Government-Run Health Care? You First!
The health care debate rages on, with Barack Obama and Democrats continuing to push for a government-run health care plan. Forget the good, old days when you could say, "It's a free country, isn't it?" Now, if the Democrats have their way, not only will the government be more involved in our private health decisions, but Americans will be FORCED to purchase health insurance.
What was apparent, however, from Obama's response during his health care presentation was that if his family needed urgent medical care, he would do everything he could even if it meant using health care resources not available in the plans that he wants to push on American families. Apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, and one congressman wants to see that changed...
As reported at CNSNews.com, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) has introduced a resolution that "urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others."
What a novel idea! Politicians being forced to follow the same rules that the "common folk" have to follow.
According to the resolution which is available at Fleming's web site, the "resolved" section would read: That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
On his web site, Fleming (who is a physician) states:
Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration's proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
So... the Democrats are pushing hard to force Americans into a left-wing form of socialized medicine, yet they are exempt from the plan. Does that seem fair? If this plan is so important, if the health care system is in such a crisis, why aren't these politicians rushing to sign up for it? Why are they exempt?
The left-wing elite love to propose grand government solutions. The government is the key to everything, right? Apparently not. When it comes to health care, the Democrats know that there are better options, and they want to keep those for themselves.
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/wp-print.php?p=1717
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Government-Run Health Care? You First!
Government-Run Health Care? You First!
The health care debate rages on, with Barack Obama and Democrats continuing to push for a government-run health care plan. Forget the good, old days when you could say, "It's a free country, isn't it?" Now, if the Democrats have their way, not only will the government be more involved in our private health decisions, but Americans will be FORCED to purchase health insurance.
What was apparent, however, from Obama's response during his health care presentation was that if his family needed urgent medical care, he would do everything he could even if it meant using health care resources not available in the plans that he wants to push on American families. Apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, and one congressman wants to see that changed...
As reported at CNSNews.com, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) has introduced a resolution that "urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others."
What a novel idea! Politicians being forced to follow the same rules that the "common folk" have to follow.
According to the resolution which is available at Fleming's web site, the "resolved" section would read: That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
On his web site, Fleming (who is a physician) states:
Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration's proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
So... the Democrats are pushing hard to force Americans into a left-wing form of socialized medicine, yet they are exempt from the plan. Does that seem fair? If this plan is so important, if the health care system is in such a crisis, why aren't these politicians rushing to sign up for it? Why are they exempt?
The left-wing elite love to propose grand government solutions. The government is the key to everything, right? Apparently not. When it comes to health care, the Democrats know that there are better options, and they want to keep those for themselves.
Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 9, 2009 at 7:10 am
The health care debate rages on, with Barack Obama and Democrats continuing to push for a government-run health care plan. Forget the good, old days when you could say, "It's a free country, isn't it?" Now, if the Democrats have their way, not only will the government be more involved in our private health decisions, but Americans will be FORCED to purchase health insurance.
What was apparent, however, from Obama's response during his health care presentation was that if his family needed urgent medical care, he would do everything he could even if it meant using health care resources not available in the plans that he wants to push on American families. Apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, and one congressman wants to see that changed...
As reported at CNSNews.com, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) has introduced a resolution that "urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others."
What a novel idea! Politicians being forced to follow the same rules that the "common folk" have to follow.
According to the resolution which is available at Fleming's web site, the "resolved" section would read: That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
On his web site, Fleming (who is a physician) states:
Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration's proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
So... the Democrats are pushing hard to force Americans into a left-wing form of socialized medicine, yet they are exempt from the plan. Does that seem fair? If this plan is so important, if the health care system is in such a crisis, why aren't these politicians rushing to sign up for it? Why are they exempt?
The left-wing elite love to propose grand government solutions. The government is the key to everything, right? Apparently not. When it comes to health care, the Democrats know that there are better options, and they want to keep those for themselves.
Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 9, 2009 at 7:10 am
La Raza Demands Government Health Care For Illegals
La Raza Demands Government Health Care For IllegalsFrom: Grassfire.org (alert@grassfire.net)
We've just learned that The National Council of La Raza hasissued a strong, but transparent plea to lawmakers thatuniversal health care should include illegal aliens. From their site, they are "strongly urg[ing] PresidentObama and Congress to make every effort to ensurethat health care reform reaches all communities." They also added that they aren't the slightest bit interestedin any citizenship or eligibility testing. After reading this obscene statement, I almost fell out of mychair. The audacity of this organization knows no bounds. Buteven more outrageous is the fact that unless you and I fightback against the government takeover of our health care,La Raza may actually succeed in getting their wish! That's why I want to appeal to you right now, ed. With Obama poised to take over your personal and private healthdecisions, and now La Raza standing at the ready to acceptgovernment health care for illegal aliens we must take immediateaction to ensure this kind of outrageous grab doesn't happen. Please take a moment right now to join with me and more than144,582 citizens who are staunchly opposed togovernment-run health care by clicking below and signingour petition: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 Just today, we delivered three sets of petitions to Capitol Hill,and I've already alerted my staff that I want to take 250,000more as soon as possible. Take a moment right now to sign this important petition andhelp me keep La Raza from lobbying and potentially winninghealth care for illegals. Click here to be included in our next delivery: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 Because time is so short, I'm asking ALL members of ourteam who sign this important petition to help spread theword about what is happening by forwarding this messageto 30-40 friends right now and urge sign our petitionby clicking here: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 With your help, I believe we can surpass 250,000 citizen signermark and move back to Capitol Hill next week! Thank you for standing with Grassfire. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org P.S: Say "No" to La Raza and Obamacare by alerting 30-40friends and directing them to sign our national petitionby clicking here:
http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556
Three Gifts for You! When you make a monthly gift to Grassfire.org by credit card,we'll send you three special gifts to show our thanks forbecoming one of the core supporters of everything we do.
