Let’s take a further look at that. If Obama raises taxes on all individuals making more than $200,000 a year, will that affect working families?
According to a recent Joint Committee on Taxation analysis of President Obama’s budget proposal, almost half (47 percent) of the income that would be exposed to Obama’s tax hikes would be income produced by small business men and women who file as individuals.
If small businesses are being taxed more, they are just going to swallow it up and pay more money, and chalk it up to bad luck. As Vice President Joe Biden would say about paying more taxes, it’s the patriotic thing to do.
However, as British poet John Donne once said, “No man is an island.”
We are all interconnected. When small businesses and businesses in general see higher taxes, they respond by raising the prices of their goods and services to pay for those taxes. So when your local plumber, whose business brings in over $200,000 a year, decides to raise the rates, just thank Obama for that. When the price of getting your car fixed at your local mechanic shop goes up, just thank Obama for that. And when it comes time to send your kids to school and you can’t afford to put gas in your car, just thank Obama for that.
What the administration doesn’t understand is that when you go to buy a gallon of gas, they don’t ask you whether you earn over $200,000 a year or not. They tax you just the same as everyone else.
Taxes have a way of trickling down our economy, and when you tax one of us, you tax all of us because we are all interconnected. So when Obama speaks of just taxing the rich, remember that you just can’t tax the rich, because eventually, in some way or another, you’ll end up bearing the burden for at least some of those taxes.
Whether it is higher food costs, higher energy costs, or just a higher cost of living, in the end, everyone has to pay for tax hikes. Obama and his PR team don’t want you to know that. They just want you to collect your $600 stimulus check and be happy.
Faber: Next Stimulus Will Be Worse
Wednesday, July 15, 2009 3:46 PMBy: Julie Crawshaw
Some economists think that another bubble is what’s needed to get the economy moving again.
Gloom, Boom and Doom publisher Marc Faber said this is ridiculous, and that the Federal Reserve — which he holds responsible for creating the housing bubble — wants to do it all over again.
The central bank should not encourage excessive credit growth, Faber tells Moneynews.com's Dan Mangru in an exclusive interview.
Between 2000 and 2007 the total U.S. credit market debt increased at five times the rate of nominal gross domestic product.
Unfortunately, Faber said, the next bubble is already here. This time it’s government spending and fiscal deficits that Faber thinks will double the government’s debt during the next six years or less.
“The U.S. government is largely deranged,” he said. “The private sector is the dynamic one, and that’s why I object tremendously against building up fiscal deficits because (they) shift economic activity into unproductive government instead of leaving it in the private sector.”
Another stimulus package would only make matters worse.
“In the Depression, they had one stimulus after another and it didn’t help,” Faber said. “What helped was World War II.”
Some economists think that another bubble is what’s needed to get the economy moving again.
Gloom, Boom and Doom publisher Marc Faber said this is ridiculous, and that the Federal Reserve — which he holds responsible for creating the housing bubble — wants to do it all over again.
The central bank should not encourage excessive credit growth, Faber tells Moneynews.com's Dan Mangru in an exclusive interview.
Between 2000 and 2007 the total U.S. credit market debt increased at five times the rate of nominal gross domestic product.
Unfortunately, Faber said, the next bubble is already here. This time it’s government spending and fiscal deficits that Faber thinks will double the government’s debt during the next six years or less.
“The U.S. government is largely deranged,” he said. “The private sector is the dynamic one, and that’s why I object tremendously against building up fiscal deficits because (they) shift economic activity into unproductive government instead of leaving it in the private sector.”
Another stimulus package would only make matters worse.
“In the Depression, they had one stimulus after another and it didn’t help,” Faber said. “What helped was World War II.”
Rogers: America Bordering On Communism
Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:41 AMBy: Dan Weil
Investor extraordinaire Jim Rogers has harsh words for the government’s interventionist economic policy.
That policy, which he dates back to the Bush administration, verges on communism, he told Moneynews's Dan Mangru in an interview.
“America now owns the car industry. America owns the mortgage industry. America owns a lot of the insurance industry,” Rogers said.
“Karl Marx must be somewhere standing up in his grave cheering.” And why is that? “America has become a socialist and maybe even communist nation in many ways,” Rogers said.
In Asia, by contrast, “they’re not doing that. In Asia, they’re getting rid of state and government ownership,” he said.
As for stimulus, Rogers said that President Bush approved two packages, President Obama one, and now there’s talk of a fourth.
“The first stimulus didn’t work. The second stimulus didn’t work. The third stimulus hasn’t worked,” he said.
found at http://corp.brightcove.com/legal/terms_publisher.cfm. -->
Investor extraordinaire Jim Rogers has harsh words for the government’s interventionist economic policy.
That policy, which he dates back to the Bush administration, verges on communism, he told Moneynews's Dan Mangru in an interview.
