This video does a great job of showing how President Obama often says one thing and then does the opposite. In this case, regarding Black fatherhood and population control:
This video does a great job of showing how President Obama often says one thing and then does the opposite. In this case, regarding Black fatherhood and population control:
The Obama administration has made it clear that hopeless cases like the mentally disabled and old people are less important in Obamacare. They'll get ordered to the back of the bus.
Emanuel said explicitly: medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled. Healthcare should be withheld from those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."
Obamacare will demand frequent end-of-life sessions for the elderly, where doctors advise the elderly to stop treatment. Section 1233 of HR 3200 mandates these sessions and allows doctors to withhold treatment at their own discretion.
Funny enough China's government-run healthcare agrees. In fact, China has figured out how to make those unparticipating citizens, those burdens on society, actually worthwhile. Just put them to work!
Epoch Times- "In 2007, the nation was shocked by reports that brick factories in central China’s ShanxiProvince used child slaves—the youngest only 8-years-old.
According to China’s state-run media, Xinhua News Agency, a middleman took 32 mentally disabled people from eastern China’s Shandong Province to nearby Anhui Province. The victims, who were tricked into going, were leased to the brick factories.
...slave workers are widely used by brick factories in China... The victims are not only limited to mentally disabled people."
One necessary step in making Obamacare work is rationing treatment to keep costs down. The fewer patients getting treatment, the better for the whole program. Here is a glimpse into what pro-Obamacare lawmakers are planning for our elderly, who they consider a burden on the system.
Section 1233 of HR 3200, the healthcare reform measure under consideration, mandates "Advance Care Planning Consultation." Under the proposal, all senior citizens receiving government medical care would be required to undergo these counseling sessions every five years. Further reading of the law reveals that these sessions are nothing more than a not-so-veiled attempt to convince the elderly to forego treatment. HR 3200 calls outright for these compulsory consultations to recommend "palliative care and hospice." These are typically administered in the place of treatment intended to prolong life, and instead focus on pain relief until death.But this legislation doesn't stop there. Also under Section 1233 [...], the federal government can compel more frequent end-of-life sessions if it declares a "significant change" in the health of the Medicare recipient, a change that the bill does not confine to fatal illness, but which encompasses broad and abstract conditions described as "chronic," "progressive," or "life-limiting." The bill even empowers physicians to make an "actionable medical order" to "limit some or all specified interventions..." In effect, the government can determine that a "life-limiting" condition demands the withholding of treatment.
From American Thinker
Glenn Beck has said that there is a direct correlation between how much a people trust their government and the level of guns and ammunition being sold. One car dealership in Missouri is giving away AK-47s to all qualified buyers of their cars. Think this is reckless and irresponsible? Watch the dealer blow through one CNN reporter's liberal qualms.
For those of you who have not yet seen The Great Global Warming Swindle (you should, you can watch it for free here), here's a summary of the latest on why the earth is not about to burn up in a catastrophe of man-made global warming:
From Bluegrass Pundit:
Is Global Warming Over?here.
Chart found here.
These charts indicate a lack of correlation between carbon levels in the atmosphere and the Earth's temperature. There could be a reason for this, but the burden of proof is on those that advocate anthropogenic global warming, not the skeptics. So far, they have failed to explain this divergence of the carbon level and temperature. Instead, the anthropogenic global warming crowd claims ten years is too short a period to disprove global warming. What period is long enough for them? Would twenty years or a hundred years be enough? The global warming crowd likes to pick a time period that is conducive to their theory. Here is the graph they want you to see.
Chart found here.
In the above chart, global warming advocates have selected an arbitrary time period that best supports their theory. Here is the chart they don't want you to see. (click chart for larger view)
Chart found here.
The 2000 year temperature chart shows that temperatures were as hot 1000 years ago as they are today. Of course, human society was largely agrarian at that time and anthropogenic carbon emissions weren't a factor. This brings up the question of how big an impact CO2 has as a greenhouse gas. Here is a sample chart of greenhouse gases the anthropogenic global warming advocates want you to see.
Chart found here.
There is something missing from the above chart. The main greenhouse gas is water vapor. The impact of water vapor and cloud droplets as a greenhouse gas is widely acknowledged. There is debate about what percent of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor and cloud droplets, but the number is thought to be 66% to 85%.
Table found here.
Congress will reccess this week. Leaders are rushing to vote on health care before leaving Washington. When your representative comes home ask them a simple question: "Before you voted on health care, did you even read the bill?
