Posted using ShareThis
Monday, September 28, 2009
CNSNews.com - Key European Union Treaty Faces Big Test
Posted using ShareThis
CNSNews.com - Proposal Requires House to Post Bills on Web 72 Hours Before Vote
Posted using ShareThis
Re: Have you seen this video ?
Posted to You Tube March 6, 2009 by JohnNada80
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Check out "Message from Sarah Palin: Best Wishes for the Jewish High Holidays" on Team Sarah
|
Fed misplaced 9 trillion dollars? How did this happen!!
Rep. Alan Grayson asks the Federal Reserve Inspector General about the trillions of dollars lent or spent by the Federal Reserve and where it went, and the trillions of off balance sheet obligations. Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman responds that the IG does not know and is not tracking where this money is.
Friday, September 25, 2009
FYI: Examiner.com: RNC chair Michael Steele chastises Obama indoctrination video
Michael Steel chastises Obama indoctrination video
In a statement issued on September 24th, Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee expressed outrage over the Barack Obama indoctrination video of schoolchildren at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ singing...
MSNBC's Ed Shultz Erupts: 'Republicans Want to See You Dead!'
MSNBC's Ed Shultz Erupts: 'Republicans Want to See You Dead!'
[Media Research Center - Cyber Alert
View the Video Here Enraged over Republican opposition to ObamaCare, on The Ed Show on MSNBC Wednesday, host Ed Shultz screamed at viewers: "The Republicans lie! They want to see you dead! They’d rather make money off your dead corpse! They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don’t have anything for her."
The woman Shultz was referring to was a relative of a woman who asked Republican Congressman Eric Cantor a question at a health care town hall in Virginia. Cantor replied to the woman, Patricia Churchill, by mentioning charitable care. After playing the question and Cantor’s response, Shultz launched into a diatribe: "This is a classic, because when you present the Republicans and the obstructionists with a real-life scenario, they don’t have an answer.... they’re great at holding up the socialism, the communism, the Marxism, all kinds of ’isms, but they don’t have an answer for that woman...Americans, you can’t trust Eric Cantor!"
At one point, Shultz cited health care in the international community: "I was watching the U.N. coverage today here on MSNBC....I wish I had gone over there with a camera and done an international man on the street or leader on the street and asked them if they do health care in their country the way we do it here. But I know the answer. It’s no. We like to butcher people who have got cancer that don’t fall in the correct percentage point."
Shultz went on to denounce any effort by Democrats to work with Republicans on reform: "My God, Democrats! What’s wrong with you?! You can’t deal with these people! At all!"
Follow-up: MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell Aggressively Defends Video
MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell Aggressively Defends Video of Kids Singing to Obama[Media Research Center - Cyber Alert tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996Friday September 25, 2009 @ 10:03 AM EDT]View the Video Here [see below] MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell on Thursday appeared mystified as to why anyone would have a problem with New Jersey school children being led in a song praising Barack Obama. The February 2009 video contained these lyrics: "He said we must be fair today! Equal work means equal pay! Barack Hussein Obama! He said, red yellow, black or white, all are equal in his sight! Barack Hussein Obama!"She complained to conservative columnist Tim Carney, "I mean, this is children. They're singing a song...If you can make your point again about why this is indoctrination, political indoctrination to praise your President." The MSNBC News Live guest host also dismissed, "I remember certainly in elementary school when Ronald Reagan was President and we sent him jelly beans." Carney quickly quipped "Did you sing a song praising the 1981 Kemp/Roth tax cuts? ‘Cause we sure didn't."After Carney pointed out that the line about equal pay for equal work is a specific policy endorsement, O’Donnell attacked, "Oh, you don't believe in equal pay for equal work?" The quick-on-his-feet Carney again shot back, "I believe in equal pay. I would love to make equal pay to you ladies, but I don't."O’Donnell later spun fair pay legislation, which was signed by Obama early in 2009, this way: "Tim, that was passed overwhelmingly, too. There were a number of Republicans that voted for that." So, if something is popular, it’s okay to encourage children to sing about it? Would O’Donnell be happy if video surfaced of teachers in the spring of 2003 leading songs about the glories of toppling Saddam Hussein? Or would she find that to be propagandistic?Also participating in the discussion was Mike Stark, a reporter for the liberal web page FireDogLake.com. (Of course, Ms. O’Donnell didn’t mention the hard-left bent of the site.) After Stark dismissed the song controversy as nothing more than "tea baggers" getting in "high dudgeon. . . ."
