Wednesday, July 21, 2010
INDIANAPOLIS, July 20--The youth-led pro-life group Live Action released a new undercover video today showing staff at an Indianapolis Planned Parenthood clinic using manipulative and medically inaccurate counseling to convince a young woman to have an abortion. This is the third undercover video Live Action has released showing abusive counseling practices at Planned Parenthood of Indiana. ... (read more here)
...As Lila said, this is entirely about selling abortions. Abortion is a lucrative business. What we see from Live Action’s undercover videos time and time again is that the “counselors” never offer an alternative to these women. They’re confused, they’re scared, they’re vulnerable, and Planned Parenthood takes advantage of them by lying to them with manipulative and inaccurate information. Why? To make money. Planned Parenthood doesn’t get any money if the woman decides to keep the baby or give it up for adoption. In 2007, Planned Parenthood performed 305,310 abortions… and only referred 4,912 adoptions.
It’s all about the money for them. These “counselors” aren’t there to help women during a time of crisis. They’re salespeople, out to make a sale. Planned Parenthood makes millions of dollars off of abortions, on top of the millions of taxpayer funding they already receive, and why would they want to give that up?
This is why pro-life advocates push for mandatory ultrasounds. Women seeking abortions deserve to know the truth, and instead, they’re lied to and manipulated. These Planned Parenthood counselors have goods to sell, after all, and the murders of unborn children must happen no matter what. If women know the truth, they’re not as likely to have the abortion. Lying to women doesn’t matter as long as abortions are being performed — and the femisogynists go right along with it. As I said before,
Meanwhile, feminists (who ardently defend Planned Parenthood and their abortion mill) have been silent about Lila Rose and all that she’s uncovered. Jessica Valenti, for example, seems to have no problem with covering up the sexual abuse of minors, as long as it leads to abortion, the sacred cow of feminism. Planned Parenthood must be defended and the taxpayer funding cannot be revoked. To feminists, “the right the choose” is more important than anything unethical or immoral that an abortionist may do. It can cover all manner of ills.
They self-righteously huff that women know enough to make their own choice, but if they’re lied to and uninformed, how can they really make a choice? If abortion advocates were truly pro-choice, then they’d be outraged over these lies and manipulative tactics. But they aren’t pro-choice, they’re pro-abortion, and abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood are selling the murders of unborn children at any cost.
Forward this story on. These undercover videos will keep coming from Live Action — and how many of them need to be released before people wake up to the evil of Planned Parenthood? (see entire blog entry here)
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
NEW ORLEANS–Critics were silenced today after President The Onion's fifth visit to the vastly improved the devastated region. While at the site of the worst oil spill in U.S. history, the president walked on a beach, looked at oil-soaked terns, and displayed the right amount of anger toward BP executives, all of which, sources said, should pretty much clear up the massive in a matter of days. "I really didn't think the president did enough in his first four visits," Louisiana fisherman Kevin Latrobe said. "Everyone knows you have to visit five times to make a difference. And sure enough, look! The pelicans already seem a little cleaner!" Some opponents still blasted the president for his trip, saying that they wanted something more substantial than political grandstanding, like a sixth or a ninth visit to the region. —
Friday, July 16, 2010
Which of the President's leisure activities or missteps during this environmental disaster have made you the most angry?
- Instead of attending a memorial service for the eleven workers killed Obama flew to California to raise funds for Barbara Boxer.
- Obama went golfing 10 times since the explosion in the Gulf.
- Obama turned down 13 countries that offered to help us clean up the Gulf.
- President Obama has refused to return BP's contributions; he is the largest recipient of their campaign donations over the past twenty years.
- Obama announced a job-killing drilling moratorium that could cost Louisiana $2.97 billion in revenue and 24,000 jobs related to the oil industry.
- Obama repeatedly denied requests for necessary cleanup items like oil-blocking booms and skimmers from Gulf Coast lawmakers.
- Obama originally denied Louisiana officials permission to build up barrier islands between the coast's marshes and the gulf.
- Obama let 10 days pass before sending any Cabinet level officials to Louisiana's coast.
- Obama's Interior Department Chief of Staff rafted with wife on "work-focused" trip in Grand Canyon during the spill.
- Obama said that the Gulf disaster ‘echoes 9/11.’”
- The liberal think tank Center for American Progress appears to have more influence on spill policy than the president's in-house advisers.