Go here to find out more: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=20232&RID=16048556
We've just learned that The National Council of La Raza hasissued a strong, but transparent plea to lawmakers thatuniversal health care should include illegal aliens. From their site, they are "strongly urg[ing] PresidentObama and Congress to make every effort to ensurethat health care reform reaches all communities." They also added that they aren't the slightest bit interestedin any citizenship or eligibility testing. After reading this obscene statement, I almost fell out of mychair. The audacity of this organization knows no bounds. Buteven more outrageous is the fact that unless you and I fightback against the government takeover of our health care,La Raza may actually succeed in getting their wish! That's why I want to appeal to you right now, ed. With Obama poised to take over your personal and private healthdecisions, and now La Raza standing at the ready to acceptgovernment health care for illegal aliens we must take immediateaction to ensure this kind of outrageous grab doesn't happen. Please take a moment right now to join with me and more than144,582 citizens who are staunchly opposed togovernment-run health care by clicking below and signingour petition: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 Just today, we delivered three sets of petitions to Capitol Hill,and I've already alerted my staff that I want to take 250,000more as soon as possible. Take a moment right now to sign this important petition andhelp me keep La Raza from lobbying and potentially winninghealth care for illegals. Click here to be included in our next delivery: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 Because time is so short, I'm asking ALL members of ourteam who sign this important petition to help spread theword about what is happening by forwarding this messageto 30-40 friends right now and urge sign our petitionby clicking here: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556 With your help, I believe we can surpass 250,000 citizen signermark and move back to Capitol Hill next week! Thank you for standing with Grassfire. Steve Elliott, PresidentGrassfire.org P.S: Say "No" to La Raza and Obamacare by alerting 30-40friends and directing them to sign our national petitionby clicking here:
http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=20235&RID=16048556
Three Gifts for You! When you make a monthly gift to Grassfire.org by credit card,we'll send you three special gifts to show our thanks forbecoming one of the core supporters of everything we do.
Go here to find out more: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=20232&RID=16048556
OBAMA'S SHIFTY ECONOMICS
OBAMA'S SHIFTY ECONOMICS
By DICK MORRIS
Now President Obama says in The Washington Post that he never envisioned that his stimulus package would afford quick relief to the American economy, but would do so only after it had run its two-year course. But when it was passed, Obama sang a different tune, urgently demanding its enactment to speed relief to a sagging economy. He claimed it would "create or save" 600,000 jobs. Now, even as the economy loses 450,000 jobs each month, he pretends that it is a matter of time until the stimulus kicks in.
He now justifies the stimulus package by saying it was adopted to prevent the "collapse" of the economy and the banking systems. But it was really the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), first passed under President Bush, that stopped the banks from going under. At the time of the enactment of the stimulus package, Obama never mentioned that he was counting on it to save the banks.
All these shifting justifications are designed to explain why the stimulus package has totally failed to accomplish anything. Not only has it done no good. It has done significant harm by ballooning the deficit, driving up interest rates, creating doubts about the U.S. currency and fanning inflationary fears.
But Obama has paid and will continue to pay dearly for betting on his stimulus package. Because of it, the Bush recession is becoming the Obama recession much faster than it would have had he adopted a more gradual approach to solving economic problems. By jumping in immediately, as he did, in order to increase government spending and pass eight years of Democratic dreams in one day, he made the public expect a solution.
At first, a sick patient looks forward to seeing the doctor. But when the medicine his physician gives him fails to make him better, he is likely to turn on his doctor. And then, gradually, when it dawns on him that the cure is making the disease last longer and get worse, he will really get mad at the physician. This is Obama's fate.
The stimulus package used up all the wiggle room he had to increase the budget deficit. He probably could have passed the healthcare program without a tax increase had he not already sent the deficit soaring with his massive spending. (Hillary and Bill pretended that there was no need to raise taxes to pay for their 1993 reform package and few questioned their presumption.) But now that the deficit has soared to 12 percent of the gross domestic product, everyone realizes that taxes must go up to pass healthcare "reform," making its adoption even less likely. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) has passed $550 billion of tax increases, but everyone knows that at least $1 trillion is required. And, in the current environment, Congress will not vote to add the balance to the deficit, even if Charlie wants to "charge it."
Finally, Obama has laid a trap for himself. Just as the economy is coming out of its recession -- in 2010 and 2011 -- and he begins to run for reelection, he is going to face massive inflation. The money supply has more than tripled since October of 2008 and is going up each week as the Fed buys Treasury bills and other securities to "monetize the debt" (i.e., give other people money so they can lend it back to the government and charge it interest for doing so). With each new infusion of cash, the problem of avoiding inflation becomes particularly severe. Obama could well lose the elections of 2012 because of the inflation his deficit has created.
Of course, we all know that the only way to put the inflation virus back in the test tube is to trigger a new recession, this time caused by massive increases in interest rates, as Fed Chairman Paul Volcker did in 1979. If the recession doesn't doom Obama to a single term, the inflation will. And if the inflation doesn't get him, the subsequent recession will.
The deeper he gets into his term, the more it is apparent that he threw it all away when he first took office and demanded over $1 trillion in stimulus and supplemental appropriation spending. He was doomed to lose the game right after he received the first kickoff.
OBAMA'S SHIFTY ECONOMICS
http://www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=1548
By DICK MORRIS
Now President Obama says in The Washington Post that he never envisioned that his stimulus package would afford quick relief to the American economy, but would do so only after it had run its two-year course. But when it was passed, Obama sang a different tune, urgently demanding its enactment to speed relief to a sagging economy. He claimed it would "create or save" 600,000 jobs. Now, even as the economy loses 450,000 jobs each month, he pretends that it is a matter of time until the stimulus kicks in.
He now justifies the stimulus package by saying it was adopted to prevent the "collapse" of the economy and the banking systems. But it was really the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), first passed under President Bush, that stopped the banks from going under. At the time of the enactment of the stimulus package, Obama never mentioned that he was counting on it to save the banks.
All these shifting justifications are designed to explain why the stimulus package has totally failed to accomplish anything. Not only has it done no good. It has done significant harm by ballooning the deficit, driving up interest rates, creating doubts about the U.S. currency and fanning inflationary fears.
But Obama has paid and will continue to pay dearly for betting on his stimulus package. Because of it, the Bush recession is becoming the Obama recession much faster than it would have had he adopted a more gradual approach to solving economic problems. By jumping in immediately, as he did, in order to increase government spending and pass eight years of Democratic dreams in one day, he made the public expect a solution.
At first, a sick patient looks forward to seeing the doctor. But when the medicine his physician gives him fails to make him better, he is likely to turn on his doctor. And then, gradually, when it dawns on him that the cure is making the disease last longer and get worse, he will really get mad at the physician. This is Obama's fate.
