Lee Dunn's List: BACKLASH TO WHIPLASH

• Neb.'s Nelson sees backlash on health reform plan
• Dec 20, 5:01 PM (ET)
  
  By MARGERY A. BECK
• OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - It was the concern of Nebraska's Republican governor over expanded Medicaid costs in the proposed Senate health care overhaul bill that led to a compromise to cover his state's estimated $45 million share over a decade, U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson said Sunday.
• Gov. Dave Heineman "contacted me and he said this is another unfunded federal mandate and it's going to stress the state budget, and I agreed with him," the Nebraska Democrat said.
• "I said to the leader and others that this is something that has to be fixed. I didn't participate in the way it was fixed."
• But Heineman expressed anything but gratitude, saying he had nothing to do with the compromise and calling the overhaul bill "bad news for Nebraska and bad news for America."
• "Nebraskans did not ask for a special deal, only a fair deal," Heineman said in a statement Sunday.
• That criticism is only a taste of what Nelson has received since announcing Saturday that he would become the 60th vote needed to advance the landmark legislation.
• Despite the perks Nelson managed to garner for Nebraska in finally agreeing to support the overhaul bill, the backlash from those who wanted Nelson to hold a hard line against the measure was immediate.
• Abortion foes howled in protest. Nebraska Right to Life, which has long endorsed Nelson, issued a scathing statement that dubbed Nelson a traitor.
• The state's Catholic bishops followed Sunday with a statement that they were "extremely disappointed" in him.
• The chairman of Nebraska's Republican Party declared Nelson's decision to be the end of his political career in Nebraska, and within hours of Nelson's announcement, the state GOP launched a Web site, , to collect funds to oust the Democrat in the 2012 election.http://www.givebentheboot.com
• Nebraska's Republican Sen. Mike Johanns said he was "stunned and incredibly disappointed," and called the compromise's abortion language a "watered-down accounting gimmick that leads to Nebraska taxpayers subsidizing abortions in other states."
• The compromise tries to maintain a strict separation between taxpayer funds and private premiums that would pay for abortion coverage. It would also allow states to restrict abortion coverage in new insurance marketplaces.
• Nelson obtained increased federal funds to cover his state's cost of covering an expanded Medicaid population at what one Democratic official estimated at $45 million over a decade.
• A group called Americans for Prosperity of Nebraska was to hold a rally Sunday in Omaha at which former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was to speak.

  • Huckabee had as a chief campaign advisor in his 2008 presidential bid a CFR member, Haas
  Add Sticky Note
• Nebraska Republican Rep. Lee Terry also planned to speak in an effort to persuade Nelson to change his mind.

• Nelson isn't taking the backlash lying down.

   "This is all orchestrated," Nelson said Sunday. "It's so thinly disguised ... it's almost laughable.
• "So far, the focus seems to have been on some people who are angry. They're ignoring the fact that not only were there good reasons to do what I did, but that there would have been a backlash the other way."

• Nelson, the lone Democrat in Nebraska's five-member congressional delegation, does have supporters.

   The Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest, which advocates for the poor, praised Nelson's decision and urged people to thank him.

   The Nebraska Democratic Party chairman called Nelson's decision "courageous" and dismissed Republican criticism of it.

   "Whatever he did, they would be critical," Vic Covalt said. "They have no program and they have nothing to offer us other than more of the same."

18 more annotations...

• December 20, 2009
• McCain: GOP can't stop health care
• Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) concedes that Republican senators won’t be able to stop Democratic health care reform legislation from passing the Senate before Christmas.
• “We will fight until the last vote,” McCain told "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace. “We owe that to our constituents, because we must do everything – we must look back and say we did everything to prevent this terrible mistake from taking place.”
• Democrats recently reached a deal with hold out members of their own caucus to cobble together the 60 votes necessary to pass the bill -
• and McCain, in response to a Wallace question, said there’s “probably not” anything the GOP can do to block the bill.
• “But what we can do is continue winning the battle of American public opinion.”

6 more annotations...

• House Democrat blames Pelosi, leaders for switch
• By JOSH KRAUSHAAR |                         12/22/09 10:57 AM EST

     