- Obama hosted a fundraiser for Senate candidate Robin Carnahan in Kansas City, Missouri.
- Obama is planning a third vacation to Maine.
- Obama made it a felony for the media to get up-close coverage of the oil spill.
- After refusing for almost 60 days to meet with the CEO of BP to discuss spill cleanup, Obama only spent 20 minutes with him.
- Obama went to Las Vegas for two days to headline fundraiser for Harry Reid at a casino.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Passing along this information below - from Liberty Counsel:
Any abortion involves the killing of an unborn child, but
the gruesome procedure called partial-birth abortion (PBA)
is grotesquely inhumane. PBA is closely akin to infanticide.
For several years, Supreme Court jurisprudence on partial-
birth abortion relied upon evidence that was manipulated by
Elena Kagan in political service of the Clinton White House.
It led the Court to strike down Nebraska's ban on PBA in
2000 as being unconstitutional. From 2000 until 2007, PBA
was "legal" in America until the Supreme Court eventually
upheld the PBA ban in June 2007.
John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things."
Fact: Elena Kagan's "handwritten notes" are proof of her
manipulation of expert medical evidence submitted by the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
to the Supreme Court.
Fact: Her revised wording, which was quoted in the Court's
2000 majority opinion, played a key role in the horrendous
procedure continuing until President George W. Bush signed
a new ban into law in November of 2003, which ban was later
upheld in 2007.
Fact: Kagan never divulged to the Court that she was the
one who, in fact, had changed ACOG's official statement.
Fact: Kagan's radical political activism drove her to
manipulate expert testimony and to later avoid admitting
the fact that she had done so.
The Washington Times says Kagan "may be more
responsible than anyone for keeping partial-
birth abortion legal for an extra decade."
This nominee has been described as President Barack Obama's
ideological clone - and fellow academic elitist.
In any other period of American history, Kagan's
hand-written memo would be the "kiss of death"
for her confirmation!
In the final analysis, Elena Kagan's past actions
show that she is a political operative who would
use a seat on the Supreme Court to advance a
radical political agenda.
++Kagan undermines Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Reports are emerging that Elena Kagan has been working in the
shadows to sabotage the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law and "The
Defense of Marriage Act." According to several sources,
Solicitor General Kagan's signals that the government will
not effectively defend DOMA made it possible for Judge Joseph
L. Tauro to strike down parts of DOMA in Massachusetts earlier
He deemed the state's DOMA unconstitutional by ruling that
the law, which defines marriage as one man and one woman
for federal purposes, has no rational basis - solely because
the Department of Justice refused to give one. The ruling
initially only affects Massachusetts, but is considered to
be a model ruling for other states.
The president of the Massachusetts Family Institute
said, "[The ruling is] another blatant example
of a judge playing legislator!"
And Elena Kagan admitted in written responses to Senators'
questions that she personally participated in a meeting in
which she compromised the United States' position in a case
against the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy (DADT) being brought
by the Log Cabin Republicans.
Elena Kagan's actions as Solicitor General to
undermine the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and
"The Defense of Marriage Act" provide further
evidence that she allows her ideological biases
to trump her clear-cut duty!
Elena Kagan is just not experientially qualified or discerning
enough in judgment to get past her own political views while
rendering judgment as a Supreme Court Justice.
In a special report from Liberty Counsel's Washington, DC,
office, we reveal the true Elena Kagan, "In Her Own Words."
This is Elena Kagan, in her own words, regarding precedence
and the Constitution...
"I think that there are some circumstances in
which looking to the original intent is the
determinative thing in a case and other
circumstances in which it is likely not to
be. And I think, in general, judges should
look to a variety of sources when they interpret
the Constitution, and which take precedence in
a particular case is really a kind of
Kagan's calculated answers during her hearings were a masterful
performance of avoiding clear statements about her true
positions. Yet, the hearings revealed enough of her
political leanings, activist views and questionable
judicial philosophies for our Washington office to
produce a five-page summary written largely in KAGAN'S
This document is a must-read for all Liberty
Counsel team members who are standing in the
gap opposing the nomination of Elena Kagan.
We have been told that many of our supporters
are printing multiple copies and passing it
out in civic groups and other places.