That's it congressman. Did you read the 1,017 page bill before you voted? All of it? Did you read about more than $500 in new taxes? Or the devastating limits in the care seniors can get?
Did you read the health care bill?
Contact your congress(wo)men by email for free here.
We all knew this was coming.
President Obama gave us a hint of what medical tyranny is to come in an interview the other day when he claimed that many doctors do unnecessary surgeries in order to make more money. (Does this sound to anyone like when he villainized the AIG executives so he could take control of the country's banks?) Obama claimed:
"Right now, doctors, a lot of times, are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. So if ... your child has a bad sore throat, or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, "You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out."So Obama, who (in case you didn't know) does not have any medical training and has not read any studies on tonsillitis, is accusing many Ear, Nose and Throat doctors of doing unnecessary surgeries and defrauding their patients' health plans so they can live in bigger houses. The American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS), not wanting to upset the "Anointed One" and have his wrath turned directly, timidly released this defense of Obama's uncalled-for, slanderous remarks on their profession:
We, too, are in favor of evidence-based medicine that supports quality patient care. President Obama’s statement highlights the complexity of medical decisions like this. However, the AAO-HNS is disappointed by the President’s portrayal of the decision making processes by the physicians who perform these surgeries. In many cases, tonsillectomy may be a more effective treatment, and less costly, than prolonged or repeated treatments for an infected throat.Hmmm . . . so medical studies conclude that removing tonsils is a more effective and less costly treatment than the others Obama touted. I can't believe this, the doctors know better how to treat patients than the politicians! So who do you want making your medical decisions? Yes, sometimes you have to fight your insurance company to pay for a treatment that you or your doctor think is necessary. You may even need to take them to court. Our HMO and PPO-based health care system has many flaws that should be fixed. But it has also given us the best health care by far in the world. People fly here from all over the world because they do not trust the doctors and surgeons in their own countries. Medical students come here from all over the world to go to our schools because they are by far the best. The best doctors practice here because there is much less government garnishment of their wages and bureaucratic control over their medical decisions. Do you want to keep your right to receive the medical treatment you and your doctor think is necessary, or do you want to relinquish all of your medical history and decision-making ability to bureaucrats in Washington who are more interested in moving money than your life? Bureaucrats who have never run a health care facility, never treated a patient, bought by special interest groups and who have a horrible track record of sinking their programs--especially health care--into massive amounts of fiscal waste and debt? Are you ready to hand over your life and your money to "Doctor" Obama?
For the past several years, the Academy has been developing clinical guidelines based on evidence and outcomes research, including ‘Quality of Life after Tonsillectomy,’ a January 2008 supplement to the journal Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery. We are in agreement with the President’s statement that physicians, patients, and hospitals should make the decisions, based on the evidence, about what’s best for patient care.
Liberal Lawyers Prepare to Take Prop 8 California Protection of Marriage Initiative to the Federal Supreme Court
Brian Brown, Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage tears appart uberliberal lawyer David Boies' (and his libertarian partner Ted Olson's) argument against California votors in the upcoming federal lawsuit seeking to overturn Prop 8:
When I heard that two such high-powered lawyers were involved, I admit I was a little nervous, what with the strange way some courts are acting. But really, after reading his WSJ op-ed I thought: Is this the best he can do?
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it," Boies declares.
Well, no, actually the Supreme Court has upheld numerous restrictions on the right to marry someone you love, if that person is judged too young, or too closely related by blood (or even marriage!), or if the person you love happens to be already married to someone else. (There is actually a very famous Supreme Court decision upholding the federal government's right to restrict polygamy, Reynolds v. United States.)
FACT: No Supreme Court has ever suggested the fundamental right to marry includes the right to same-sex marriage.
"There is no legitimate state policy underlying Proposition 8," Boies declares.
Please, there are many good reasons why states do not have an obligation to recognize same-sex unions as if they were marriages, especially the fact that same-sex unions cannot serve the primary public purpose of marriage: responsible procreation. Marriage, from the government's point of view, is about bringing moms and dads together to protect children. That's why government goes to the trouble of trying to create something called civil marriage in the first place.
FACT: Almost every time an Attorney General has been willing to assert that the core state interest in marriage is creating stable sexual unions that can create new life and limit fatherlessness, courts have upheld marriage. The only state court cases that have ever found a right to gay marriage are cases where the attorney general (like the former "Gov. Moonbeam," Jerry Brown, in California) has refused to make this argument to the court. If the state purpose of marriage is only "tradition" Boies would be right--that's not a reason. But responsible procreation is a good reason why marriage is limited to unions of man and wife.