  Updated:                         12/22/09
• Democratic Rep. Parker Griffith announced Tuesday that he's switching parties – saying he can no longer align himself “with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy and drives us further and further into debt.”
• “Unfortunately there are those in the Democratic Leadership that continue to push an agenda focused on massive new spending, tax increases, bailouts and a health care bill that is bad for our healthcare system,” Griffith said in a statement.
• “I have always considered myself to be an independent voice and I have tried to be that voice in Congress – but after watching this agenda firsthand I now believe that the differences in the two parties could not be more clear and that for me to be true to my core beliefs and values I must align myself with the Republican party and speak out clearly on these issues.
• Griffith’s party switch comes on the eve of a pivotal congressional health care vote and will send a jolt through a Democratic House Caucus that has already been unnerved by the recent retirements of a handful of members who, like Griffith, hail from districts that offer prime pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2010.
• The switch represents a coup for the House Republican leadership, which had been courting Griffith since he publicly criticized the Democratic leadership in the wake of raucous town halls during the summer.
• Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, hailed Griffith's move from a large majority to a small minority as proof that the Democrats have become “completely disconnected from seniors, young workers and and families in America.”
• Liberals countered that Griffith was essentially a Republican all along,
• and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said he should give back the money Democrats have contributed to his campaign.
• "House Democratic members and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took Parker Griffith at his word and, as a result, invested a great deal in working with Alabamans to bring Mr. Griffith to Congress," he said in a statement.
• "Mr. Griffith, failing to honor our commitment to him, has a duty and responsibility to return to Democratic Members and the DCCC the financial resources that were invested in him. His constituents will hold him accountable for failing to keep his commitments."
• Griffith, who captured his seat in a close 2008 open seat contest, will become the first Republican to hold the historically Democratic, Huntsville-based district.
• A radiation oncologist who founded a cancer treatment center, Griffith cited the Democratic health care bill as a major reason for his switch.
• “I want to make it perfectly clear that his bill is bad for our doctors, our patients and will have unintended consequences far beyond what we know today,” he said.
• “As a doctor and as a Republican, I plan to once again oppose this measure and hope that we can defeat this bill that is a major threat to our nation.”
• While the timing of his announcement was unexpected, Griffith’s party switch will not come as a surprise to those familiar with his voting record, which is one of the most conservative among Democrats.
• "He has bucked the Democratic leadership on nearly all of its major domestic initiatives, including the stimulus package, health care legislation, the cap-and trade energy bill and financial regulatory reform.
• "He was one of only 11 House Democrats to vote against the stimulus.
• “Look at his voting record – he’s had substantial differences philosophically with the Democratic agenda here in Congress,” said an Alabama ally who is familiar with Griffith’s decision.
• “It’s something that’s been discussed for the last several months… talking to people in his family. And it genuinely is a reflection of where he feels. It’s his own personal conviction.”
• The Obama administration’s decision to scrap plans to build a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe further frustrated Griffith, according to GOP sources, because his district contains the base for Boeing’s ground-based missile defense research.
• Ironically, a National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman called Griffith a “woefully ineffective advocate for Tennessee Valley jobs” after the decision was announced in September.
• Signs of Griffith’s dissatisfaction with his party began to surface publicly during the summer recess, when he received an earful of criticism from constituents.

22 more annotations...

• Ben   Nelson Attacks Pro-Life Advocates, Defends Pro-Abortion Compromise
• by   Steven Ertelt
    LifeNews.com Editor
    December 24,   2009
• Washington,   DC (LifeNews.com) --
• Facing an enormous backlash   for becoming the 60th vote for a health care bill that his language   allows to fund abortions, Ben Nelson is striking back.
• In comments   both on and off the Senate floor yesterday and today, Nelson lashed   out at pro-life advocates and is defending his much-maligned compromise.
• In   a Senate floor speech on Tuesday, Nelson defended the abortion language   he added to the Senate-passed   health care bill.
• He   said when his legitimate amendment to ban abortions failed, he compromised.

  • We know...
  Add Sticky Note
• "I   began the process of trying to find other solutions that I thought   equally walled off the use of federal funds and made it clear that   no federal funds would be used," he claimed.
• However,   as the head of Nebraska Right to Life informed LifeNews.com, Nelson   ditched pro-life advocates by   refusing to allow them to provide analysis on the language --   which ultimately was found by every pro-life group to fund abortions.
• Upset   that he is now regarded as a sellout, Nelson struck back.
• "Now,   apparently I didn't say, 'Mother, may I?' in the process of writing   that language because others took issue with it, even though they   cannot constructively point out how it doesn't prohibit the use of   federal funds or wall off those funds or keep them totally segregated.   They just didn't like the language," he said.
• "You   know, it's unfortunate, though, to continue to distort and misrepresent   what happens here in the body of the Senate. It's difficult enough   to have committees, difficult enough to have cooperation. It's difficult   enough to have collegiality. When politics are put above policy and   productivity, this is what we get," he continued.
• Nelson   said he would be "happy" if the Stupak or original Nelson   amendment holds up in the conference committee.
• Meanwhile,   Nelson is coming under fire from the Washington Times, which ran an   editorial on Tuesday condemning his compromise as pro-abortion.
• The   Times says, "On Page 41 (lines 5-8) of Senate Majority Leader   Harry Reid's manager amendment, the proposed rules mandate that everyone   buying insurance through new exchanges or through the new government-run   plan must pay a monthly abortion premium to be used for elective abortion   services."
• "This   fee applies 'without regard to the enrollee's age, sex or family status.'
• That means that people who have no possibility of wanting an abortion   themselves will pay for others to have them.
• On Page 43 (lines 1-7),   insurance companies will be required to assess the cost of elective   abortion coverage, and on Page 43 (lines 20-22) they are mandated   to charge a minimum of at least $1 per enrollee per month to cover   abortion," the newspaper notes.
• "Many   Americans wanted to believe Mr. Nelson was a decent man of his word,   but the senator caved in when his vote could have made a difference   for the lives of the unborn. A politician can't get any more despicable   than that," the paper concluded
• Even   the liberal Washington Post things Nelson is disingenuous.

• Michael   Gerson spoke with Nelson over the phone Thursday morning.