Click here to download your free special report:
"Elena Kagan, In Her Own Words":
*ANTI-FAMILY: Elena Kagan’s zeal for “homosexual rights” will taint her rulings on pro-family cases.
*ANTI-FAITH: Kagan has expressed hostility toward faith-based organizations and would limit their impact on public policy decisions.
*ANTI-MILITARY: Kagan opposes the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and banned military recruiters from the Harvard Law School campus during a time of war in protest of such “discrimination.”
*ANTI-SOVEREIGNTY: Kagan’s views on transnational law undermine America’s self-rule and national sovereignty.
*ANTI-CONSTITUTION: Kagan has called the Constitution “defective” and shares President Obama’s view that we should have an “evolving” or “living” Constitution, thus marginalizing its ultimate legal authority. She has written about a supposed need to increase the power of the Executive Branch at the expense of legislative bodies.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
This is not a new video - it has been around for a while. I have been meaning to post this as THIS is for everyone that cares about our future. This will inspire you to go ahead-- and be and American! This resulted from a Mom in Alabama asking her high school son to help with a commercial for the Tea Party she was involved in organizing. Boy, does it slam the message home. Very impressive!
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Caitlin Bruce is 20 and she has filed a lawsuit against abortion practitioner Alberto Hodari, who has a long history of killing and injuring patients and also faces other forced abortion accusations.
Bruce had the abortion in April 2008 at Hodari's Feminine Health Care Clinic in Flint, Michigan. But she told ABC News she changed her mind at the very last second but was pinned down and had her mouth closed as she tried to protest.
A high school dropout trying to make a life for herself, Bruce is the classic case of a minority girl impregnated by a much-older boyfriend -- and her father persuaded her to have the abortion.
"I was really confused, asking everybody else what I should do. Everybody told me, 'You were too young,'" she told ABC. "What I really wanted to hear was, 'We'll help you out.'"
On the table for the abortion, Bruce felt the first instrument go inside her and she asked Hodari to stop, but he and his assistants held her down.
"He had a real tight grip over my mouth, but I was screaming .. and trying to pull my legs together," she said.
She said Hodari appeared to give up and told her she could go home and as soon as she relaxed, Bruce tells ABC News Hodari completed the abortion......
Thursday, April 1, 2010
"On its website, SGK acknowledges that childbearing protects women from breast cancer, and the more children a mother bears and the younger she begins bearing them the better. SGK also acknowledges breast-feeding protects against breast cancer.
But abortion blocks all those preventative measures.
Only last week a new study got lots of press that found breast cancer survivors lower their risk of dying by 42 percent simply by getting pregnant.
But abortion blocks that protection.
SGK acknowledges never having children increases a woman's risk of getting breast cancer, and delaying childbearing, particularly after age 35, also increases the risk.
And abortion increases the risk of both those risks.
It would seem logical that with all the controversy surrounding abortion's role in breast cancer, SGK would simply back away from involvement with it in any way if wanting to stay true to its mission "to save lives and end breast cancer forever." ...
...But SGK is not backing away. Between 2003 and 2008, SGK gave $3 million to Planned Parenthood. In Fiscal Year 2008 alone, Planned Parenthood got $805,000 from SGK. ....
Three days ago a diligent pro-lifer in Washington state discovered on Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest's IRS 990 forms that it has held a 12.5 percent share in Metro Centre, a mall in Peoria, Ill., since 2006.
PPGNW is Washington's largest abortion provider. (It is also currently under investigation for Medicaid fraud.)
Metro Centre is owned by Eric Brinker.
Eric Brinker is the son of Nancy Goodman Brinker, the founder of SGK. Eric also sits on SGK's board. ............"
read entire article by Jill Stanek here
Monday, March 29, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
* Abortion coverage Americans don't want
* Exorbitant costs Americans don't want
* Mandatory participation Americans don't want
* New federal bureaucracies Americans don't want
* A vast expansion of IRS power Americans don't want
Our is being subverted right before our eyes.
Never before has the will of the people been so completely ignored and marginalized. Obamacare is unconstitutional! If Congress has the power to FORCE each person to have health insurance, then individual liberty is totally meaningless....
The bill that passed the House of Representatives on Sunday night is unconstitutional because:
1) Congress has NO authority to force every American to carry insurance coverage, and,
2) Congress has NO authority to fine employers whose policies do not have the mandated coverage.