The stimulus package used up all the wiggle room he had to increase the budget deficit. He probably could have passed the healthcare program without a tax increase had he not already sent the deficit soaring with his massive spending. (Hillary and Bill pretended that there was no need to raise taxes to pay for their 1993 reform package and few questioned their presumption.) But now that the deficit has soared to 12 percent of the gross domestic product, everyone realizes that taxes must go up to pass healthcare "reform," making its adoption even less likely. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) has passed $550 billion of tax increases, but everyone knows that at least $1 trillion is required. And, in the current environment, Congress will not vote to add the balance to the deficit, even if Charlie wants to "charge it."
Finally, Obama has laid a trap for himself. Just as the economy is coming out of its recession -- in 2010 and 2011 -- and he begins to run for reelection, he is going to face massive inflation. The money supply has more than tripled since October of 2008 and is going up each week as the Fed buys Treasury bills and other securities to "monetize the debt" (i.e., give other people money so they can lend it back to the government and charge it interest for doing so). With each new infusion of cash, the problem of avoiding inflation becomes particularly severe. Obama could well lose the elections of 2012 because of the inflation his deficit has created.
Of course, we all know that the only way to put the inflation virus back in the test tube is to trigger a new recession, this time caused by massive increases in interest rates, as Fed Chairman Paul Volcker did in 1979. If the recession doesn't doom Obama to a single term, the inflation will. And if the inflation doesn't get him, the subsequent recession will.
The deeper he gets into his term, the more it is apparent that he threw it all away when he first took office and demanded over $1 trillion in stimulus and supplemental appropriation spending. He was doomed to lose the game right after he received the first kickoff.
OBAMA'S SHIFTY ECONOMICS
http://www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=1548
The Ten Commandments According to Obama ?
The Ten Commandments According to Obama
After observing Obama on the campaign trail and during his first six months in office, we have concluded that our President lives and governs according to his own set of “Ten Commandments.” They’re certainly NOT the Ten Commandments you learned in Sunday School. In fact, many are the direct opposite! To prove that our conclusions are correct, you will find a link to source documentation for each commandment on the Patriot Update web site.
I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE
II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE
III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE
IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE
V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE
VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE
VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE
IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE
X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. SOURCE
© 2009 The Patriot Update. Feel free to circulate this article, but please link / give credit to The Patriot Update.
http://patriotupdate.com/home/exclusive/13
After observing Obama on the campaign trail and during his first six months in office, we have concluded that our President lives and governs according to his own set of “Ten Commandments.” They’re certainly NOT the Ten Commandments you learned in Sunday School. In fact, many are the direct opposite! To prove that our conclusions are correct, you will find a link to source documentation for each commandment on the Patriot Update web site.
I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE
II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE
III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE
IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE
V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE
VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE
VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE
IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE
X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. SOURCE
© 2009 The Patriot Update. Feel free to circulate this article, but please link / give credit to The Patriot Update.
http://patriotupdate.com/home/exclusive/13
should congress and staff be required to join any Obama health plan?
should congress and staff be required to join any Obama health plan?
they would be required to give up thier existing plans and then
join the "reformed" Obama health plan?
they would be required to give up thier existing plans and then
join the "reformed" Obama health plan?
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
1st step on health reform ?
1st step on health reform ?
Health reform is overwhelming, how about breaking it into smaller pieces, 1st step may be computerizing paperwork this year.
Maybe using tax credits/ rebates to encourage.
Health reform is overwhelming, how about breaking it into smaller pieces, 1st step may be computerizing paperwork this year.
Maybe using tax credits/ rebates to encourage.
OBAMA'S POLL NUMBERS DROP
OBAMA'S POLL NUMBERS DROP
By DICK MORRIS EILEEN MCGANN
President Obama has crossed the red line in his dropping approval rating.
The percentage of Americans who strongly or somewhat approve of how he is doing his job has fallen to 51 percent in the latest Rasmussen polling -- the lowest ever. Because Obama got 52 percent of the vote in the presidential race, defeating McCain by 52-47, the fact that his approval has dropped below his vote share indicates that he is actually shedding real support for the first time.
Until this drop, all Obama was doing was losing McCain voters. Now he is losing his own. It didn't really matter whether people who voted for McCain approved of the job Obama was doing. They were never part of his base. But now voters who pulled the lever for Obama have started to tell pollsters that they disapprove of his job performance. As he wades deeper into the healthcare reform battle, raises taxes to pay for it and pushes cap-and-trade legislation, the drop is likely to be even sharper and much, much steeper.
In our new book, Catastrophe, we highlight the reasons why Obama's popularity will drop and why he will lose the congressional elections of 2010.
Click here to order a copy of CATASTROPHE now!
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=573
By DICK MORRIS EILEEN MCGANN
President Obama has crossed the red line in his dropping approval rating.
The percentage of Americans who strongly or somewhat approve of how he is doing his job has fallen to 51 percent in the latest Rasmussen polling -- the lowest ever. Because Obama got 52 percent of the vote in the presidential race, defeating McCain by 52-47, the fact that his approval has dropped below his vote share indicates that he is actually shedding real support for the first time.
Until this drop, all Obama was doing was losing McCain voters. Now he is losing his own. It didn't really matter whether people who voted for McCain approved of the job Obama was doing. They were never part of his base. But now voters who pulled the lever for Obama have started to tell pollsters that they disapprove of his job performance. As he wades deeper into the healthcare reform battle, raises taxes to pay for it and pushes cap-and-trade legislation, the drop is likely to be even sharper and much, much steeper.
In our new book, Catastrophe, we highlight the reasons why Obama's popularity will drop and why he will lose the congressional elections of 2010.
Click here to order a copy of CATASTROPHE now!
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=573
DickMorris: OBAMA'S BROKEN TAX PROMISES
OBAMA'S BROKEN TAX PROMISES
Dear Friend,
In this video commentary, I discuss Obama's broken tax promises.
To access the video - Go Here Now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC4pK5AKS48
(If the link is not active, please copy and paste it into the "Address" field of your web browser)
Please forward this email to any friends or family who may be interested in viewing my video commentary!
Thanks for watching,
Dick
CATASTROPHE by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Full Title: How Obama, Congress And The Special Interests Are Turning A Slump Into A Crash, Freedom Into Socialism, And A Disaster Into A CATASTROPHE...And How To Fight Back
Click here to order a copy of CATASTROPHE now!