"The occasional suggestion that marriages between people of different sexes may somehow be threatened by marriages of people of the same sex does not withstand discussion," Boies sniffs
Au contraire. It is perfectly easy to see why, if the government declares that same-sex unions are "no different" than marriage, the idea that marriage matters because children need a mom and dad will be effectively overruled in the public square.
FACT: Once gay marriage is law, our taxpayer money will be used to teach our own children and grandchildren that our view of marriage is now discarded bigotry. Marriage, they will be taught, is no longer about sex difference in the service of children and the common good.
"Even if depriving lesbians of the right to marry each other could force them into marrying someone they do not love but who happens to be of the opposite sex, it is impossible to see how that could be thought to be as likely to lead to a stable, loving relationship as a marriage to the person they do love," Boies goes on.
FACT: Nobody is trying to force lesbians to do anything. Gay people in these cases are saying they do not want to marry, they want to do a different kind of relationship. That's their right. But neither they nor David Boies nor the judges have the right to tell Americans we must redefine marriage to accommodate these private and personal views.
"It is precisely where a minority's basic human rights are abridged that our Constitution's promise of due process and equal protection is most vital," says Boies.
The most basic right is the right to be treated fairly by courts which respect the rule of law. David Boies wants to go into federal court and overturn the civil rights of the 7 million Californians who voted to protect marriage because he personally thinks we are all irrational bigots. And that's wrong. It's also deeply offensive thing to say and do.
"The argument in favor of Proposition 8 ultimately comes down to no more than the tautological assertion that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But a slogan is not a substitute for constitutional analysis. Law is about justice, not bumper stickers."
David, at last you say something I agree with. Law is about justice, not bumper stickers. That's why I'm getting up every day to fight for the truth about marriage. "There is none so blind as he who will not see."We know the court will hear the powerful voice of David Boies. Will they hear your voice as well?
When courts get into the business of making up new civil rights to accommodate people's private and personal desire, where are they going to stop? When does a desire become a right? Where do we draw the line? One firm place to stand is on the great and noble truth: Human beings are born of men and women, we are born male and female, and the great organizing principle of marriage is the need to bring together men and women to make and raise the next generation.
It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.[...]
The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."
What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.
The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.
With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.
The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care.
[T]he New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party's short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party.
[I]n 1995 Barack Obama sought the New Party's endorsement for his 1996 state senate run. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement, and he used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers. By 1996, Obama had become a member of the New Party.
[read the whole article at Bluegrass Pundit]
I believe that emissary over at Support the Traditional Family has written an article that very well describes some of the great significance of redefining marriage to include homosexual couples.
We all know there's a push to redefine marriage by expanding it to include homosexual couples. But is this a small redefinition or a large one? Is the end result a minor difference or a major one?
In 2000, every state in the union (and the federal government) considered marriage as a single relationship: the husband-wife relationship. There was no way to enter into marriage without forming the husband-wife relationship. And no other relationships were included within the term "marriage". Thus, in 2000 in the U.S., "marriage" and "husband-wife relationship" were synonymous.
Now let's take a look at Massachusetts in 2009. What does "marriage" mean in 2009? Well, it's obviously no longer synonymous with "husband-wife relationship". Instead, it has become a generic term for a set of other relationships. A similar example would be the word "parent". I hope the following list will make it more understandable.
Now let's look at what marriage gives to society.
What positives does marriage as the husband-wife relationship give to society? (Note that this is the relationship itself, not necessarily every instance of it)1. Integration of the sexes
2. Responsible procreation
3. Male and female parental role-models for their children
And what positives does "marriage" in Massachusetts now provide for society?1. Decrease in homosexual promiscuity by allowing people to commit legally
2. Rearing of children by two people
3. Love and commitment enshrined as the basis of marriage
There are probably others, but it's a lot harder to think of them. Either way, the difference between marriage categories is huge. "Marriage" becomes no longer about integrating the sexes. No longer about procreation (after all, 2 of the 3 marriage relationships are barren by design). And no longer about providing both a mother and father to the children. In fact, the new definition seems to me a lot less valuable to society. Why? Because it effectively removes the having and rearing of a couple's biological children by their father and mother from the equation. To me, that seems the main reason for society to promote marriage; it provided the bedrock of society by ensuring that children would be born into a stable home and reared by their father and mother. In some cases that hasn't been possible, of course, but that was the ideal.