There are some things Congress does not the authority to do!!! And the threat to our liberty posed by ObamaCare goes FAR beyond healthcare. If Congress can get away with this expansive power grab, then individual liberty and state sovereignty will soon vanish.
to join Liberty Actions statement of support - click here
"As a concerned citizen, I am signing this official statement to demonstrate my support of litigation challenging the Constitutionality of ObamaCare as passed by the 111th Congress. Specifically, I believe that government-mandated requirements for individuals to obtain health insurance are unconstitutional. Congress is not granted the power to force Americans to comply with such a mandate. Likewise, I believe requirements that employers provide such insurance coverage are also unconstitutional.
If Congress had the power to force Americans to have health insurance, then individual liberty would be overpowered and thus become meaningless. No matter what certain elected officials may desire, there are some things Congress simply cannot do under our Constitution. I do not want the federal government or any group of bureaucrats policing my private medical decisions. The legislation that passed Congress on March 21, 2010, popularly known as the ObamaCare healthcare reform bill, contains such a “mandate,” and is therefore a threat to individual liberty and the sovereignty of the States. I therefore support legal action to stop ObamaCare."
The American People Will Not Allow a Corrupt Machine to Dictate Their Future
On the floor Sunday night, Congressman John Boehner aptly summarized the consequences of voting for this bill:
"If we pass this bill, there will be no turning back. It will be the last straw for the. And in a democracy, you can only ignore the will of the people for so long and get away with it. And if we defy the will of our fellow citizens and pass this bill, we are going to be held to account by those who have placed us in their trust."
2010 and 2012 will be among the most important elections in American history.
These elections will allow us to save America from a leftwing machine of unparalleled corruption, arrogance, and cynicism.
The American people will not allow a corrupt machine to dictate their future.
Together we will pledge to repeal this bill and start over on meaningful, effective, .
Together we will prove that this will not stand.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
We are about to see that happen with this socialistic take over of our health care.
This link was just sent to me... (spinpoliticol.com) thought I share it.
1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)
2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).
3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).
4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).
5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).
6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).
7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))
8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).
9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).
10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).
11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))
12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))
13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).
14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)
15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).
16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).
17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)
18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).
19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).
20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).
Monday, March 22, 2010
I felt it when I woke up this morning!!
We've called our Representatives and Senators -- over
and over ...
We've e-mailed ...
We've attended webcasts ...
We've sent faxes ...
We've spread the word to family and friends ...
We've spoken out at town hall meetings ...
We've written letters to Members of Congress ...
We've signed petitions ...
We've visited Congressional offices ...
We've posted updates on Facebook and Twitter ...
We've attended marches and rallies ...
We've submitted letters to the editor of our local
BUT, We were betrayed by those whom we elected.
Never has Congress passed a piece of legislation that grows government to this extent. Our freedoms are hanging on by a thread!!
ObamaCare (H.R. 3590) imposes $500 billion of new taxes, cuts Medicare by $500 billion, and expands Medicaid by 33% in the middle of a deep recession. IRS agents will now ensure that you buy Washington-approved health insurance - and we don't even know what that will look like.
219 Democrats voted to impose mandates, higher taxes and insurance premiums and protect President Obama's political legacy over jobs and the economy. Without a single Republican vote, there was nothing bi-partisan about this bill.
I had hopes that there was such a thing as a Pro-life Democrat. But Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson promises were lies.
My representative (Brian Baird) was one of those to strip away our freedoms and I am so disgusted with him and the others. He is not running again (Good Riddance to him for betraying us and giving away our freedoms). We must vote them all out of office. (See how your Senator and Representative voted.)
There is no provision in the United States Constitution giving the central government the authority to nationalize health care, but liberals have never let the Constitution stand in the way of their incremental efforts to socialize the U.S. economy. Our current President seems intent on destroying, not preserving, the Constitution, and as quickly as possible.
(photo from: The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )
Many people of faith are disappointed and discouraged.
Defeat is often only the prelude to an even greater victory. Our country has overcome tyranny before and we must do it again.
Over the next 7 months, we will be preparing for the November elections.
Any politician who supported this bill must pay a price. And that price is ultimately paid at the ballot box.
The backers of this health care bill never gave up. They fought for nearly a year against public opinion, and wore down their opponents until they got what they wanted.
We must resolve to do the same.
Remember what happened last night.
Remember how you feel right now.