CNSNews.com - Administration Will Cut Border Patrol Deployed on U.S-Mexico Border
Posted using ShareThis
Thursday, September 24, 2009
9-24-09 V-50 Lectures
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fdf8e/fdf8ef130640248ab99eae8e4fb55c1bf66eba3e" alt=""
CLICK HERE TO ACCESS LECTURES
Blair Holt& Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act
To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. [Last Updated: Sep 18, 2009 3:14PM]
Feb 9, 2009: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Posted using ShareThis
ShareThis Function Added to This blog.
Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Another indoctrination video
GLENN: Okay, I want to show you and tonight I'm going to play the tape for you, of indoctrination that is going on. We've been going through all of this indoctrination for the last few days. Tomorrow I do a full hour live with moms and their children, and we're going to talk a little bit, things they are concerned with and indoctrination I know will come up. Play this. This is do we know where this is from? Elementary school in Burlington, New Jersey at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
A Video for Our Schools
CNSNews.com - New Push Wednesday to Post House Bills Online Before Lawmakers Vote on Them
Posted using ShareThis
CNSNews.com - Obama Will Spend More on Welfare in the Next Year Than Bush Spent on Entire Iraq War, Study Reveals
Posted using ShareThis
Question: How Safe is the H1N1 Vaccine?
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
"Net Neutrality" -- Potential by FCC to Regulate Internet
| ||||||
Judge May Hear Question of Obama's Constitutional Eligibility to Be President
Monday, September 21, 2009
H1N1 Vaccination Discussions
Friday, September 18, 2009
Soda Tax? -- We saw this coming
Friday, September 18, 2009
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
(CNSNews.com) - The Health and Human Services Department plans to spend $650 million tax dollars encouraging Americans to develop "healthful lifestyle habits."
Soda tax?
In a recent interview with “Men’s Health” magazine, President Barack Obama said the idea of taxing soda and sugary drinks is something “that we should be exploring.”
"There's no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda,” Obama said in the interview released last week. “And every study that's been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else."
This week, the “New England Journal of Medicine” called for a penny-per-ounce tax on soda.
But critics, including the American Beverage Association, argue that a soda tax won’t reduce obesity. “You just can’t tax someone to better health,” the group argues. It says a soft drink tax “has far more to do with a money grab by big government to pay for even bigger government.”
The Center for Consumer Freedom, a food and restaurant industry group, points to an analysis showing that, to actually make a dent in the obesity rates, Congress would need a 1,200 percent tax on soda – which works out to $9 in tax on a 75-cent can.
"The tax code shouldn't be a tool for social engineering," said J. Justin Wilson, senior research analyst at the Center. "Nor should it be an instrument for penalizing individuals who make food choices that some people in government don't like."
Something Different - Our State Flowers
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Constitutional Lawyer's Commentary on Health Care Bill
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source.
Here is a link to the Constitution:
And another to the Bill of Rights:
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Health Care- The Real Problem Is Not Care, But Cost
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f6e5e/f6e5e816a694b8d192ea25aa560c7c5808009116" alt=""
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Correction to Post on 9-12 JoCo Tea Party
Patriot Day Tea Party-Josephine County Oregon 9-12-09
Thomas Sowell = Common Sense
By Thomas Sowell Real Clear Politics September 8, 2009The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.
The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything.
No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of President Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.
One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess-- for a program that would not take effect until 2013!
Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years-- more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential election?
If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next Presidential election?
If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately, then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of life and death?
If we do not believe that the President is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it.
Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be.
Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration has acted on a wide range of issues.
Consider the "stimulus" legislation. Here the administration was successful in rushing a massive spending bill through Congress in just two days-- after which it sat on the President's desk for three days, while he was away on vacation. But, like the medical care legislation, the "stimulus" legislation takes effect slowly.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be September 2010 before even three-quarters of the money will be spent. Some economists expect that it will not all be spent by the end of 2010.Click Link Above to Read Full Article
The Dallas News at dallasnews.com 06:24 PM CDT on Friday, September 11, 2009"Hubris-laden charlatans" was the way a recent e-mail from a reader characterized the Obama administration. That phrase seems especially appropriate for the Charlatan-in-Chief, Barack Obama, whose speech to a joint session of Congress was both a masterpiece of rhetoric and a shameless fraud.
To tell us, with a straight face, that he can insure millions more people without adding to the already skyrocketing deficit, is world-class chutzpa and an insult to anyone's intelligence. To do so after an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office has already showed this to be impossible reveals the depths of moral bankruptcy behind the glittering words.
Even those who can believe that Obama can conjure up the money through eliminating "waste, fraud and abuse" should ask themselves where he is going to conjure up the additional doctors, nurses and hospitals needed to take care of millions more patients.
If he can't pull off that miracle, then government-run medical care in the United States can be expected to produce what government-run medical care in Canada, Britain and other countries has produced – delays of weeks or months to get many treatments, not to mention arbitrary rationing decisions by bureaucrats.