   

  Gerson   says Nelson "insisted that the legislative language on abortion   he accepted accomplishes most or all of what the Stupak amendment   does in the House."
• "Nelson   has a background in the insurance industry, and he explained to me   in detail how premium payments covering elective abortion would be   segregated in his approach. He stands, as far as I can tell, alone   among pro-life leaders in this view of the compromise, which is   criticized by the National Council of Catholic Bishops, the National   Right to Life Committee and Congressman Bart Stupak himself,"   Gerson added.
• "The   fact remains that the federal government, under the Reid-Nelson approach,   would subsidize private health insurance plans that cover abortion   – a departure from longstanding policy," Gerson added.
• "I   did not find these explanations compelling," he concluded of   Nelson's insistence that his language doesn't fund abortions.
• ACTION:   Respond to Nelson at (202) 224-6551 or http://bennelson.senate.gov/contact-me.cfm

23 more annotations...

• Can America be saved?
• Posted: December 25, 2009
  1:00 am Eastern
  
    <!--- copywrite only show on NON commentary pages as per joseph meeting 8/23/06 ------>   <!-- copyright --> © 2009  
• In a 2008 radio interview, Barack Obama said:
• " … the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties."
• And what in the world were the Founding Fathers thinking about when they failed to broach the subject?
• I tell you, life isn't fair. Why hasn't the Supreme Court ever ventured into the matter of "redistributive wealth?"
• Constitution "[says] what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted … and one of the … tragedies of the civil rights movement was … because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change."
• In the same interview, Chairman Obama went on to say that the
• Those stupid Founding Fathers again. They didn't even think to put in the Constitution what the government must do on your behalf.
• Excuse me? Do on your behalf?
• And what a tragedy it was that the civil rights movement didn't put together the coalition of powers that could bring about "redistributive change."
• After all, the debate is over: We all know that redistribution of wealth is the only moral way to operate a country, right?
• Forget the fact that the Constitution never mentions the redistribution of anything
• America will go through a fundamental change in 2010 – guaranteed.
• Either it will be fundamentally transformed into a full-fledged socialist police state, then, ultimately, a communist police state, or those who still believe in freedom will do whatever it takes to overthrow the oligarchy that now rules over us.
• If the Republicans, after winning back the House and Senate – or even coming close – continue to act like a branch of the Demopublican Party and ignore the Constitution, it most likely will bring into existence a third party (How about the Tea Party?) that would be the first such animal of the modern era that would have a legitimate shot at of winning the presidency in 2012.
• But, as I have so often pointed out, the caveat is that the fascist president and Congress may very well find a Chavezian reason to declare a state of emergency and "postpone" the 2012 presidential election.
• Regardless of whether that emergency is a total collapse of the U.S. economy or a terrorist attack, don't be fooled.
• If it happens, it will be a planned event by those who are now in power.

  • SEE: "Hawk's" writings on the Steve Quayle website
  Add Sticky Note
• Via health care, cap and trade and other wildly unconstitutional measures, BHO and the criminal Congress will assure that the economy is many times worse off by next November's elections than it is now.
• The objective, of course, is to bring people to their knees so they will have "no other choice" but to look to benevolent government for help.
• I believe that 20-25 percent unemployment is coming, more massive bailouts of companies "too big to fail," higher taxes, government controlled health care, cap and trade
• and, yes, jail time for those who do not obey the unconstitutional edicts of the criminal class in Washington.
• I thought we'd have runaway inflation and a solidly entrenched police state by the mid '80s, but I underestimated the sheer power of Ronald Reagan's personality – not to mention the government's capacity to print fiat currency and borrow money.
• Could I be wrong? Sure.

• Having said this, the only way that a "fundamentally transformed America" can be avoided is if:  

  1. Free elections are held in 2010 

  2. Conservative Republicans sweep into power 

  3. Said conservative Republicans immediately began to repeal all unconstitutional legislation – including government involvement in health care, welfare, regulation of the environment, government involvement in education … and so on.  

  In short, get rid of all government functions other than providing a legal system for arbitrating disputes, protecting the lives and property of citizens and providing for a national defense.  

  4. While all this is going on, those of us who are on the moral high road should be prepared to spend enormous amounts of time and energy educating the anesthetized, sports-crazy, entertainment-crazy, vacation-crazy masses about the wonders of the free market. We must put forth the effort to explain to them why liberty is the most valuable commodity they can ever possess. We must help them understand that liberty, not government handouts, gives them the best opportunity to achieve economic freedom.
• It is not just another Carter era of sheer stupidity and incompetence. This is the real thing.
• The year 2010 will be like no other in American history.
• This is what progressives have been working toward since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.
• We are living through a major historical time that may very well shape the destiny of the human race for centuries to come – or bring about its final demise.
• But cheer up – it's Christmas. Enjoy your family and the other things in your life that are dear to you. Then, refreshed, come back after the holiday prepared to do battle with the most corrupt government in U.S. history.
• Robert Ringer is the author of three No. 1 best-sellers, including two books listed by the New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time. He also hosts the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, where he interviews today's top economic and political leaders on the most vital and controversial issues of our time. To tap into his profound wisdom and life-changing insights on a regular basis, sign up for a FREE subscription to his one-of-a-kind e-letter, "A Voice of Sanity in an Insane World," by visiting www.robertringer.com.

30 more annotations...

• PATRIOTS   ISSUE THE FINAL WARNING: LISTEN WASHINGTON!