November will be here before you know it.
We must fight for our freedoms in the ballot box this November!!
If your congressmen voted AYE (yes), let them know that you are upset with how they voted and that they will pay for it in Novemeber - when we vote them out!!
Here's A letter below I sent to my congressman this morning:
March 22, 2010
To Rep. Brian Baird:
Last year, you voted against the Democrats’ trillion dollar government-run health care experiment, because it would raise premiums, increase costs and slash Medicare.
The senate version also raises our premiums and increases cost and slashes Medicare!!!
According to the CBO, by 2016, the cheapest family health care plan that Americans will be required to buy under the law will cost $12,000 per year. The average family plan will cost $15,200. A family of four making $88,201 per year—or more than 400 percent of the poverty level—will not receive any federal subsidy to purchase such a plan. They will pay taxes, however, to subsidize the health care purchases of people earning less than 400 percent of poverty.
Based on the CBO findings, trillion dollar government-run healthcare bills are bad for our economy. They are bad for our healthcare system. And they are morally wrong in that the leading versions force pro-life citizens to fund and support abortion. The Executive Order fix is a band-aid solution that fails to solve the fundamental problems in this bill, and can be repealed at any time, for any reason, by the president or future presidents.
WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR THIS?
This is the first time in the history of the country that the federal government has ever ordered American citizens to buy any good or service. If the federal government can constitutionally force individuals to buy health insurance, then there isn’t anything the federal government can not force individuals to do. Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to force people to buy health insurance? Our freedoms are being stripped away by the very representatives we have chosen who are suppose to fight for us. You have betrayed us.
We needed true reform not socialized, abortion funded “health” care? We needed to start over with a plan that’s based on the Constitution, considerate of moral concerns and with far less government intrusion. This new law will accelerate Washington's intrusion into our most personal and private decisions. The government is now the paymaster of, has full sweeping regulatory authority over, the U.S. health care industry which represents one-sixth of the U.S. economy. And how has the government done in the past with running Medicare? Medicaid, is also an unpopular and overextended welfare program that already rations care. According to the Treasury Department the Medicare system faces about $37 trillion in unfunded liabilities. This bill will also be a fiscal disaster.
I am deeply disgusted by the majority party’s insistence on pushing it against the clear will of the American people. Large majorities of Americans oppose this legislation because it offends the historic American dedication to the principle of self-government The will of the people was spat upon last night as government takeover of healthcare was shoved and rammed down our throats. This terrible bill is not about health care. It is a massive and mandatory new welfare program that will ensnare middle-class and middle-aged Americans in dependency on the federal government for a vital element of their lives.
I guess now that you are not running for re-election, and have voted for this terrible bill; you have decided that YOU have stopped fighting for Washington State and YOU will be forever remembered as the Congressman who sold-out his constituents in the ninth-inning for Team Obama.
I am so disgusted with you. You have given away our freedom.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Please contact your congressmen (phone, email, fax) and let them know that you OPPOSE the Senate health care bill. The Senate Version includes a taxpayer-funded abortion mandate. Our tax dollars should not be used for a murderous act.
I oppose any plan that includes a so called "public option" which is an individual mandate to purchase health insurance that takes away our right to choose.
I am so disgusted over the overt manipulation and lack of integrity being show by this administration and Congress in continuing to ram any version of ObamaCare through. Any such bill will be devastating to our freedoms, our economy, and our families. It is a government takeover our health care system and dramatically increase the reach and size of the federal government. A trillion dollar government-run healthcare bill will be bad for our economy, bad for our healthcare system, and morally wrong in that it forces pro-life citizens to fund and support abortion.
American people want less government - not more!!
Contact your Representatives Today!!
On a lighter note - here some youtubes that I just watch and had to share:
Saturday, January 9, 2010
The headline on the advice column was "Dealing With An Unwanted Pregnancy." It appeared at askmen.com, an online "men's magazine." The column evidently embarrassed a publication that, on first blush, you wouldn't think would be embarrassed by much. It's no longer available at the website.
Written by Isabella Snow ("Sex Education Correspondent"), the pep talk is about what to do if your lady friend is pregnant, is balking at an abortion, and while you want the kid to end, you don't necessarily want the "relationship" to end. I won't but could go on at length about what is a twice-over, deeply manipulative column.