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=573
To view all of Dick's videos on YouTube, Go Here Now.
http://www.youtube.com/user/dickmorrisreports
Click Here To Browse Dick's New Book Catastrophe
http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061771040&WT.mc_id=AUTHWEB_CATAS_BROWSE_062609
Dear Friend,
In this video commentary, I discuss Obama's broken tax promises.
To access the video - Go Here Now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC4pK5AKS48
(If the link is not active, please copy and paste it into the "Address" field of your web browser)
Please forward this email to any friends or family who may be interested in viewing my video commentary!
Thanks for watching,
Dick
CATASTROPHE by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Full Title: How Obama, Congress And The Special Interests Are Turning A Slump Into A Crash, Freedom Into Socialism, And A Disaster Into A CATASTROPHE...And How To Fight Back
Click here to order a copy of CATASTROPHE now!
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=573
To view all of Dick's videos on YouTube, Go Here Now.
http://www.youtube.com/user/dickmorrisreports
Click Here To Browse Dick's New Book Catastrophe
http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061771040&WT.mc_id=AUTHWEB_CATAS_BROWSE_062609
Minuteman Rally - "Our Democracy Is Upside Down"
Minuteman Rally - "Our Democracy Is Upside Down"
Minuteman Protest
VICTORVILLE • Horns honked and fingers waved from traffic on Bear Valley Road on Saturday night.
The Minuteman Project protest at the intersection of Bear Valley and Hesperia roads drew both supportive and angry reactions regarding the topic of illegal immigration.
“Our democracy is upside down,” said Raymond Herrera, a national rally spokesman for the Minuteman Project, who organized the rally. “We are taking this country, this democracy, back one step at a time. We beckon the American people of the High Desert to join.”
Over 30 protesters from the Minuteman Project filled the northeast corner of the intersection, while the northwest corner hosted a smaller group of people supporting immigration and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
The two groups crossed paths, and created some heated debate, but no violence or problems occurred.
“We’re American citizens out here today just stating we want our government to take action to help the American worker,” said Robin Vidston of the Minuteman Project. “We have 14 million unemployed workers in America. We’re saying to the public, ‘hire Americans.’ We’re asking people to support businesses where Americans are hired.”
Herrera earlier reported he organized the local protest after opponents of a rally at Rep. Jerry Lewis’ office challenged him to bring the message to the High Desert.
Herrera will also be bringing the same message to an upcoming Victorville City Council meeting.
James Quigg can be reached at jquigg@VVDailyPress.com.
http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/minuteman-13277-protest-victorville.html
July 12, 2009 - 5:20 PM
JAMES QUIGG Staff Writer
Minuteman Protest
VICTORVILLE • Horns honked and fingers waved from traffic on Bear Valley Road on Saturday night.
The Minuteman Project protest at the intersection of Bear Valley and Hesperia roads drew both supportive and angry reactions regarding the topic of illegal immigration.
“Our democracy is upside down,” said Raymond Herrera, a national rally spokesman for the Minuteman Project, who organized the rally. “We are taking this country, this democracy, back one step at a time. We beckon the American people of the High Desert to join.”
Over 30 protesters from the Minuteman Project filled the northeast corner of the intersection, while the northwest corner hosted a smaller group of people supporting immigration and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
The two groups crossed paths, and created some heated debate, but no violence or problems occurred.
“We’re American citizens out here today just stating we want our government to take action to help the American worker,” said Robin Vidston of the Minuteman Project. “We have 14 million unemployed workers in America. We’re saying to the public, ‘hire Americans.’ We’re asking people to support businesses where Americans are hired.”
Herrera earlier reported he organized the local protest after opponents of a rally at Rep. Jerry Lewis’ office challenged him to bring the message to the High Desert.
Herrera will also be bringing the same message to an upcoming Victorville City Council meeting.
James Quigg can be reached at jquigg@VVDailyPress.com.
http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/minuteman-13277-protest-victorville.html
July 12, 2009 - 5:20 PM
JAMES QUIGG Staff Writer
Sunday, July 12, 2009
why doesn't Obama talk about the high cost of medical malpractice
why doesn't Obama talk about the high cost of medical malpractice insurance?
medical malpractice insurance
President Obama never mentions this expensive cost in health care,
do you think the trail lawyer lobby bought him?
medical malpractice insurance
President Obama never mentions this expensive cost in health care,
do you think the trail lawyer lobby bought him?
Friday, June 26, 2009
see how your congress voted on the Climate bill/Cap and tax bill
see how your congress voted on the Climate bill/Cap and tax bill
H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
see voting record at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-477
H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
see voting record at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-477
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Is this what you call a 'vigorous debate?'
- The Loft - http://www.gopusa.com/theloft -
Is this what you call a 'vigorous debate?
An election was held in Iran, and now people are dying. They are dying in the name of freedom -- protesting what they feel is a rigged election. Since the protests began, the Iranian government has been resorting to violence in order to stop the momentum of progress.
While people are dying in the streets of Iran, Barack Obama and his team have been calling the situation a "vigorous debate." Are you kidding me? A vigorous debate was held between Lincoln and Douglas. A vigorous debate is what you have between Michigan and Ohio State fans. People are dying! And yet, Obama will still not send a clear message to the people of Iran that America is on their side.
The White House has been quite obvious in its lack of direct condemnation of the Iranian government, despite the fact that innocent civilians, who are standing up for the most basic "American" values of freedom and democracy, are dying at the hands of a government crackdown.
During a June 19 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had this exchange with a reporter:
Q He said he was troubled by violence. He didn't say they shouldn't do it or directly criticize them for doing it.
MR. GIBBS: That's not the way I read it. I think when the --
Q I have the --
MR. GIBBS: I have the same transcript right here. I think when the President sits in the Oval Office and says he's: deeply troubled by what I've seen on television, and the American people are rightly troubled by that; I think when the President discusses as he did with President Lee that something has happened in Iran, where there's a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures toward the international community that have taken place in the past, and there are people who want to see greater openness, greater debate, and want to see greater democracy -- I stand strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not be suppressed.
I think the language in the resolution is very consistent with the language that the President has used.
Q It makes direct criticism of the government, which he has not done.
MR. GIBBS: We can quibble on this. I think the President has been clear in standing up for the universal principles and deploring violence.
In other words, Barack Obama is "troubled by violence," but he does not have the fortitude to tell the Iranian government to stop.