One final note. Remember that children will be growing up learning a completely different definition of marriage than we have. It won't be "the husband-wife relationship" in many places. It won't even be based on that relationship. They will grow up being taught that marriage is not one relationship, but three. And I firmly believe that, in the minds of the growing generation who come to believe this, marriage will lose the implications that made it so valuable to society in the first place.
Despite the many sucesses of "same-sex marriage" advocates in the media, courtrooms and state legislatures across the nation in forcing the majority of Americans to accept the drastic redefinition of marriage in the name of promoting the homosexual agenda, three major polls (Pew Foundation, Gallup, CBS News/New York Times) clearly show that there is an ever widening majority of people who are increasingly opposed to the idea. Every time the people of a state have been allowed to vote on the issue, they have clearly indicated that they want marriage to be left as it is.
Brian Brown from NOM:
Do you realize how revolutionary this news is? These polls turns the conventional wisdom on its head. Gay marriage is inevitable, "they" say, and the media trumpet; there are no arguments against it. But the truth is very different: After six years of public scrutiny and debate, gay-marriage advocates have failed to persuade the American people. And that's in spite of the mainstream media, in spite of the recent court decision, in spite of the massive top-down push to ram gay marriage through blue-state legislatures in New England.
The effects of this demographic reversal of what gay advocates had hoped is quite promising to saving the institution of marriage:
There is, however, increasing indications that gay marriage advocates will attempt to go to the Federal Supreme Court to overrule the people's will and impose gay marriage on them. Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonya Sotomayor has quite a background of decisions imposing her own political views of social justice over the democratic will of the nation, but she is keeping quiet and attempting to appear moderate during the latest hearings in congress:
Maybe you have already heard about the big joint statement by Equality California and two other gay rights groups: They will not try to get an amendment overturning Prop 8 on the ballot in 2010. They urge other gay-marriage supporters to abandon the attempt. Why? Because they are afraid they will lose. According to the LA Times, Ron Buckmire, president of one of the groups which signed the joint statement, said he made his decision after his group went door to door to talk to voters about same-sex marriage in South Los Angeles. "It was a huge success. We had 70 volunteers, working for five hours, knocked on 1,200 doors," he said. And yet after that massive effort, how many hearts and minds were they able to change? Just 50 people, Buckmire said. "Do the math."
But Judge Sotomayor suddenly clammed up at the oddest moments. Sen. Chuck Grassley raised the issue of DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act]. And then Sen. Lindsey Graham tried to get her to say something, anything, about how she and the Supreme Court should decide what is a "fundamental right." Graham pointed out the disparity: Ask the good judge about, say, "stare decisis" and she can ramble on at length. Ask her how the Supreme Court decides what a "fundamental right" is... and suddenly she can't say anything at all?Judge Sotomayor wasn't going to say anything at all that might clue the American people in to her views. As NOM president Maggie Gallagher told the press, "By refusing to answer basic questions about her views of the Constitution, Judge Sotomayor is not displaying the kind of honesty we expect from judges. All Americans who support marriage as the union of husband and wife--and every American who treasures democracy and freedom--has reason to be concerned."Still, as Brian Bron illustrates, there is always hope because reason and nature demands that society support the institution that was designed to secure our children their rights to a mother and a father committed to eachother and to raising that child:
I had my first quintessential Washington moment this week. I was sitting actually in a smoke-filled room (literally! cigars!) talking on the phone about the harassment and intimidation people who speak up for marriage face. The guy sitting next to me, a distinguished-looking man of 70 years or so, says to me, "Excuse me, I couldn't help overhearing you. Can I talk to you about this marriage thing?"
I move over to chat. I explain why marriage matters--it's a universal human social institution, necessary in a way that no other relationship is. When a baby is born, I tell him, there's bound to be a mother somewhere close by, but marriage is how we attach the father to the mother-child bond, so we can make sure men live up to our responsibilities in family and in society. That struck a big chord. "You are right," he said, "Men are promiscuous." (That's his words, not mine!) "Thank you," he tells me, "I never heard that argument before; that makes a lot of sense."
Meanwhile, this being a Washington scene, every now and again we were interrupted by folks who wanted to say a few words to my new friend. I couldn't help noticing that they kept addressing him as "Congressman.""I'm a Democrat," he told me. "I'm not going to vote with you on most things, but this gay marriage thing... maybe that goes too far."Truth is powerful. The only way they can win is if they succeed in silencing and intimidating us.