By that I mean the advice is intended to offer pointers on how to get around the fact that for "some women, getting pregnant can start clocks ticking and make them suddenly want to be mothers, despite previous agreements") but not at the expense of making the guy (who is coaxing her into having an abortion) feel like he has not been unsupportive.
In a series of "Prenatal prep[s]," Snow instructs her audience (presumably virtually all of whom are men) to let the woman talk freely (this "shows that you actually value her feelings"); to not call the "unwanted pregnancy" an "it" ("too many times, and she's going to start feeling like she needs to defend 'it' from you"); to sit together on the sofa while you're having "this conversion" to simulate intimacy (and reduce "eye contact"); to be careful with "word choice" ("pregnant women tend to feel like they're carrying someone, as opposed to something, even if she is just a month or so pregnant"); to not come across "as whiny" ("These changes are significant, but you don't want to make it sound like you'll be more affected than she will"); to give good reasons for your position (ask her "Who's going to care for the baby while you're working? Will you have to move to a new home? Will you have to sell your Harley and get a station wagon?"), etc., etc., etc.
And when it's all this is done-- if after all the "Prenatal preps"-- "your woman decides to have the baby anyway, this does not mean you're required to get married or move in together." You probably want to consider forking over some money, but "This was her decision, not yours, and the bulk of the responsibility is now hers."
But, wait, Ms. Snow offers one last gambit. "Take a moment to spell this out for her when she gives you the final decision; it may just sway her over to your side."
So after carefully considering her feelings, your tone, your body language, how you sit, and the like--the high road, so to speak-- if she doesn't see things your way, there's always your trump card--the threat to effectively abandon her.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
President Obama asserted that he and Democratic leaders in the Senate were "on the precipice" of achieving the government takeover of health care that would mandate taxpayer funding of abortions and provide the failing abortion industry with a massive bailout.
PRECIPICE: [pres-uh-pis] noun.
1. An overhanging or extremely steep mass of rock, such as a crag or the face of a cliff.
2. The brink of a dangerous or disastrous situation: on the precipice of defeat.
An appropriate word choice. Today -- even as a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll revealed that now only 32% of Americans support the abortion-laden health care takeover -- it is clear that our nation is indeed "on the brink of a dangerous or disastrous situation."
While campaigning for President, Obama promised that "we'll
have negotiations televised on , so that people can
see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents."
Yet , CEO of C-SPAN, is now bitterly complaining that
his service has been denied ANY access to the crucial meetings
taking place to determine ObamaCare's final form.
The BIG Lies
"We will have a public, uh, process for forming this plan. It'll be televised on C-SPAN.... It will be transparent and accountable to the American people." --Barack Obama, November 2007
"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process." --Barack Obama, January 2008
"[T]hese negotiations will be on C-SPAN..." --Barack Obama, January 2008
"We're gonna do all these negotiations on C-SPAN so the American people will be able to watch these negotiations." --Barack Obama, March 2008
"All this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." --Barack Obama, April 2008
"I want the negotiations to be taking place on C-SPAN." --Barack Obama, May 2008
"[W]e'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who is, who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." --Barack Obama, August 2008
"We will work on this process publicly. It'll be on C-SPAN. It will be streaming over the Net." --Barack Obama, November 2008
After much bribery and arm-twisting, the Senate managed just before Christmas to pass its version of ObamaCare by a 60-39 vote (amazingly, without a single GOP "aye"). Now, the bill heads for conference deliberation televised by C-SPAN, just as the cable channel offered and Barack Obama promised numerous times.
Democrats let slip this week that there would be no typical conference committee on the competing House and Senate versions of the health bill, as "leaders" opted instead for private negotiations with "key" congressmen and senators, none of whom is Republican. Once an agreement is reached, each legislative chamber will vote again and send the unified bill to the president.
Without a conference committee, a rule requiring public access to the conference report for at least 48 hours before a vote would conveniently not apply. That means even more liberty-stealing treachery can be slipped into the bill with little notice. Funny how the "public option" doesn't mean that the public gets to know what's in the bill.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) nevertheless had the gall to declare, "There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who's served here's experience." In response, Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto mocked, "Has a more false or awkwardly worded statement ever come out of anyone who has served as speaker of the House's mouth?"
In spite of Democrats' best efforts at "transparency," there are many extra-special things that we actually do know about the bill. For example, on page 1,020, the Senate bill states: "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." In other words, the bill creates an eternal law by prohibiting future elected Congresses from making changes to this subsection.