In that same briefing, the following exchange occurred:
Q Robert, continuing on that theme, what is the White House and the President's reaction to the supreme leader of Iran warning to protestors to stop protesting and calling on -- saying that leaders will be held responsible for bloodshed?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President addressed that also on Monday, that he believes, as we have said throughout the week and as I've said throughout the week, those who wish to have their voices heard should be able to do that -- to do that without fear of violence; that that is an important universal principle that should be upheld. And I think he strongly supports that.
Q So would he criticize or condemn this particular statement from the supreme leader?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has been clear on what he believes: that he believes strongly that people should have their voices heard, that clearly there is, as he said on Tuesday, a ferment in Iran that is bringing about change.
Direct answer to the question... NO! The president will not condemn the statement because he wants to have it both ways. By doing so, he sends a clear message to the Iranian people that he is not in their corner. This is a demoralizing blow to a nation that is yearning for freedom.
On June 13, the White House described the Iranian elections this way:
Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians. We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities.
And here is what Obama said yesterday:
And the fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate taking place in Iran, you know, may end up coloring how they respond to the international community as a whole.
More "great debate" type of non-answers! The next part was even worse:
QUESTION: So should there be consequences for what's happened so far?
MR. OBAMA: I think that the international community is, as I said before, bearing witness to what's taking place. And the Iranian government should understand that how they handle the dissent within their own country, generated indigenously, internally, from the Iranian people, will help shape the tone, not only for Iran's future, but also its relationship to other countries.
What in the world does that mean. Obama rarely talks about America... it's always the "international community." And who cares about "bearing witness." Many countries bore witness to the early actions of Hitler and did nothing! Obama talks about "shaping the tone" while Iranians are dying. I'm not talking about going to war with Iran, but the Iranian people need to believe that America is firmly on their side. Do you think they believe that?
Posted By Bobby Eberle June 2009
Is this what you call a 'vigorous debate?
An election was held in Iran, and now people are dying. They are dying in the name of freedom -- protesting what they feel is a rigged election. Since the protests began, the Iranian government has been resorting to violence in order to stop the momentum of progress.
While people are dying in the streets of Iran, Barack Obama and his team have been calling the situation a "vigorous debate." Are you kidding me? A vigorous debate was held between Lincoln and Douglas. A vigorous debate is what you have between Michigan and Ohio State fans. People are dying! And yet, Obama will still not send a clear message to the people of Iran that America is on their side.
The White House has been quite obvious in its lack of direct condemnation of the Iranian government, despite the fact that innocent civilians, who are standing up for the most basic "American" values of freedom and democracy, are dying at the hands of a government crackdown.
During a June 19 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had this exchange with a reporter:
Q He said he was troubled by violence. He didn't say they shouldn't do it or directly criticize them for doing it.
MR. GIBBS: That's not the way I read it. I think when the --
Q I have the --
MR. GIBBS: I have the same transcript right here. I think when the President sits in the Oval Office and says he's: deeply troubled by what I've seen on television, and the American people are rightly troubled by that; I think when the President discusses as he did with President Lee that something has happened in Iran, where there's a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures toward the international community that have taken place in the past, and there are people who want to see greater openness, greater debate, and want to see greater democracy -- I stand strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not be suppressed.
I think the language in the resolution is very consistent with the language that the President has used.
Q It makes direct criticism of the government, which he has not done.
MR. GIBBS: We can quibble on this. I think the President has been clear in standing up for the universal principles and deploring violence.
In other words, Barack Obama is "troubled by violence," but he does not have the fortitude to tell the Iranian government to stop.
In that same briefing, the following exchange occurred:
Q Robert, continuing on that theme, what is the White House and the President's reaction to the supreme leader of Iran warning to protestors to stop protesting and calling on -- saying that leaders will be held responsible for bloodshed?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President addressed that also on Monday, that he believes, as we have said throughout the week and as I've said throughout the week, those who wish to have their voices heard should be able to do that -- to do that without fear of violence; that that is an important universal principle that should be upheld. And I think he strongly supports that.
Q So would he criticize or condemn this particular statement from the supreme leader?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has been clear on what he believes: that he believes strongly that people should have their voices heard, that clearly there is, as he said on Tuesday, a ferment in Iran that is bringing about change.
Direct answer to the question... NO! The president will not condemn the statement because he wants to have it both ways. By doing so, he sends a clear message to the Iranian people that he is not in their corner. This is a demoralizing blow to a nation that is yearning for freedom.
On June 13, the White House described the Iranian elections this way:
Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians. We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities.
And here is what Obama said yesterday:
And the fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate taking place in Iran, you know, may end up coloring how they respond to the international community as a whole.
More "great debate" type of non-answers! The next part was even worse:
QUESTION: So should there be consequences for what's happened so far?
MR. OBAMA: I think that the international community is, as I said before, bearing witness to what's taking place. And the Iranian government should understand that how they handle the dissent within their own country, generated indigenously, internally, from the Iranian people, will help shape the tone, not only for Iran's future, but also its relationship to other countries.
What in the world does that mean. Obama rarely talks about America... it's always the "international community." And who cares about "bearing witness." Many countries bore witness to the early actions of Hitler and did nothing! Obama talks about "shaping the tone" while Iranians are dying. I'm not talking about going to war with Iran, but the Iranian people need to believe that America is firmly on their side. Do you think they believe that?
Posted By Bobby Eberle June 2009
CANADIAN HEALTH CARE: COMING SOON TO THE USA?
Dear Friends,
In our new book, Catastrophe, we spell out exactly how the Obama health care proposals will lead to a Canadian style socialized medicine -- and we explain the consequences.
* A 16% higher cancer death rate in Canada
* An eight week wait for radiation therapy for cancer patients
* 42% of Canadians die of colon cancer vs. 31% in the US
* Cutbacks in diagnostic testing
* The best meds for chemo therapy are not available
* No way out of the system; you can't even pay for services yourself
Why is health care so bad north of the border? Because there are too few doctors to treat everybody and cost savings -- which slice medical incomes -- drive doctors out of the profession. When Obama calls for a 21% cut in Medicare fees to physicians and a $2500 cut in health costs per capita, that is exactly the kind of downward spiral in medical care quality he will bring to the United States. By making too few doctors cover too many patients, he will cut the quality of care to everybody.