• By   Greg Evensen

   

  December   25, 2009

   

  NewsWithViews.com
• From   the top of virtually every flag staff in our country flies the emblem   of The United States of America. Our national flag is a moving symbol   of what we believe the country has stood for since our victory against   the British.
• It has flown as the rallying cry for men and women in combat.   It has been seen by some as the single sacred goal for refugees in hostile   lands who were literally crawling for the protection of its embassy   or a U.S. Marine detachment protecting the soil on which it flies.
• I believe with all that is within me that we still have an unassailable   claim to the unbendable and unshakable rule of law found in the Articles   of Confederation and to a lesser degree the Constitution itself, for   which “old glory” perpetually stands in silent honor.
• Before   that flag flew for the first time, the Declaration of Independence was   written by imperfect, flawed men who sought a Republic in which to chart   their own and others—destinies.
• We may argue vociferously about   whether or not our founding generation was Christians, atheists, deists,   or cultists.
• It matters only in that we may VERY soon have the opportunity   to do it right again—or perhaps for the first time.
• To our ultimate shame and utmost agony, we are now a mere shadow of   that symbolized greatness.
• We have become a pathetic caricature of the   strong, independent and “righteous” embodiment of liberty,   freedom and justice for every citizen.
• No longer are there patriotic   and moving renditions of our national anthem.
• Sousa marches are heard   once or twice a year at service academy graduations or on Memorial Day.
• Veterans are shunned.
• People complain about service honor guards use   of “real guns” to volley for the deceased. A flag draped   casket is a symbol of foreign intrusion and reckless use of force by   our military and that may indeed be true.
• What has driven us to such a deep trench of despair and an ongoing sense   of detachment from who we are, why we knew our duty and were not afraid   to hold others accountable if they strayed from the well worn path of   common sense, honest lawmaking, courage and devotion to freedom?
• Patriots, real, honest to goodness uncompromising stalwarts of a national   treasure held in the hearts of men and women, are now faced with the   most vicious pack of rabid beasts to ever walk within the district limits   of Washington, D.C.
• This putrid pack of evil human beings deserve hell   fire so hot as to burn the guts out of our own sun.
• What they have done   to this nation’s hopes and aspirations for generations yet unborn   (if the child survives the womb) is a war crime against humanity if   there ever was one defined.
• They have legislated for the corrupt.
• They   have labored to provide safe haven for criminals and perverts.
• They   have stolen from the people and created an island of slavery so vast   and inescapable that even suicide seems sweet to those entombed in its   grip.
• We have been constant witnesses to the mutated process that is called   government in Washington and in many of our states as well.
• Layer upon   layer of bureaucrats have taught each other the ropes in a game of how   much can we do to the citizens before they roll over in their fast food   haze of stupidity and pass some gas. Real pretty picture isn’t   it?
• And up on that flag staff? Fifty stars have fallen onto the dirt and   the red and white stripes have entwined themselves into a sickly anemic   pink more to the liking of the sodomizers among us than men and women   who still believe that the “stars and stripes” have promise   and mean something more virtuous than a sold out America battered by   lecherous politicians writing demonic law and calling it “change   we can live with.”
  
• It is far too late in the game to cover the reasons why we are where   we are. If you don’t know, then find out.
• If you don’t care,   then get out of my way.
• Be gone, be   silent and hide. You will not fair well in what is coming.
• Abortionists   deserve what they give out to the innocent.
• Sodomizers need radical   surgery where it counts.
• Politicians deserve a bunk in a FEMA camp.
• Bankers need 20 years of living in a dumpster.
• Corrupt business leaders   require 12 hours a day in the heat of the south picking strawberries   while the former mistreated workers relax in the Virgin Islands.
• To   some, what I have described is NBC’s version of a “right   wing fanatic and his rantings that are a danger to this socialized bastard   democracy.”
• To millions of freshly educated, formerly dead on   their ass liberals and entitlement vampires, truth just went up a notch   or two.
• Americans have been brutalized by tyrannical   government long enough.
• Soviet style law making must be ended.
• The politicians   responsible for our economic, military and banking catastrophes must   be arrested, tried and sentenced for their crimes—without exception   and everywhere they have ruled.
• Nazi style security, surveillance, cameras   and satellite GPS census systems must be located and shut down.
• Lawless   judges, police officials, and rogue military personnel must themselves   be brought to justice for the violations of their oath of office and   the corruption left in their wake.
• I   cannot emphasize enough that this all needs to be done in a quick, peaceful   and dignified manner and done so immediately.
• Forget the damned feel   good “tea party” speeches that these scurrilous bastards   laugh at and do something.
• You, who complain that writers like me outline   problems and offer no solutions and you want action paths, then convene   Grand Juries in every county of America, WITH OR WITHOUT THE “CONSENT”   OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
• Failing   that, recall elections should be run against every targeted elected   official that holds office.
• Finally   failing the previously peaceful two options, hundreds of thousands of   people must leave the comfort of their homes and mass around every state   capital building in the 50 states.
• Hundreds of thousands of others must   do the same around the capital in Washington, D.C.
• Voices from these   crowds must drown out all other sounds and it must continue for many   minutes. Utter silence must then replace the noise with one well spoken   citizen in each location rising to read a brief demand. It must be the   same in all the states and in D.C.
• It should read something like this:
• “On behalf of the citizens of this republic representing the Constitution   of this nation and of the individual states, we hereby claim our right   of SUPERIORITY and final AUTHORITY over this place and those who are   inside. We have fired you from your office by common consent and demand   that you leave this city immediately never to return. You have one hour   to vacate.”
• Then all who have come to make the final plea must leave the area. When   the expected failure to comply has been duly noted, the military should   be notified to arrest, detain and try each former legislator.
• At this point you are processing my suggestions and have come to the   inescapable conclusion that this is pointless and cannot succeed.
• First   of all do not be so sure that any one of these suggestions may not be   possible.
  