“America now owns the car industry. America owns the mortgage industry. America owns a lot of the insurance industry,” Rogers said.
“Karl Marx must be somewhere standing up in his grave cheering.” And why is that? “America has become a socialist and maybe even communist nation in many ways,” Rogers said.
In Asia, by contrast, “they’re not doing that. In Asia, they’re getting rid of state and government ownership,” he said.
As for stimulus, Rogers said that President Bush approved two packages, President Obama one, and now there’s talk of a fourth.
“The first stimulus didn’t work. The second stimulus didn’t work. The third stimulus hasn’t worked,” he said.
found at http://corp.brightcove.com/legal/terms_publisher.cfm. -->
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Update on News of Healthcare Reform
Dear Friends,
Nancy Pelosi is at it again. Yesterday, she dropped a 1,018-page
bill pushing government-run health care. We need to act now to
make sure that our worst nightmares don’t come true. We had a
great 48-hour campaign last week that pushed us well past
100,000 signatures, but we can’t stop there. Have you sent
Americans for Prosperity's "Hands Off My Healthcare" petition to
ten of your friends and family yet? If not, do so now. Let’s reach
250,000 signatures – we are more than halfway there. This latest
bill includes: A new government health insurance plan. An individual
mandate that every one of us must purchase government-defined
health insurance or face new taxes and fines. This is a clear breaking
of the president's pledge not to raise taxes on Americans earning less
than $250,000 per year – at least 8 million Americans and their
families will see their taxes go up. An employer mandate that will
make businesses either provide government-defined insurance
coverage or pay a penalty tax. Another income tax on households
and many small businesses with an annual income of $350,000 to
help pay for all this. This is another broken campaign promise.
The president had pledged not to increase any American's taxes
above the level of the 1990s – and that is just what would happen.
Did I mention that the government will decide what is an “adequate”
health insurance package? A new bureaucracy – the Benefits
Advisory Committee – and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services will decide what coverage you have to pay for and what
diseases and treatments will be covered. Another bailout that will
cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars – this time to unions to bail
out their retiree health care plans. More Comparative Effectiveness
Research that could lead to government bureaucrats denying you
health care treatment options.
I wonder if Nancy Pelosi has read all 1,018 pages of the bill? I highly
doubt it! Doesn't it seem like common sense that our representatives
to Congress, who will cast the votes to make those bills laws, should
read them first? Well, apparently only 44 senators and representatives
are willing to sign the Responsible Healthcare Reform Pledge to
promise to read the bill before voting on it – and to let Americans see
it, too. Are your senators or representative among those 44? Call them
today at (202) 224-3121 and ask them if they have signed the
Responsible Healthcare Reform Pledge! Is there really any excuse for
them not to? And while you're at it, why not call into a local talk radio
show or write a letter to the editor of your local paper on this issue?
In fact, if you’ll send me your letter to the editor and tell me your
name, city, and where you submitted it, we’ll publish it on the Patients
First site! My email is:
http://us.mc383.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=amymenefee@afp-mail.com
We don't need a health care bill that puts our health in the hands of
government bureaucrats. Keep up the pressure!
UPDATE: Just heard on radio that Obama had included something on
page 16 of the HealthCare Bill that if you are not covered by Health
Insurance, when his plan is put in place you will not be able to look for
Health Care because you will be forced to use the Governments Health
Care system. And he has plans of taking over Medicare. People these
are desperate times. We need to get involved!
Please check this site out: http://www.patientsunitednow.com/
Nancy Pelosi is at it again. Yesterday, she dropped a 1,018-page
bill pushing government-run health care. We need to act now to
make sure that our worst nightmares don’t come true. We had a
great 48-hour campaign last week that pushed us well past
100,000 signatures, but we can’t stop there. Have you sent
Americans for Prosperity's "Hands Off My Healthcare" petition to
ten of your friends and family yet? If not, do so now. Let’s reach
250,000 signatures – we are more than halfway there. This latest
bill includes: A new government health insurance plan. An individual
mandate that every one of us must purchase government-defined
health insurance or face new taxes and fines. This is a clear breaking
of the president's pledge not to raise taxes on Americans earning less
than $250,000 per year – at least 8 million Americans and their
families will see their taxes go up. An employer mandate that will
make businesses either provide government-defined insurance
coverage or pay a penalty tax. Another income tax on households
and many small businesses with an annual income of $350,000 to
help pay for all this. This is another broken campaign promise.
The president had pledged not to increase any American's taxes
above the level of the 1990s – and that is just what would happen.
Did I mention that the government will decide what is an “adequate”
health insurance package? A new bureaucracy – the Benefits
Advisory Committee – and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services will decide what coverage you have to pay for and what
diseases and treatments will be covered. Another bailout that will
cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars – this time to unions to bail
out their retiree health care plans. More Comparative Effectiveness
Research that could lead to government bureaucrats denying you
health care treatment options.