As Obama's proposals make their way through Congress, it is vital that we all get up to speed on what is happening in Canada, so we can stop it from happening here. It is through word of mouth that we need to spread the information to undermine public support for the changes Obama would bring.
That's why we wrote Catastrophe. That's why we hope you read it!
Thanks,
Dick
CATASTROPHE by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Full Title: How Obama, Congress And The Special Interests Are Turning A Slump Into A Crash, Freedom Into Socialism, And A Disaster Into A CATASTROPHE...And How To Fight Back
Click here to order a signed copy of CATASTROPHE while supplies last!
http://www.dickmorris.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT DICKMORRIS.COM!
THANK YOU!
In our new book, Catastrophe, we spell out exactly how the Obama health care proposals will lead to a Canadian style socialized medicine -- and we explain the consequences.
* A 16% higher cancer death rate in Canada
* An eight week wait for radiation therapy for cancer patients
* 42% of Canadians die of colon cancer vs. 31% in the US
* Cutbacks in diagnostic testing
* The best meds for chemo therapy are not available
* No way out of the system; you can't even pay for services yourself
Why is health care so bad north of the border? Because there are too few doctors to treat everybody and cost savings -- which slice medical incomes -- drive doctors out of the profession. When Obama calls for a 21% cut in Medicare fees to physicians and a $2500 cut in health costs per capita, that is exactly the kind of downward spiral in medical care quality he will bring to the United States. By making too few doctors cover too many patients, he will cut the quality of care to everybody.
As Obama's proposals make their way through Congress, it is vital that we all get up to speed on what is happening in Canada, so we can stop it from happening here. It is through word of mouth that we need to spread the information to undermine public support for the changes Obama would bring.
That's why we wrote Catastrophe. That's why we hope you read it!
Thanks,
Dick
CATASTROPHE by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Full Title: How Obama, Congress And The Special Interests Are Turning A Slump Into A Crash, Freedom Into Socialism, And A Disaster Into A CATASTROPHE...And How To Fight Back
Click here to order a signed copy of CATASTROPHE while supplies last!
http://www.dickmorris.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT DICKMORRIS.COM!
THANK YOU!
Senator CHRIS DODD'S OTHER PROBLEM
Senator CHRIS DODD'S OTHER PROBLEM
Sen. Chris Dodd, the dubious Democrat from the Nutmeg State, told a recent interviewer that it was "offensive" that the media would suggest that his wife, Jackie Clegg Dodd, has potential conflicts of interest because she sits on the boards of four pharmaceutical firms.
With Sen. Ted Kennedy ailing, Dodd is the Democratic point man for upcoming health-care legislation.
Of course, this is the 21st century. Spouses of powerful pols have their own -- often quite successful -- careers.
Of course, everybody knows that Mrs. Dodd received no special consideration because of her powerful spouse -- because Sen. Dodd says so.
That's the same Chris Dodd who "just happened" to get sweetheart mortgage loans as a "Friend of [Countrywide Financial founder] Angelo [Mozilo]" -- a relationship that is the subject of a Senate Ethics Committee probe.
That's the same Dodd who "just happened" to buy out a friend's share of an Irish cottage for well below what should have been the appraised value.
Only after a public-interest group raised questions did the Dodds finally have the cottage re-appraised -- whereupon the property's value jumped to $660,000, from between $100,001 and $250,000 just last year.
How about that: In the midst of a worldwide recession, his vacation home doubles in value in just one year -- as property values across Ireland plunged 40 percent.
Dodd says "there's no reason" for his wife to step down from her various boards -- an ethics lawyer gave a clean bill of health on potential conflicts of interest. He further complains that raising these questions is "offensive" because the husbands of female members of Congress don't face the same scrutiny. Really?
Dodd could talk to former Senator -- now Secretary of State --
Hillary Clinton about the conflict-of-interest questions she faced,
thanks to her husband's business practices.
Nobody's picking on Chris Dodd. Not that he doesn't deserve it.
Sen. Chris Dodd, the dubious Democrat from the Nutmeg State, told a recent interviewer that it was "offensive" that the media would suggest that his wife, Jackie Clegg Dodd, has potential conflicts of interest because she sits on the boards of four pharmaceutical firms.
With Sen. Ted Kennedy ailing, Dodd is the Democratic point man for upcoming health-care legislation.
Of course, this is the 21st century. Spouses of powerful pols have their own -- often quite successful -- careers.
Of course, everybody knows that Mrs. Dodd received no special consideration because of her powerful spouse -- because Sen. Dodd says so.
That's the same Chris Dodd who "just happened" to get sweetheart mortgage loans as a "Friend of [Countrywide Financial founder] Angelo [Mozilo]" -- a relationship that is the subject of a Senate Ethics Committee probe.
That's the same Dodd who "just happened" to buy out a friend's share of an Irish cottage for well below what should have been the appraised value.
Only after a public-interest group raised questions did the Dodds finally have the cottage re-appraised -- whereupon the property's value jumped to $660,000, from between $100,001 and $250,000 just last year.
How about that: In the midst of a worldwide recession, his vacation home doubles in value in just one year -- as property values across Ireland plunged 40 percent.
Dodd says "there's no reason" for his wife to step down from her various boards -- an ethics lawyer gave a clean bill of health on potential conflicts of interest. He further complains that raising these questions is "offensive" because the husbands of female members of Congress don't face the same scrutiny. Really?
Dodd could talk to former Senator -- now Secretary of State --
Hillary Clinton about the conflict-of-interest questions she faced,
thanks to her husband's business practices.
Nobody's picking on Chris Dodd. Not that he doesn't deserve it.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
La Raza Demands Obama's Health Reform Plan Cover Illegal Aliens
La Raza Demands Obama's Health Reform Plan Cover Illegal Aliens
On Monday, June 15, the National Council of La Raza (La Raza), an open borders advocacy group, issued a statement calling upon Congress to ensure that illegal aliens are given health benefits if and when Congress considers health care reform.
La Raza's statement "strongly urge[d] President Obama and Congress to make every effort to ensure that health care reform reaches all communities" in the United States, and stressed that "one out of every three uninsured persons and roughly 40% of all uninsured children [in the United States] are Latino," and demanded "health care reform that makes coverage affordable and accessible for everyone — all families and all children."