• What follows this potential plan of action is all that would be left   and that is open, outright, and undeterred rebellion against the wickedness   in high places.
• To continue “business as usual” with the   corrupt government entities would be unthinkable and you would be part   of the corruption.
• Working “within” the system would be   siding with the enemy and your lot would have been cast with the devil   himself.
• Make no mistake. Whether it is the smallest most corrupt nation in Africa,   Asia, South America, or the United States of America, rebellion is the   choice of last resort.
• Outcomes are tenuous and the path to victory   is a tragic admission that government tyranny ALWAYS results in civilian   misery.
• Fighting for one’s country then carries a new and deeper   meaning.
• We   are just moments and one horrible piece of corrupted law from facing   that choice.
• The people who will determine this nation’s fate   are neither in uniform nor in plush power soaked suites on Capital Hill.   They are you and live in your communities.
• You will choose the means   by which this nation lives out its historic future, or you will preside   over its ultimate death.
• That choice is in your hands and is quickly   going to be pushed into your gut. If your gut is soft, you will collapse   with your breath taken away and the fight will be over. You WILL be   taken away in shame and agony.
• However, if your strength of conviction is equal to the task, then you   will be able to speak softly these words, while preparing to do battle   against these usurpers of freedom with fellow heroes yet to be named.
• “   O thus be it ever, when free men shall stand, between their loved homes   and the war’s desolation. Blest with vict’ry and peace,   may the Heaven rescued land, praise the power that hath made, and preserved   us a nation………
• Then   conquer we must, when our cause it is just, and this be our
    Motto, “In God is Our Trust.” May the Star Spangled Banner,   in
    triumph forever wave. O’er the land of the FREE and the home of   THE BRAVE.!” *
• Our   flag may once again fly proudly over us, having witnessed courageous   people doing great things in desperate times.
• For the indicted traitors   among us, it is a time to count the cost of your betrayal.
• For many   the ultimate choice for crimes so great will be dishonor and prison   or the wall.
• For the patriotic heroes of the American Revolution of   2010, whatever form our struggle will ultimately take, our posterity   will be able say, “Thank God Almighty, the Patriots of 21st Century   America were Forever our Countrymen.” …………Steady   boys, steady as she goes………….
• *Final   verse of the Star Spangled Banner by Francis Scott Key.
• © 2009 Greg Evensen - All   Rights Reserved

• Greg   Evensen is an award winning former Kansas State Trooper and Kansas Marshal.   He speaks across the nation for Patriot groups and is available to come   to your area as well. Call 906-367-0505 or e-mail him at greg@theheartlandusa.com.  
   
    Download the exciting “Power Pad” from Greg’s web-site,   www.theheartlandusa.com.   Web-cam e-mail is available at “Power Pad” as well. This is   a FREE download. If the internet goes dark, this massive program will   keep your children home-schooled. There are full copies of the Bible and   many other features designed for your use. Join the tens of thousands   who have already placed the “Power Pad” on their desktop.   It is essential to do this and it’s FREE!! God bless you, each one!

   

  Website: TheHeartLandUSA

   

  E-Mail:   greg@theheartlandusa.com

69 more annotations...