Alfred: "I'm a native Californian, born and raised. I was there when you came!"
Boxer: "You don't know when I came."
Boxer: "Sir let me talk to you. This is friendly." ...
Boxer: "Then we're going to put the NAACP resolution that passed..."
Alfred: "The NAACP has a resolution, what does that mean?"...
Boxer: "Sir, they passed it. Now if that isn't interesting to you we'll quote John Grant who is the CEO of a hundred black men of Atlanta. "Green energy is the key that will unlock millions of jobs... so clearly there is a diversity..."
Boxer: "Madam chair that is condescending to me... you are trying to put up some other Black group against me... I don't like it, it's racial, I don't like it, I take offense to that... You are quoting some other black man. Why don't you quote an Asian..."
"You are being racial here!
What's wrong with Obama's czars? There're unelected, unaccountable and throw off the constitutional system of checks and balances.
Republicans and some Democrats are complaining that there are too many so-called czars in the Obama administration, and now the Senate Health committee even is proposing a health care czar to oversee the overhaul of the system.And then there is the very questionable quality of Obama's appointments. If you can't get your wacky friends elected, appoint them by presidential order! Standby for Bill Ayres appointment to Obama's party government . . .
By some accounts, Obama has nearly three dozen czars in his administration, managing everything from closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to ending the genocide in Darfur.
"The accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances," Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W. Va., wrote in a letter to Obama.
Rep. Jack Kington, R-Ga., promised legislation to address what he's call a "parallel government" that he says diminishes the Senate advice and consent role.
[Read the whole article]
Obama's “Green Czar” is an admitted Communist with arrest record
In little reported 'slap in the face' move, President Obama has put an admitted communist and former criminal in charge of creating 'green jobs.'
From New Zeal:
A few short years ago Anthony (Van) Jones was a Bay Area radical agitator-a committed Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, waging war on the police and capitalist system.
According to the White House Blog March :The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chair Nancy Sutley announced yesterday that Van Jones – an early green jobs visionary -- will start Monday as Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at CEQ:
[from Bluegrass Pundit]
(Click on the image to see it large, or go here.)
Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana, also a doctor, is suggesting that if Congress thinks this plan is so great for the American people, then Congress should also give up their all-expenses-paid executive health care plan and wait in line with the rest of us. Hmmm . . . what do you think they will choose?
Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration’s proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
Public Outcry Reason for Senate Holding Back on "Cap and Trade" Climate Change Bill Until After August
Due to overwhelming grassroots pressure, the Senate is holding off on consideration of the "Cap and Trade" tax until after the August recess.
This is incredible news, because it shows that our voices are resonating in Washington and making a difference. Just weeks ago, emboldened lawmakers boasted that this massive energy bill would sail through Congress...
According to The Hill, Rep. Barbara Boxer said she is "not a bit" worried by the decision to hold off on the bill and fully expects the Senate to complete and vote on the bill this year.
But Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) feels differently, and points to blistering political opposition as the chief reason why the climate bill has suddenly cooled. "There is no question that the American public flatly rejected the House ramming through legislation that would have devastating impacts on American consumers."
Inhofe also sends a message to grassroots Americans who have been working tirelessly expressing outrage to lawmakers and rallying friends and family to take action against this bill as well. He said, we should "expect more arm-twisting and backroom deals--or, in other words more business as usual in Washington."
So while the American people may have won round one in the "Great Global Climate Tax Scheme," Inhofe's words should be a cautionary tale to all not to become complacent over these next days and weeks ahead.
This Administration that championed the idea of being open, honest and transparent with the American people cannot be trusted. In just a few months time, Obama and his cohorts
have shown that they must be watched, and watched closely because they flourish in the shadows.
While we should relish this great victory, we must prepare for what will almost certainly be a more aggressive push in the near future.
CA Assembly to Legally Support Gay Marriage with "Gut and Amend" of SB 54. YOUR ACTION REQUESTED TO PROTEST THIS UNETHICAL INFINGEMENT OF CA VOTERS
PLEASE, contact your state legislators by phone or email and let them know that it is not okay for them to try to go behind our backs and legislate away the firm and clear vote of the California people about "gay" marriage in California. (For a quick, easy way to email your representatives go here.)
As if the Legislature doesn’t have enough issues to deal with given the chronic $26 billion state budget deficit, some legislators are advancing a new bill in Sacramento designed to rip a huge hole in Proposition 8 and further undercut traditional marriage in California.