What's in the subsection in question? The infamous "death panel" -- the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), whose objective will be to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending" (read: to ration health care).
Meanwhile, the bill contains what amounts to a marriage penalty worth $2,000 or more in insurance premiums each year. The Wall Street Journal explains, "The disparity comes about in part because subsidies for purchasing health insurance under the plan from congressional Democrats are pegged to federal poverty guidelines. That has the effect of limiting subsidies for married couples with a combined income, compared to if the individuals are single."
Finally, Obama signaled this week that he's willing to break another campaign promise: The "no tax increases on the middle class" pledge. He threw his support behind the Senate's tax on higher end "Cadillac" insurance plans, something unions and House Democrats oppose.
The more the public learns about this continuing saga, the more vigorously opposed they become to "reform." No wonder Democrats want the process to remain secret. --The Patriot Post
"Democratic leaders reportedly plan to forge a final reform bill behind closed doors. They should not be able to get away with hiding public policy from the public it will adversely affect. Both the House and Senate must pass identical bills before the president can sign the legislation into law. When differences pop up, as with separate health care bills, the legislation traditionally goes to a conference committee where lawmakers iron them out. The committees are made up of members from both chambers and often from both parties. The committee meetings have typically been conducted in public, as they should be. They can be moved out of public view only when a majority of conferees, in a vote in an open session, agree to hold closed meetings. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has called the Democrats' plan to bypass a conference committee a 'shady backroom deal.' An overstatement? Hardly. One House Democratic aide told a blogger that 'this process cuts out the Republicans.' The Democrats fear that if they follow the traditional route, the GOP could use the Senate filibuster rule to shut down the process of organizing the committee. Bypassing a conference committee also cuts out a public that will suffer losses from whatever monstrosity is produced by the cover of darkness. Americans stand to lose their power of choice over health care decisions and be stripped of a significant portion of their earnings to pay for a plan most don't want. They deserve to see in an open forum what is being done to them. Instead, they're likely to get whatever the Democrats want to force on them." --Investor's Business Daily
Harry Reid's 383-page amendment and its 2,074-page underlying bill (H.R. 3590) are unconstitutional because:
1) Congress has NO authority to force every American to carry insurance coverage, and,
2) Congress has NO authority to fine employers whose policies do not have the mandated coverage.
Where in the Constitution is the authority to mandate that Americans buy health insurance?
"Well, I just think the Constitution charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people." --Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
And according to Nancy Pelosi's staff, "nobody questions that."...When asked where the authority to mandate that Americans buy health insurance -- that they be forced under penalty of fine or imprisonment to engage in a particular commercial enterprise -- is located in the Constitution, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) answered, "Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That's how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs."
Congress too often uses this clause to do whatever it wants to do (the legislative target might, just might, some day engage in interstate commerce, don't you know,) but this incorrect interpretation certainly doesn't make this legislation constitutional. -- The Patriot Post
"America's founders intended the federal government to have limited powers and that the states have an independent sovereign place in our system of government. The Obama/Reid/Pelosi legislation to take control of the American health-care system is the most sweeping and intrusive federal program ever devised. If the federal government can do this, then it can do anything, and the limits on government power that our liberty requires will be more myth than reality." --Wall Street Journal op-ed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT).
Here are just a few of the Reid bill's details:
- 2,409 pages (by comparison, the legislation that created Social Security was just 82 pages long)
- $518 billion in tax increases (Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office)
- $466 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid (CBO)
- Many costs of the legislation won't begin until 2014, but taxes will be imposed immediately (CBO)
- Federal outlays for health care would increase by about $200 billion between 2010-2019 (CBO)
- $26 billion of unfunded mandates to states over the next 10 years that will likely result in higher taxes (CBO)
- Would increase non-group premiums by $300 per individual and $2,100 per family (CBO)
- Up to 10 million people will lose their current health insurance coverage under the bill (CBO)
- Adds a 10% tax on indoor tanning services (Section 10907)
Reid is handing out cash for cloture votes like Santa Claus handing out candy canes during the Macy’s Day Parade.
Reid’s is using bribes, extortion, threats, and secrecy to ram through Obama’s socialized medicine plan – at a time when most Americans are thinking about the celebration of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem.