• CONGRESS:   ARE THEY STUPID OR CONSPIRING TO ENSLAVE US ALL
• By   Michael LeMieux
    December 23, 2009
    NewsWithViews.com
• There   have been many commentaries on the constitutional oaths taken by our political   leaders.
• There have even been organizations created around constitutional   oaths of which I am a proud member (Oath Keepers).
• To me, and to every   other person sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, it is and should   be a solemn duty to ensure that our actions live up to that oath.
• But   is that what is actually happening or has the oath and by extension the   Constitution been relegated to mere politics.
• I would   say that for the vast majority of the rank and file in the military it   is a solemn vow.
• I have come to the conclusion that for the vast majority   of politicians, regardless of party, it has become a mere ceremony of   attaining office and nothing more.
• I have drawn this conclusion from the   actions of those in political positions and not from their words.
• So where   in the Constitution does Congress derive its power to interject itself   into every facet of our lives?
• Article   1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers given to Congress   upon which they may act.
• Within this section you will not find any mention   of the power to regulate education, energy, parks and recreation, how   much water your toilet can consume per flush, healthcare, or even firearm   laws.
• So where do they get this power?
• They   extract, falsely, from section 8 which states: “…provide for   the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”   and “…regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the   several States…”
• From   this they have derived the “interstate commerce” and welfare   powers terminology upon which every infringement, by the federal government,   has been made against the citizens of this land.
• But is the federal government,   Congress in particular, following the true intent of the founders and   are they maintaining the balance of powers that was so crucial in maintaining   our freedom and liberty?
• What   did the founders mean when they coined the term “general welfare?”
• On March 3, 1817, President James Madison, one of our founding fathers,   vetoed a bill for the appropriation of funds on a federal public works   initiative, which deals with the general welfare clause. Excerpts from   this letter are as follows:
• "   I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling   the bill with the Constitution of the United States… The legislative   powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated… and …   To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common   defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established   and consistent rules of interpretation…
• Such a view of the Constitution   would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation   instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong   to them.
• But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the   Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part   of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance   on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success   of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between   the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks   would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress   as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature   from it…”
• President   Madison, throughout this admonition to the House, refers to specified   and enumerated powers of Congress.
• He went on to state that this was the   established and consistent rule of interpretation for the powers of congress,   and to give a broad interpretation would give Congress a general power   of legislation, which it did not have.
• Within the context   of “general welfare” the congress must stay   within the enumerated boundaries set by the Constitution.
• He concluded   by stating that if the Congress did not have these defined and limited   powers they would be able to legislate anything using the common defense   and general welfare clauses, and this was wrong.
• If it was wrong then,   then it is wrong now.
• Thomas   Jefferson also showed allegiance with Madison when he wrote:
• I   consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground:   That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution,   nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to   the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries   thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession   of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”   [Bold added]
• Thomas   Jefferson agreed with James Madison that Congress must be held within   the bounds outlined.
• To allow the General Welfare clause to be used in   a broad sense would allow Congress to assume a “boundless   field of power.”
• The founders knew that the government   was to be of limited scope, power, and means. By design, it was not to   be used to benefit any special interest groups, privileged class of persons,   or groups in society.
• Rather, the Constitution was to be the guarantor   of equality, where all people had a free society that allowed for the   unrestrained pursuit of happiness.
• If we   look at the massive expansion of the federal government since the first   New Deal until today with what I call the New Raw Deal we have seen a   massive explosion in the use of the General Welfare clause to expand the   size and scope of the federal government far beyond its constitutional   scope to approach upon totalitarian levels.
• The   other hook used by our federal government to expand its powers beyond   constitutional boundaries is the “interstate commerce” clause   mentioned above.
• Again; if we read what those who wrote the Constitution   said it meant something quite different and was not to be taken in an   expansive role but a limiting one.
• Today   we here the term “interstate commerce” being bandied about,   but that phrase does not even appear in the Constitution.
• The governments’   position is that if two or more states are involved, or if a foreign entity   is involved, then the federal government has jurisdiction over all aspects   of the venture regardless of what it is.
• Let’s see if this position   is constitutionally correct.
• The Constitution states in Article 1, Section   8: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the   several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
• What did the founders   mean by regulating commerce? Madison wrote in Federalist 42 that the primary   reason to regulate commerce was to ensure equitable treatment between   all the states.
• He states specifically:
• “A   very material object of this power was the relief of the States   which import and export through other States, from the improper   contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to   regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that   ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during   the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall   on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We   may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced   by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge   of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not   improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”
• The   idea was that the federal government would ensure a level playing among   ALL the states and ensure free and equitable movement of goods and services   between and among the many states.
• It did not confer power for the federal   government to enact legislation on how business was to be run or the manner   in which private enterprise conducted that business even if it did cross   state lines.
• But   our congress today would have us believe that there are no bounds by which   the federal government cannot cross as long as they can find a nexus that   touches upon interstate commerce or general welfare.
• When Speaker Nancy   Pelosi was asked where Congress had the constitutional authority to enact   an individual health insurance mandate she replied “Are you serious?   Are you serious?”
• Yes profound and thought provoking! But in a CNSNews.com   email inquiry on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform”   they claimed that the congressional authority was derived from congress’   power to regulate interstate commerce.
• There   logic is similar to that of another example of governmental overreaching   in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
• in which Lopez was walking near a school in San Antonio, Texas. Lopez   had in his position a concealed .38 caliber handgun and 5 cartridges.
• He was charged with violating the federal Gun Free School Zone Act of   1990, 18 U.S.C. 922(q).
• He argued that the federal government had no legal   authority to act, and no jurisdiction, within the boundaries of the state.
• The   governments’ argument was that carrying a gun near schools leads   to violent acts and has an adverse affect on the area, and it thereby   negatively affects commerce.
• They also stated that having crimes in the   vicinity of schools leads to poorer learning, due to fear of the guns,   which leads to a weaker economy, and thereby, negatively affects commerce.
• With this kind of circular logic, any area in the United States could   be placed under the jurisdiction of the Federal regime.
• In the   current healthcare legislation they impart a similar logic in that the   individual will be required (read forced) to purchase insurance or be   fined/taxed.
• Because the individual, though acting wholly within his state   would have a negative impact on health and insurance commerce and therefore   impacts on interstate commerce and therefore falls under the authority   of the federal government.
• With   that logic there is absolutely nothing that you or I may do that cannot   be found to impact commerce or welfare.
• In fact by you not doing something   you are negatively impacting commerce, like not purchasing insurance,   and therefore you can be forced to do so.
• So,   if Madison, Jefferson, and the rest of the founders felt so strongly against   a powerful central government and felt compelled to enumerate the specific   powers they could operate under and added the tenth amendment to ensure   that the federal government understood that all other powers were to remain   with the states and the people, why do we have so many federal laws and   agencies that are blatantly unconstitutional?
• I cannot   believe that those in Congress, the majority being lawyers with advanced   degrees and years of study, have risen to such a station in life based   on stupidity or ignorance.
• That would lead us to the inescapable conclusion   that they know exactly what they are doing and they are hell bent on the   destruction of personal liberty and state sovereignty our nation was founded   upon.
• At a very minimum they have abdicated their oath to protect and   defend the Constitution for support of party and self interest and at   worst have conspired against the Constitution they swore an oath to defend.
• © 2009 Michael LeMieux - All Rights   Reserved
• Michael   LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from   Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He served   in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard) and trained   in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified paratrooper.   He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in the National Guard,   as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member. He served tours   to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple Heart for injuries   received in combat.
   
    Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically   discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently   works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.
• Michael   is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution   by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him   to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution is no   longer honored by our government. That those who rule America today are   doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind and not the   Citizens.
• Michael believes that all three branches of government have   strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and   they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment,   which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was an individual   right and could not be "infringed" upon, now has more than 20,000   state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals right,   a definite infringement.

• He has traveled around the world living in 14   States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths   of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius,   Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines, England, Italy, Germany,   and Puerto Rico.

   

  Michael   now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law   and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur   inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.

   

  Contact   Michael through his Website: www.constitutiondenied.com

65 more annotations...

• Candidates face ultimatum: Kill Obamacare, or else ...
• 'Americans have to pull this weed out by its roots'
• Posted: December 29, 2009
  8:52 pm Eastern
  
   

  By Chelsea Schilling
   <!--- copywrite only show on NON commentary pages as per joseph meeting 8/23/06 ------>   <!-- copyright --> © 2009 WorldNetDaily 
• Tea-party leaders are delivering a bold ultimatum to all congressional candidates in 2010: Pledge to repeal the health-care reform bill in its entirety if it passes – or you will be booted from office.
• FreedomWorks Press Secretary Adam Brandon told WND the message couldn't be any clearer.

• Asked whether he believes the tea party movement will seek to oust politicians who refuse to repeal the legislation, he emphatically declared, "Absolutely." 

   
• Max Pappas, vice president of FreedomWorks, echoed Brandon's statements in an interview with Gary Sargent, Washington blogger for the Plum Line, this week.
• "This has an unusual ability to be repealed, and the public is on that side." he said.
• "The Republicans are going to have to prove that they are worthy of their votes."
• Both Brandon and Pappas emphasized that Congress must try to repeal the whole bill if it passes.
• Brandon said most people are opposed to the bill's requirement that citizens pay a fine if they don't maintain insurance for themselves and their families.
• Under the current bills, the government will also collect taxes for 10 years, but only pay out benefits for the last six years.
• As WND reported, majority Democrats in the U.S. Senate have inserted in the fine print a provision that it would take a supermajority of 67 votes in the Senate for future legislative bodies to even consider amendments to its provisions for "death panels."
• 
   This photo of a Code Red tea party protest was posted on Flikr.
• Other serious concerns about the current legislation include possible health-care rationing, denial of treatment, substantial cost increases and stifling of medical innovation.
• but the Heritage Foundation notes, "Nobody believes these cuts will be allowed to happen."
• Also, the Senate bill provides that Medicare fees for doctors would be cut by 20 percent beginning in 2011,
• If the cuts don't take place, it would result in an added $196 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years and $765 billion in the following one, according to Congressional Budget Office calculations.
• As WND reported, FreedomWorks is partnering with the American Liberty Alliance and several other groups to launch a massive Tax Day tea party at the White House Ellipse on April 15, 2010.
• "We're delivering this one right to the White House," Brandon said. "It could spill out over into the Washington Monument, so it'll be a hell of a visual."
• Brandon said FreedomWorks has been told "legislative entrepreneurs" are already planning a Senate bill calling for repeal of the health-care legislation, should it pass.
• "That means there will be something we can start to rally around in 2010," he said.
• "We're going to remind them every step of the way that this bill was a real stinker."
• He said Democrats plan to tell the electorate this year: "We said we were going to do this, and we did it."
• "They passed a terrible bill. Not only was it a terrible bill, but it was a disgusting process to watch," Brandon said. "It was almost like they were playing mafia with taxpayer dollars."
• In an earlier interview with the Plum Line, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Eric Schultz said Democrats are conspiring to hold Republicans' feet to the fire as well.
• "Republicans on the ballot next November who opposed the bill will be in the precarious position of telling voters they plan to rollback landmark health-care reform which will have afforded coverage to hundreds of thousands in their state," Schultz said.
• "We absolutely intend to make Republicans look voters in the eye next November and make it clear they want to take affordable health-care reform away from them."
• ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Senate minority leader Mitch McConnel, R-Ky., "Do you think that Republicans running for Senate in 2010 should run on a platform of vowing to repeal the health-care reform bill, should it become law?
• And will that be one of your first items should you regain control of the Senate, repealing what you guys call Obamacare?"
• McConnell appeared to evade the question and Tapper asked once again, "Respectfully, sir, you didn't answer my question, which is should Republicans campaign on a platform of repealing the health-care reform measure? And will that be one of the first items on your agenda should you become the new Senate majority leader after the 2010 elections?"
• 
   This photo of a Code Red tea party protest was posted on Flikr.
• Then McConnell replied, "There's no question that this bill, if it were to become law, and frankly even if it doesn't become law, will be a big, if not central issue not only in the 2010 election, but in the 2012 election."
• However, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, wasn't so hesitant to declare his intentions.
• "If they somehow manage to get the votes and get enough Democrats to walk the plank and commit suicide, in the next Congress, I'll be chairman Joe Barton of the Energy and Commerce committee, and we'll repeal it," Barton told the Hill today.
• Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press": "I suspect every Republican running in '10 and again in '12 will run on an absolute pledge to repeal this bill. The bill – most of the bill does not go into effect until '13 or '14, except on the tax increase side; and therefore, I think there won't be any great constituency for it. And I think it'll be a major campaign theme."
• Brandon said, "Now, realistically, with Obama as president and with the current Congress, could you get repeal? No. But we can build up the momentum so that during the next Congress it gets repealed.