We need your help immediately to contact legislators and the Governor to oppose Senate Bill 54, which seeks to undermine Proposition 8, and further attempts to sneak this change by the people of California through a legislative maneuver known as the “gut and amend.”
Last week, Senator Mark Leno stripped out the contents of SB 54 – dealing with health care coverage -- and inserted language that would legalize gay marriages performed in other states and nations prior to the passage of Proposition 8. This proposal is in direct conflict with California’s constitution – as amended by the passage of Proposition 8 – that provides only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California. Further, it goes well beyond the California Supreme Court’s decision that allowed to remain valid a limited number of same-sex marriages performed in California last summer before Proposition 8 passed.
It is simply wrong and undemocratic for liberal gay activists like Senator Mark Leno to attempt to circumvent the decision of voters and rewrite our constitution behind our backs with this sneaky “gut and amend” maneuver.
That’s why we’re asking you to take action TODAY and urge the legislature, and if it gets to him, the Governor, to oppose this effort to undermine Proposition 8.Please become an active supporter by opposing SB 54.Senator Leno’s SB 54 is such a direct assault, and your action will make a difference.
SB 54 will be heard THURSDAY in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. While the odds of stopping the bill here are low, we think that applying pressure now will drive up more no votes on this bill, which helps increase the odds of the Governor vetoing the bill. If the bill makes it to his desk, we are ultimately looking at an effort designed to encourage Governor Schwarzenegger to veto this legislation.
But for now, the fight is in the State Assembly.
Write your state Assembly representative expressing your opposition to SB 54. Ask him or her to vote against SB 54 if it makes it to the Assembly floor.
In particular, if any of the following members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee represent your home area, please call or email them immediately to urge them to oppose SB 54. Your immediate action will send a clear message that Californians are watching and will not sit idly by while liberal legislators attempt to rip a huge hole in Proposition 8.
Assembly Member Mike Feuer (D – West LA, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood)Assemblymember.email@example.com(310) 285-5490
Assembly Member Van Tran (R – Costa Mesa, Garden Grove)Trish.firstname.lastname@example.org(714) 668-2100
Assembly Member Julia Brownley (D - Calabasas, Oxnard)Assemblymember.Brownley@assembly.ca.gov(818) 596-4141
Assembly Member Noreen Evans (D – Santa Rose, Napa)Assemblymember.email@example.com(707) 546-4500
Assembly Member Dave Jones (D – Sacramento)Assemblymember.firstname.lastname@example.org(916) 324-4676
Assembly Member Steve Knight (R – Palmdale, Victorville)Assemblymember.email@example.com(661) 267-7636
Assembly Member Paul Krekorian (D – Burbank)Assemblymember.firstname.lastname@example.org(818) 558-3043
Assembly Member Ted Lieu (D – El Segundo)Assemblymember.email@example.com(310) 615-3515
Assembly Member William Monning (D – Santa Cruz, Monterey, Carmel)Assemblymember.firstname.lastname@example.org(831) 425-1503
Assemblyman Jim Nielsen (R – Redding, Yuba City)Assemblymember.email@example.com
"But research funded by the Department of Health shows that young women who attended the programme, at a cost of £2,500 each, were 'significantly' more likely to become pregnant than those on other youth programmes who were not given contraception and sex advice.
A total of 16 per cent of those on the Young People's Development Programme conceived compared with just 6 per cent in other programmes...
The £5.9million YPDP programme was also designed to slash cannabis use and drunkenness among teenagers, but made no difference whatsoever."
from Daily Mail
His party has 60 seats in the Senate and he still can't wait for their oversight?
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. constitution reads: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"
ABC news reports:
"With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty."
Sorry Barry, the constitution doesn't say "Unless the president want it done quickly!"
Health Systems Innovations Network, a consulting group, went ahead and estimated the full cost of a bill that included the subsidies and Medicaid expansion, and reduced the number of uninsured by 99 percent. With these assumptions, they estimated (pdf) the cost at a staggering $4 trillion over 10 years, resulting in the shift of 79 million Americans to government-run health care. The report does not include possible tax increases or spending offsets, but notes that, "this would be a challenging proposal to finance with budget neutrality.
See full article here.
To help put this in perspective, let's consider at what 1 trillion looks like.
