Obama Campaign - "If I Wanted America To Fail"

Total Pageviews

Daily Devotions


If you support our national security issues, you may love and appreciate the United States of America, our Constitution with its’ freedoms, and our American flag.

If you support and practice our fiscal issues, you may value worldly possessions.

If you support and value our social issues, you may love Judeo-Christian values.

If you support and practice all these values, that is all good; an insignia of “Wisdom” . - Oscar Y. Harward

Friday, March 26, 2010

ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20100326


Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!

"My Comments"

Radical left-wing Democrat Party members on Capitol Hill are destroying America, and it appears they do not even care so long as they get all the money. The US Senate rejected the following GOP Amendments offered by Senator Coburn: - oyh

Senator Coburn has filed the following amendments to the reconciliation bill


1. No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders (Amendment 3556) – This amendment would enact recommendations from the Government Accountability Office to stop fraudulent payments for prescription drugs prescribed by dead providers or, to dead patients. This amendment also prohibits coverage of Viagra and other ED medications to convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders, and prohibits coverage of abortion drugs.

Click here to view the amendment text and click here for additional background.

2. Bureaucrat Cap and Trade (Amendment 3557) – This amendment would ensure that no provisions in the health bill increase the size of government bureaucracies in Washington, D.C. This amendment requires that for each government bureaucrat added to a government agency as a result of this act, there must be a corresponding decrease in a government bureaucrat at that agency. The federal government should not grow the bureaucracy in Washington, DC when one in 10 Americans is looking for work and twice as many are underemployed.

Click here to view the amendment text and click here to view additional background.

3. Congress Should Not Lecture Americans About Fiscal Responsibility (Amendment 3563) - This amendment would strike the creation of a new $375 million government program the new health bill (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) intended to promote personal and financial responsibility. It is ironic that Congress, that amassed a $12 trillion deficit, should lecture Americans about financial responsibility. This government “responsibility” program duplicates existing government programs and adds hundreds of millions of dollars to the tax burden funds. In short, there is nothing responsible about the new responsibility program.

Click here to view the amendment text and click here to view additional background.

4. Repeal New Powers Given to the Secretary of HHS (Amendment 3558) - Nearly 1,700 times in the new health bill (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), the Secretary of HHS is given new authorities to write regulations, issue definitions, and decide on the fate of Americans’ health care. Congress should be empowering patients and physicians, not bureaucrats in Washington, DC.

Click here to view amendment and click here to view additional background.

5. If You Like the Health Plan You Have, You Can Keep It (Amendment 3559) - President Obama promised that Americans who like their health care plan would be able to keep it. However, the Congressional Budget Office has said that millions of people will lose their current coverage under The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, for many Americans, the reconciliation bill is even worse news, as it made changes to some grandfathering provisions. The changes to grandfathering provisions would mean that individuals with guaranteed renewable plans in the individual market will NOT be able to keep their current coverage at the current price, but would immediately be issued a new policy and charged more. This amendment strikes changes to grandfathered plans, so Americans who like the health care they have actually can keep it.

Click here to view amendment. Click here for additional background.

6. Implement Republican Ideas President Obama Has Endorsed To Crack Down on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse (Amendment 3560) - The President’s Proposal for health reform, released on February 22, 2010, highlighted nine Republican ideas to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. This amendment includes each of those policy provisions which have been endorsed by President Obama. Certainly Washington politicians should be serious about stemming the hemorrhaging of taxpayer dollars lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. Senators will have an opportunity to vote on proposals which have received bipartisan support, and which the President has endorsed.

Click here to view amendment. Click here to read the proposal. Click here for additional background.

7. Abortion Conscience Amendment (Amendment 3561) - This amendment would ensure health care providers are not forced to participate in abortions or discriminated against because they choose not to perform abortions. The federal government should never require health care providers to violate their deeply held moral, ethical or religious beliefs or discriminate against them because they choose to exercise their consciences and not be involved with abortion. This amendment would protect health care providers from being required or coerced to perform abortions.

Click here to view the amendment text and click here for additional background.

8. Exempt Class I Medical Devices from New Taxation. Taxing latex gloves and band-aids is not health reform and only increases the cost of health care for patients. This amendment would exempt all Class I medical devices – such as band-aids, wheelchairs, hospital beds, and surgical gowns – from new federal taxation.

Click here to view amendment.

9. Motion to Commit Bill to Committee and Return In Compliance with President Obama’s Promises. During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama repeatedly made several promises related to what health reform would accomplish. The bill he signed today breaks those promises. This amendment would send the reconciliation bill back to the Finance Committee and direct the Committee to report back out a bill which would allow him to keep his promise.