• I think when President Clinton saw the writing on the wall, he became a pretty moderate guy. So we'll see if Obama would then say, 'This doesn't reach any of our goals.'"  

   
• "Would President Obama veto that one? I don't know.
• Brandon said Americans must act now because Democrats didn't get everything they wanted, so they will be back for the rest of their demands.
• "This issue isn't done and over. Their final goal is to create a system where in 10 to 15 years from now, we will have a single-payer system," he said.
• "We're going to stop that and repeal this. We have to pull this weed out by the roots. "

40 more annotations...

• Petition to recall LA Senator Mary Landrieu
• By Clarice Feldman
• The blog And So It Goes in Shreveport notes that a petition to recall Senator Mary Landrieu has been accepted  for filing by the Louisiana Secretary of State.
• Citizens have 180 days to file enough signatures to get this on a ballot:Via Caught Him With a Corndog, there is an active petition to recall Senator Mary Landrieu:
• "On Dec. 29, a recall petition was filed by Ruben Leblanc of New Iberia, for the recall of Mary Landrieu.
• Sec. of State Jay Darden stated that he WILL accept the filing."Kinda like chicken fried bacon, this limited time offer won't last. Citizens have 180 days... (Read Full Article)
• 4 Comments
•       <!-- <td align="right">    <a href="http://comments.americanthinker.com/report.php?1,513010">Report Abuse</a><br /> <a href="http://comments.americanthinker.com/read.php?1,512988,513010,quote=1#REPLY">Reply</a>   </td> --> 

  Posted by: Shery <!-- <br /> -->    <!-- Comment: <a href="#msg-513010">#1</a> -->       Jan 08, 01:52 AM

   

  ---

   

  Hmmmmm! Maybe this needs to take place in a few other states, as well...ASAP. It might be one deterent to some of those dems voting for the final package of the Healthcare fiasco.
• Let's name a few who took bribes (Ben Nelson, for one) and special packages for their states, to include Dirty Harry, who made sure his state will not have to pay a fair share of the bill's costs.
• If this takes off, it would dovetail real well with the tea party efforts to add more heat to the seats of these deaf Congresscritters!
•       <!-- <td align="right">    <a href="http://comments.americanthinker.com/report.php?1,513017">Report Abuse</a><br /> <a href="http://comments.americanthinker.com/read.php?1,512988,513017,quote=1#REPLY">Reply</a>   </td> --> 

  Posted by: kenny komodo <!-- <br /> -->    <!-- Comment: <a href="#msg-513017">#2</a> -->       Jan 08, 02:38 AM

   

  ---

   

  Wish I were able to vote to recall the infamous owner of the 2nd Louisiana Purchase but at least they have my support. In Nevada we're not going to recall Reid we're just going to remove him from office. That is, of course, if he is still going to run for re-election. Rumor has started that he may not.
•       <!-- <td align="right">    <a href="http://comments.americanthinker.com/report.php?1,513029">Report Abuse</a><br /> <a href="http://comments.americanthinker.com/read.php?1,512988,513029,quote=1#REPLY">Reply</a>   </td> --> 

  Posted by: canuck <!-- <br /> -->    <!-- Comment: <a href="#msg-513029">#3</a> -->       Jan 08, 05:27 AM

   

  ---

   

  This makes moving to Shreveport so attractive.
•       <!-- <td align="right">    <a href="http://comments.americanthinker.com/report.php?1,513043">Report Abuse</a><br /> <a href="http://comments.americanthinker.com/read.php?1,512988,513043,quote=1#REPLY">Reply</a>   </td> --> 

  Posted by: YERMOM <!-- <br /> -->    <!-- Comment: <a href="#msg-513043">#4</a> -->       Jan 08, 06:16 AM

   

  ---

   

  YERMOM is wishing them good luck in this quest to ride themselves of this useless mouth breather. 
    
   We in NJ are trying to do the same with Mendenze, and have almost gotten it through the court system,
• which is trying to block it.
• But it will get done.

13 more annotations...

• 9 Vt. State Office Candidates Favor Secession
• By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    

  Published: January 13, 2010

   

        

  Filed at 3:18 a.m. ET
• SHELBURNE, Vt. (AP) -- Several Vermont political candidates want their state to call it quits with America.
• In what organizers call the first statewide slate of pro-secession candidates, nine people under the Vermont Independence Day banner are planning to run for governor, lieutenant governor and seven seats in the state Senate.
• They say they want a fresh start with a real democracy.
• Their cause is the latest incarnation of a movement that's bubbled in Vermont and elsewhere for years.
• Few observers give them much hope of winning even in a left-leaning state where the popular Republican governor's decision not to seek re-election has touched off a scramble among would-be successors.
• Five Democrats and a Republican are in a wide-open race for the seat headed to the November election.

6 more annotations...