A stack of one trillion one-dollar bills would reach 68,000 miles in space. If you spent $1 million dollars a day from the day Jesus was born until now, you would only have spent about three quarters of a trillion. If you laid one trillion one-dollar bills end to end, it would make a chain from the earth to the moon 200 times. One trillion dollars would stretch nearly from the earth to the sun. It would take a jet flying at the speed of sound, reeling out a roll of dollar bills behind it, four years before it reeled out one trillion dollar bills. A million seconds is 11.5 days. A billion seconds is 32 years. A trillion seconds is 32,000 years.
Now multiply this by 4. Kill this bill.
This excellent article by a California Representative outlines the policies and politicians that have gotten California into such a position that it might actually go bankrupt. The state needs a serious dose of good sense to pull out of this one, but will any of the disingenuous lot that caused this economic disaster listen?
Warning from the Left Coast
By Tom McClintock
A generation ago, California exemplified its nickname, “The Golden State.” State spending was less than half per capita, inflation adjusted, what it is today. Its debt-service ration was less than a third. Yet Californians enjoyed one of the finest highway systems in the world and one of the finest public educations systems in the country. Water and electricity were so cheap that many communities didn’t bother to meter consumption.
Only a few decades have passed, yet California is a dramatically altered place. The tax burden is one of the heaviest in the nation. State government consumes the largest portion of personal earnings than at any time in its history and yet can no longer maintain its basic infrastructure. The once legendary California quality of life has declined precipitously and produced an historic first: more people are now moving out of California than are moving in.
One thing – and one thing only – has changed in those years: public policy. The political Left gradually gained dominance over California’s government and imposed a disastrous agenda of policy changes that are now being replicated at the federal level.
Prior to the 1970’s, California policy aimed at accommodating growth and encouraging prosperity. These priorities changed radically beginning with the “era of limits” announced by Gov. Jerry Brown. Conventional public works were branded “growth inducing” and it became state policy to discourage the construction of highways, dams, power plants and housing.
At the same time, public employee unions acquired unprecedented power to coerce public employee membership, automatically direct public employee earnings into union political coffers, and to strike against the public.
Radical environmental restrictions have devastated the agricultural, timber and manufacturing industries, culminating in Gov. Schwarzenegger’s hallmark bill to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent by 2020 – a goal that can’t be reached even if every automobile in California is junked.
Meanwhile, the state has suffered a radical centralization of revenue collection and decision-making in Sacramento, usurping local prerogatives in every field from education to transportation. This trend has destroyed local accountability and annually misspends billions of dollars of public funds as Sacramento vainly attempts to force every community into rigid formulae and mandates.
The recall of Gray Davis in 2003 offered California the last chance to avert the fiscal collapse that now appears imminent. Voters elected Arnold Schwarzenegger on a pledge to “stop the crazy deficit spending,” reduce tax and regulatory burdens, “blow up the boxes,” and “cut up the credit cards.”
Alas, he did exactly the opposite. He increased the rate of spending that had proven unsustainable under Davis, began an unprecedented borrowing binge that has tripled the state’s debt-service ratio, and has now imposed the biggest tax increase in the state’s history.
As predicted, that tax hike has made the deficit worse. The recession had reduced the state’s March sales tax collections by 19 percent. After Schwarzenegger increased the sales tax 13 percent on April 1st, April sales tax revenues plunged by 44 percent. The Laffer curve is alive and well.
What can California do? Its credit is stretched to the breaking point and increasing tax rates now produces decreasing tax revenues. Its deficit vastly exceeds resolution by conventional budget reductions. There is no line-item labeled “waste,” and the state’s deficit now vastly exceeds the truly obsolete and overlapping programs strewn throughout its budget.
The real savings are in how the state’s money is spent. California pays $43,000 each year to house a prisoner, while many states get by with half that amount. An average classroom accounts for more than $300,000 of public resources, but only a fraction actually reaches the students.
Fortunately, California has service-delivery models that once delivered a vastly higher levels of service at vastly lower costs, before it centralized, bureaucratized, unionized and radicalized them. But tragically, it lacks both the political will and the time required to restore them.
The decline and fall of the California Republic is a morality play in the form of Greek tragedy. Before dismissing California’s agony as the just price for its hubris and folly, though, heed this warning: Congress is well underway toward imposing the same policies on the rest of the nation. California is just a little further down that road.
Congressman Tom McClintock represents California’s Fourth Congressional District. His website address is http://www.mcclintock.house.gov.
The House of Representatives narrowly passed the American Clean Air and Security Act (HR 2454) last Friday. Eight Republicans voted yes on the bill, otherwise, it would have narrowly failed.