I wonder if Nancy Pelosi has read all 1,018 pages of the bill? I highly
doubt it! Doesn't it seem like common sense that our representatives
to Congress, who will cast the votes to make those bills laws, should
read them first? Well, apparently only 44 senators and representatives
are willing to sign the Responsible Healthcare Reform Pledge to
promise to read the bill before voting on it – and to let Americans see
it, too. Are your senators or representative among those 44? Call them
today at (202) 224-3121 and ask them if they have signed the
Responsible Healthcare Reform Pledge! Is there really any excuse for
them not to? And while you're at it, why not call into a local talk radio
show or write a letter to the editor of your local paper on this issue?
In fact, if you’ll send me your letter to the editor and tell me your
name, city, and where you submitted it, we’ll publish it on the Patients
First site! My email is:
http://us.mc383.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=amymenefee@afp-mail.com
We don't need a health care bill that puts our health in the hands of
government bureaucrats. Keep up the pressure!
UPDATE: Just heard on radio that Obama had included something on
page 16 of the HealthCare Bill that if you are not covered by Health
Insurance, when his plan is put in place you will not be able to look for
Health Care because you will be forced to use the Governments Health
Care system. And he has plans of taking over Medicare. People these
are desperate times. We need to get involved!
Please check this site out: http://www.patientsunitednow.com/
Sites to go to for info about the bills in the house...
Please click on these sites for information that is going on in this country on the hill right now as we speak. I hope it's not too late to move on some of these issues.
US Chamber of Commerce
http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe8a1c77716c057475&m=fef81d76716004&ls=fdee16757066017476117672&l=fe9e1572756d047d70&s=fe1512747d6d0c75751c77&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe571c757c62037f7715&r=0
This will protect our rights to bare Arms
www.nationalgunrights.org/petitions/hr45petition2.htm
Renewing American Leadership
In God We Trust, But Congress Must Be Watched!
A MESSAGE FROM SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH
Finally, there is some good news. Last Thursday,
the US House passed H.Con.Res. 131 directing the
Architect of the Capitol to engrave the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag and the National Motto of
"In God We Trust" in the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC).
During construction of the Capitol Visitor Center,
both “In God We Trust” and the pledge were omitted,
and the House Architect refused to have them added.
We were very vocal about the omissions and worked to
have both included. The words “In God We Trust” were
added just prior to the opening, but the Pledge of Allegiance
was not. The Pledge is the only set of common words that
both the House and the Senate recite to begin their legislative day.
We CAN fight back -- Join us now in Renewing American Leadership
Select Here To Defend American Civilization https://secure.conservativedonations.com/real_dvdoffer/?a=2724
Ask your Representative to Prevent Illegal Aliens
from Receiving Government Health Care Benefits
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/
US Chamber of Commerce
http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe8a1c77716c057475&m=fef81d76716004&ls=fdee16757066017476117672&l=fe9e1572756d047d70&s=fe1512747d6d0c75751c77&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe571c757c62037f7715&r=0
This will protect our rights to bare Arms
www.nationalgunrights.org/petitions/hr45petition2.htm
Renewing American Leadership
In God We Trust, But Congress Must Be Watched!
A MESSAGE FROM SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH
Finally, there is some good news. Last Thursday,
the US House passed H.Con.Res. 131 directing the
Architect of the Capitol to engrave the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag and the National Motto of
"In God We Trust" in the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC).
During construction of the Capitol Visitor Center,
both “In God We Trust” and the pledge were omitted,
and the House Architect refused to have them added.
We were very vocal about the omissions and worked to
have both included. The words “In God We Trust” were
added just prior to the opening, but the Pledge of Allegiance
was not. The Pledge is the only set of common words that
both the House and the Senate recite to begin their legislative day.
We CAN fight back -- Join us now in Renewing American Leadership
Select Here To Defend American Civilization https://secure.conservativedonations.com/real_dvdoffer/?a=2724
Ask your Representative to Prevent Illegal Aliens
from Receiving Government Health Care Benefits
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/
Men Of Integrity
Knowing and obeying Jesus Christ.
Knowing and displaying Godly character.
Knowing and loving our wives.
Knowing and loving our children.
Knowing and loving our friends and family.
Knowing our gifts and abilities, so we can work
hard and effectively in an area of strength, rather than
weakness and contribute effectively to the lives of others.
In our weaknesses holding on to our lords promise spoken of in
2 Corinthians 12: 9
"My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness"
Knowing and displaying Godly character.
Knowing and loving our wives.
Knowing and loving our children.
Knowing and loving our friends and family.
Knowing our gifts and abilities, so we can work
hard and effectively in an area of strength, rather than
weakness and contribute effectively to the lives of others.
In our weaknesses holding on to our lords promise spoken of in
2 Corinthians 12: 9
"My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