Reid has handed out $300 million to (D-LA) for her vote; $100 million in Medicaid assistance for ’s (D-NE); a sweetheart insurance deal for Nebraska and Michigan insurance companies to benefit Nelson and (D-MI); Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) gets $100 million for a hospital; Sen. (D-IL) gets money for ACORN; Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) gets $10 billion for ; (D-FL) gets a special deal in Florida for Medicare Advantage Recipients; (D-MT) gets extra Medicare benefits for Montana residents; Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) wins Medicare funding for Iowa hospitals; Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) gets higher Medicare payments for rural hospitals.
How many more bribes will he offer to get ? He’s clearly willing to do anything to get it done.
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) claimed he was not going to vote for the Reid bill unless there were prohibitions against the use of federal dollars to kill unborn children. Nelson sold us out and voted for cloture last week, which gave Reid the 60 votes needed to push for a vote on Christmas Eve. --Traditional Values Coalition
There may not have been any smoke-filled rooms, but there were plenty of shady deals.THIS BILL STILL FUNDS ABORTION
The most egregious were those for Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. He was the final holdout. Without his support, the bill would have been stopped. But Ben buckled under the pressure.
He was particularly pliable on his demands that no federal funding go to cover abortions. Instead he accepted a watered down compromise that allows individual states to prohibit plans that cover abortion services—a compromise that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and numerous pro-life groups denounced as paving the way for federally funded abortions.
But when Harry Reid needed his vote, Sen. Nelson took the money and ran -- $100 million to be exact. Nebraska will be the only state in the country where the full costs of Medicaid expansion will be covered by the federal government. Specialty hospitals in Nebraska will be exempted from new regulations. The state's largest insurers will be shielded from new regulations. Here are the details of the Nebraska Exemption:
But Sen. Nelson wasn't the only senator to be bought off by Majority Leader Reid. More than a dozen other states received special goodies, including:
- Federal government fully finances Medicaid expansion for two years and then increases its matching funds (known as FMAP) thereafter to 100% -- in perpetuity (Section 10201), totaling about $100 million
- Reid bill specifically identifies Nebraska for higher federal matching funds, fully funding its expansion for an additional year
- Carve outs for physician-owned hospitals in Nebraska
- Physician self-referral exemptions within Nebraska
- Nelson's abortion compromise: a state may elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an exchange if the state enacts a law to prohibit it
- Shields two Nebraska insurers from taxes that other plans will pay: Mutual of Omaha and Blue Cross/Blue Shield (language crafted so it only affects these two in Nebraska)
$300 million in additional Medicaid funding
2.2% FMAP increase for 6 years for Vermont Medicaid program
$600 million in additional Medicaid funding (CBO)
0.5% FMAP increase for 3 years for their entire program
$500 million in additional Medicaid funding (CBO)
Restores DSH funding eliminated in the past to expand Medicaid eligibility
Adjusts payments to hospitals according to local wage levels, which when adjusted aids Michigan Exemption for non-profit insurers in the state from large excise tax
$100 million earmark for construction of a University of Connecticut hospital
Medicare coverage for individuals exposed to environmental health hazards in or around the geographic area of Libby, Mont., subject to an emergency declaration as of 6/17/09
- South Dakota , North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana
Adds 1% hospital wage index
Adds 1% practice index for physicians to cover geographic cost difference --Newt Gingrich
The abortion coverage is still in the bill. It’s just hidden, and has no "conscience clause"
for those who object to abortion coverage! The National Right to Life Committee and many other pro-life groups immediately condemned Reid's bill.
The fact is, NO ONE wants this bill! Conservatives hate the bill. Progressives and liberals hate it, too, although for different reasons. And every credible poll shows that the general public strongly opposes this destructive and dangerous bill.
ObamaCare is facing more unlikely opponents every day, including former DNC chief Howard Dean, a medical doctor. "You're going to be forced to buy health insurance from a company that is going to take an average of 27 percent of your money," Dean said, "and there is no choice about that. If you don't buy that insurance you are going to get a fine."
And Dean wasn't done. "This bill I think is more likely to make the crisis worse than it is better because it's so expensive," he said. And as a result, he concluded, "[H]onestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill." He even penned an op-ed in The Washington Post expounding on his opposition.
Granted, Dean wants something even more leftist than what the Senate is grinding out, but sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your friend. -- The Patriot Post