The good news is that forty Democrats voted NO on the bill, and it still has to be voted on in the Senate, which is expected to be a tough fight. We will certainly remember those Democrats and the eight Republicans leading up to the November 2010 elections.
HR 2454 would have been more appropriately named "Cap and Tax and Kill and Trade", because it will tax us all on our energy use, kill jobs and trade away many of our freedoms and property rights. If passed, this bill would be one of the largest expansions of federal government since the IRS grew into the intrusive bureaucracy it is today.
And just as no member of Congress read the so-called "stimulus bill", no member of Congress read this 1000-plus page legislation either. In fact, the last 300 page amendment was not shown to Members until 3a.m. the day the vote was taken.
This is why we must continue to call, write and email our Senators to help the bill to "narrowly fail" when the Senate vote is taken. Even though the Senate's version of the bill has not been written yet, I am urging you to contact your Senators today and ask them to vote NO on any version of the Cap and Trade bill (also referred to as the American Clean Air and Security Act).
Congress.org has provided us with a simple and free way to send off a quick email to all of your federal or state representatives with just a few clicks.
To begin, go to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials/ and type in your zip code. You can then click on Federal or State, fill in the fields with your message and send it off.
Thank you for standing up and holding your ellected officials accountable!
(Reuters Photo: Honduras' President Manuel Zelay, Raul Castro, and Hugo Chavez.)
The United States co-sponsored legislation in the U.N. with Marxist regimes Venezuela and Bolivia in support of Honduras' ousted president Manuel Zelaya. Obama adopted the communist party's position on Honduras.
Days after Obama refused to meddle in Iran's internal affairs to support boys and girls getting shot and tortured, he took swift action against Honduras and supported Zelaya, and now seeks to cut $215 million which would help battle drug smuggling into the United States. He mobilized U.N. backing behind Zelaya who will enter the country again with U.N. military support.
Our corrupt media is doing its best to cover up the truth, but the simple fact is Zelaya had been LEGALLY ousted by the other branches of government for seeking another term as president, and for numerous cases of fraud and corruption, including massive drug smuggling.
Our media refuses to actually read Honduras constitution.
Article 313: "The courts will require the help of the security forces to fulfill their resolutions, if they refused or were not any available, as required of citizens." This is exactly what happened.
Chapter 3 Article 42: Anyone who fraudulently produces or alters election documents loses citizenship. You wouldn't know this reading Associated Press, but Zelaya created and distributed false election ballots in violation of the courts.
Article 3: "No one owes obedience to a usurper government or to those who assume public office or employment by force of arms or by using means or procedures that violate or are unaware of what the Constitution and the laws. Verified by acts such authorities are zero and the people have the right to resort to insurrection in defense of constitutional order." Zelaya tried to extend his term of presidency past its constitutional limit.
Article 4: "Alternation in the presidency of the Republic is required."
Article 272: "The Armed Forces of Honduras, is a National Institution of a permanent nature, essentially professional, apolitical, obedient and not deliberating... They are set up to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic, keep the peace, public order and the rule of the Constitution, the principles of free suffrage and alternation in the presidency of the Republic." Hence, military coup.
So why is Obama trying so hard to help someone who wants to be Supreme Leader for life?
Volumes can be written about Obama's massive power-grab in the government. What it comes down to is this: he seems to be destroying our economy in order to institute socialism. The pheonix rising from the ashes, which communists have written about. He will be the leader of this new socialist empire.
Iran rebeled against their Supreme Leader for life. Obama did nothing but mutter a few words. He says he doesn't want to give Iran fodder to blame some American conspiracy, which they do anyway. The Obamabots rejoice.
Enter Honduras. The president gets expelled by the other branches of government because he tried to make himself president past the term limit. In other words he wanted to become Supreme Leader for life. Obama swings into action, holding hands with communist countries that have Supreme Leaders for life, like Chavez and Castro, and he drafts a UN resolution condemning the expulsion of the president. What happened to "I don't want to give them fodder to blame America?"
The media pounded us with the same propaganda. Obviously the corporations and Obama machine really didn't like this victory over a Supreme Leader for Life. Obama's presidency of flip-flops and power grabs is becoming more and more disturbing. With the senate now filibuster-proof through judicial incompetance, he will get his way even quicker.
Obama wants to be America's Supreme Leader for Life.
(China government media agrees Obama's policies are in conforming with Marxism)