La Raza President and CEO Janet Murguía used the statement to emphasize that "everyone in the U.S. should contribute to a new health system," and that "Latinos [would] accept their responsibility" to contribute to a new health care system and "will pay their fair share for the health coverage they need." While the statement does not reference illegal immigration specifically, or distinguish between legal and illegal aliens, it does express concern that adding new, expensive verification and documentation procedures for immigrants would "severely restrict access to health care coverage." (La Raza Press Release, June 15, 2009).
Specific research has shown that many illegal aliens lack health insurance and represent a disproportionate share of the United States' uninsured population. The Pew Hispanic Center's recent report, A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, found that 59% of illegal aliens in the United States had no form of health insurance in 2007, and that 45% of illegal alien children were also without health coverage in 2007. It also found that even the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens were insured at the low rate of 25%, and that there was a significant disparity between the volume of uninsured illegal aliens and the volume of uninsured U.S. citizens and other legal residents. (Pew Hispanic Center Report, April 14, 2009).
Pew's information has support in federal statistics: data collected by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Census Bureau for the same time frame show that approximately 33.2% of the foreign-born population in the United States (a category which does not differentiate between newly naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, and illegal aliens) were uninsured in 2007, and that almost 10 million foreign-born non-citizens lacked health insurance in 2007. (DHS Fact Sheet, February 2009).
(For more information on how illegal immigration is financially impacting the U.S. health care system, see FAIR's Legislative Updates for April 13, 2009, and April 20, 2009).
On Monday, June 15, the National Council of La Raza (La Raza), an open borders advocacy group, issued a statement calling upon Congress to ensure that illegal aliens are given health benefits if and when Congress considers health care reform.
La Raza's statement "strongly urge[d] President Obama and Congress to make every effort to ensure that health care reform reaches all communities" in the United States, and stressed that "one out of every three uninsured persons and roughly 40% of all uninsured children [in the United States] are Latino," and demanded "health care reform that makes coverage affordable and accessible for everyone — all families and all children."
La Raza President and CEO Janet Murguía used the statement to emphasize that "everyone in the U.S. should contribute to a new health system," and that "Latinos [would] accept their responsibility" to contribute to a new health care system and "will pay their fair share for the health coverage they need." While the statement does not reference illegal immigration specifically, or distinguish between legal and illegal aliens, it does express concern that adding new, expensive verification and documentation procedures for immigrants would "severely restrict access to health care coverage." (La Raza Press Release, June 15, 2009).
Specific research has shown that many illegal aliens lack health insurance and represent a disproportionate share of the United States' uninsured population. The Pew Hispanic Center's recent report, A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, found that 59% of illegal aliens in the United States had no form of health insurance in 2007, and that 45% of illegal alien children were also without health coverage in 2007. It also found that even the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens were insured at the low rate of 25%, and that there was a significant disparity between the volume of uninsured illegal aliens and the volume of uninsured U.S. citizens and other legal residents. (Pew Hispanic Center Report, April 14, 2009).
Pew's information has support in federal statistics: data collected by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Census Bureau for the same time frame show that approximately 33.2% of the foreign-born population in the United States (a category which does not differentiate between newly naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, and illegal aliens) were uninsured in 2007, and that almost 10 million foreign-born non-citizens lacked health insurance in 2007. (DHS Fact Sheet, February 2009).
(For more information on how illegal immigration is financially impacting the U.S. health care system, see FAIR's Legislative Updates for April 13, 2009, and April 20, 2009).
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Obama audacity of speed, any regrets on giving him the federal Mastercard?
Obama audacity of speed, any regrets on giving him the federal Mastercard?
Friday, June 19, 2009
Al Sharpton: a train wreck, a plane crash waiting to happen?
Al Sharpton: a train wreck, a plane crash waiting to happen?
Sharpton Fined $285K by FEC as Result of NLPC Complaint
The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000 for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.
Al Sharpton and his group, the National Action Network (NAN), have been fined $285,000 by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for violating a host of election laws during Sharpton’s 2004 presidential campaign
during which he received 2% of the Democratic primary vote.
NLPC, which filed Complaints against Sharpton on February 2, 2004 and February 6, 2004, was notified of the FEC action last week and made it public today. As NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm was quoted in the
New York Post [1] today:
We are pleased that the FEC has ruled on our Complaint and found that Sharpton ran
an “off the books’ presidential campaign.
Previously, the FEC ordered Sharpton to return $100,000 in taxpayer matching funds,
and denied him an additional $79,000 for which he qualified, for the 2004 campaign.
Also previously, Sharpton was fined $5,500 for late filing of disclosure documents reports
as a result of a separate Complaint filed by NLPC on April 18, 2003.
The February 2, 2004 Complaint cited information that Sharpton may have visited over 100 cities related to his presidential campaign in 2002 and 2003. This extensive political travel was not reflected anywhere in Sharpton’s FEC filings. NLPC alleged that NAN might have
underwritten this travel with large undisclosed gifts from unnamed donors.
The $285,000 fine is actually a civil penalty under a conciliation agreement between Sharpton and his groups and the FEC. According to the agreement:
…Sharpton 2004 kept poor records of its activities and expenditures,
which often resulted in NAN or other entities paying for travel expenses incurred by the campaign.
It was the practice to charge all travel expenses to Sharpton’s American Express charge card.
The card was then paid using multiple accounts owned by Sharpton, NAN and/or the Committee.
The agreement describes $509,188 in campaign-related expenses on Sharpton’s American Express card. His campaign committee paid $121,996, leaving $387,192 in illegal payments from other sources,
including $65,000 from “unknown sources.”
Sharpton claimed to the FEC that records related to these activities were destroyed in a fire.
This was the second time a mysterious fire at NAN headquarters had been cited by Sharpton.
In 1997, just after Sharpton promised to open the financial records of NAN,
he alleged they had been destroyed.
The February 6, 2004 Complaint included information first reported by Wayne Barrett in the Village Voice on January 24, 2004 in an article titled “Sleeping With the GOP” [2]
that detailed efforts by Republican consultant Roger Stone to qualify Sharpton for federal matching funds.
Although the FEC found “reason to believe” that Stone violated election law,
it exercised its “prosecutorial discretion” and took no action against Stone.
The FEC also found that fast food mogul named La-Van Hawkins, who is now incarcerated, made excessive in-kind contributions to Sharpton by hosting a fundraiser at his Atlanta home in 2003.
According to Ebony magazine, Hawkins had his private jet pick Sharpton up in New York, and swing by Detroit to pick up his personal chef. Fresh crab cakes and carved beef tenderloins were washed down by $200 bottles of Cristal champagne, According to Ebony, “Hawkins worked the crowd,
at times talking business and world politics with guests, at other times, seeming to ‘shake down’ guests for donations.”
In April 2005, more information about Sharpton’s relationship with Hawkins emerged during an unrelated corruption investigation centered in Philadelphia. Local Democratic fundraiser
Ronald A. White and Hawkins reportedly were wiretapped having a conversation in which Hawkins expressed suspicions that Sharpton had failed to report money they had raised for his campaign.
The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000
for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported
only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.
Hawkins had every reason to be grateful to Sharpton, who called for a boycott of Burger King after Hawkins
sued Burger King for $1.9 billion in 2001. Hawkins, already an owner of 23 Burger Kings,
alleged the company reneged on a promise to let him open 225 more in order to increase
the number of minority-owned franchises. Ironically, Jesse Jackson sided with Burger King,
which had been a financial supporter of Rainbow/PUSH for twenty years.
see more info at
http://nlpc.org/stories/2009/04/19/sharpton-fined-285k-fec-result-nlpc-complaint
http://www.nlpc.org/sites/default/files/SharptonFEC2-2-04.pdf see orginal complaint.
Click here to download a 28-page pdf of the conciliation agreement and related documents. [3]
Click here to download a 11-page pdf of NLPC's February 2, 2004 FEC Complaint. [4]
Click here to download a 9-page pdf of NLPC's February 6, 2004 FEC Complaint. [5]
By NLPC Staff
Al Sharpton
Sharpton Fined $285K by FEC as Result of NLPC Complaint
The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000 for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.
Al Sharpton and his group, the National Action Network (NAN), have been fined $285,000 by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for violating a host of election laws during Sharpton’s 2004 presidential campaign
during which he received 2% of the Democratic primary vote.
NLPC, which filed Complaints against Sharpton on February 2, 2004 and February 6, 2004, was notified of the FEC action last week and made it public today. As NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm was quoted in the
New York Post [1] today:
We are pleased that the FEC has ruled on our Complaint and found that Sharpton ran
an “off the books’ presidential campaign.
Previously, the FEC ordered Sharpton to return $100,000 in taxpayer matching funds,
and denied him an additional $79,000 for which he qualified, for the 2004 campaign.
Also previously, Sharpton was fined $5,500 for late filing of disclosure documents reports
as a result of a separate Complaint filed by NLPC on April 18, 2003.
The February 2, 2004 Complaint cited information that Sharpton may have visited over 100 cities related to his presidential campaign in 2002 and 2003. This extensive political travel was not reflected anywhere in Sharpton’s FEC filings. NLPC alleged that NAN might have
underwritten this travel with large undisclosed gifts from unnamed donors.
The $285,000 fine is actually a civil penalty under a conciliation agreement between Sharpton and his groups and the FEC. According to the agreement:
…Sharpton 2004 kept poor records of its activities and expenditures,
which often resulted in NAN or other entities paying for travel expenses incurred by the campaign.
It was the practice to charge all travel expenses to Sharpton’s American Express charge card.
The card was then paid using multiple accounts owned by Sharpton, NAN and/or the Committee.
The agreement describes $509,188 in campaign-related expenses on Sharpton’s American Express card. His campaign committee paid $121,996, leaving $387,192 in illegal payments from other sources,
including $65,000 from “unknown sources.”
Sharpton claimed to the FEC that records related to these activities were destroyed in a fire.
This was the second time a mysterious fire at NAN headquarters had been cited by Sharpton.
In 1997, just after Sharpton promised to open the financial records of NAN,
he alleged they had been destroyed.
The February 6, 2004 Complaint included information first reported by Wayne Barrett in the Village Voice on January 24, 2004 in an article titled “Sleeping With the GOP” [2]
that detailed efforts by Republican consultant Roger Stone to qualify Sharpton for federal matching funds.
Although the FEC found “reason to believe” that Stone violated election law,
it exercised its “prosecutorial discretion” and took no action against Stone.
The FEC also found that fast food mogul named La-Van Hawkins, who is now incarcerated, made excessive in-kind contributions to Sharpton by hosting a fundraiser at his Atlanta home in 2003.
According to Ebony magazine, Hawkins had his private jet pick Sharpton up in New York, and swing by Detroit to pick up his personal chef. Fresh crab cakes and carved beef tenderloins were washed down by $200 bottles of Cristal champagne, According to Ebony, “Hawkins worked the crowd,
at times talking business and world politics with guests, at other times, seeming to ‘shake down’ guests for donations.”
In April 2005, more information about Sharpton’s relationship with Hawkins emerged during an unrelated corruption investigation centered in Philadelphia. Local Democratic fundraiser
Ronald A. White and Hawkins reportedly were wiretapped having a conversation in which Hawkins expressed suspicions that Sharpton had failed to report money they had raised for his campaign.
The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000
for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported
only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.
Hawkins had every reason to be grateful to Sharpton, who called for a boycott of Burger King after Hawkins
sued Burger King for $1.9 billion in 2001. Hawkins, already an owner of 23 Burger Kings,
alleged the company reneged on a promise to let him open 225 more in order to increase
the number of minority-owned franchises. Ironically, Jesse Jackson sided with Burger King,
which had been a financial supporter of Rainbow/PUSH for twenty years.
see more info at
http://nlpc.org/stories/2009/04/19/sharpton-fined-285k-fec-result-nlpc-complaint
http://www.nlpc.org/sites/default/files/SharptonFEC2-2-04.pdf see orginal complaint.
Click here to download a 28-page pdf of the conciliation agreement and related documents. [3]
Click here to download a 11-page pdf of NLPC's February 2, 2004 FEC Complaint. [4]
Click here to download a 9-page pdf of NLPC's February 6, 2004 FEC Complaint. [5]
By NLPC Staff
Al Sharpton
Healthcare, something for nothing from Obama? doesn't smell right to me
Healthcare, something for nothing from Obama? doesn't smell right to me
something for nothing from Obama?
something for nothing from Obama?
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Young Con rap song
Young Con rap song
Young Conservatives rap song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8
as seen on Bill o'Reilly show
Young Conservatives rap song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8
as seen on Bill o'Reilly show
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)