Click here to view amendment. Click here to view President Obama's health care promises.

10. Highly Qualified Bureaucrats in the Department of Education Office of Federal Student Aid (Amendment 3649) - As the U.S. Department of Education prepares to become one of the world’s largest banks, this amendment holds government bureaucrats to the same high standards applied to U.S. teachers by requiring each employee within the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid to become “Highly Qualified” in fiscal management.

This amendment requires each employee within the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid to become “Highly Qualified” in fiscal management by earning a bachelor’s degree in finance or business management/administration within six years of the date of enactment.

Click here to view amendment text. Click here to view additional background.

11. No Blank Tax Payer Check for Student Loans (Amendment 3648) - To better protect the federal fiscal interest, this amendment implements a suggestion of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to require the U.S. Department of Education to pay for unanticipated costs of the Direct Loan program through increases to the student loan origination fee.

This amendment implements a suggestion of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to require the U.S. Department of Education to pay for unanticipated costs of the Direct Loan program, as reported by OMB in annual program re-estimates, through annual calibrations to the student loan origination fee.

Click here to view amendment text. Click here to view additional background.

12. Ensuring Pell Grant Proposal Is Paid For (Amendment 3650) - This amendment ensures that expanded Pell Grant benefits rely on realized “savings” projected to result from the move to 100% Direct Lending and not on deficit spending.

The amendment requires the Pell Grant “add on” (i.e., the mandatory addition above the discretionary award base) to be reduced each year by an amount that reflects any increased Direct Loan program costs.

Click here to view amendment text. Click here to view additional background.

13. Protects the Second Amendment rights of veterans (Amendment 3687) - This bill protects veterans from being denied their Second Amendment rights without due process. Specifically, veterans who are considered mentally incompetent for purposes of assigning benefit payments, may not be considered “adjudicated as a mental defective” unless they have been found by a judicial authority to be a danger to themselves or to others. Currently, these veterans are immediately considered “adjudicated as a mental defective” and lose their rights to possess and purchase firearms even though they are no danger to themselves or others. According to CRS, Over 140,000 veterans have been added to a national database of those prohibited from owning or purchasing a firearm. This bill is endorsed by the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, AMVETS, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Gun Owners of America, the NRA, and the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

Click here to view amendment text. Click here for additional background.

14. Prohibits Members of Congress from receiving a pay increase until the budget is balanced (Amendment 3689) - This amendment freezes the pay of Members of Congress until they balance the U.S. government’s budget. Members of Congress are paid an annual salary of $174,000 and, under a law passed by Congress, that amount is automatically increased every year. This amendment would block this automatic congressional pay raise until Congress stops borrowing money to pay for its excessive spending.

Click here to view amendment text. Click here to view additional background.

"Daily Motivations"

"Love begins at home, and it is not how much we do, but how much love we put in that action." -- Mother Teresa

Living on purpose requires us to find what we love fiercely, give it all we've got, and then pass it on, as if it were a torch, to those who follow. --Dawna Markova

"They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself." -- Andy Warhol

Make the most of new ideas by listening, questioning, and clarifying!

Leaders interested in growing and evolving their organizations should take heed instead of finding fault, then dismissing a new idea. Give new ideas a chance to mature and evolve.

They may surprise you.

To make the most of new ideas, follow the ABC’s of LQC:

A. Listen. Don’t be one of those leaders who think they must have all the answers. Don’t be the person who is waiting for a break in the conversation to insert what he or she wants to say next. Instead, listen carefully and deliberately. Put judgment aside and just take in the ideas you hear.

B. Question. There is no quicker way to extinguish the potential of a new idea than by making a statement instead of asking a question. Positive or negative statements can have a nullifying effect. Judging new ideas as good or bad cuts short any prospects of idea-evolution. Ask questions that encourage input, accountability, and analytical thinking.

C. Clarify. Clarify, don’t assume. Double-check that what you hear is what is being said. Repeat clarification as necessary.

"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

His brilliant splendor fills the heavens. (Habakkuk 3:3)

Have you ever considered one of the most important questions anyone could ask? Is it possible for a mere human, less than a tiny speck on a pebble of a planet in the midst of a vast galaxy, to know the great God who created everything? If so, can we know God well enough to trust, love and obey Him in whatever He asks of us? This quest is the greatest adventure in life!

We can compare our quest to know God to the story of a microscopic mite that lived on a flea on a little dog in a small yard of a humble home. This house was on the outskirts of Jerusalem in the kingdom of the rich and powerful King Solomon. The king lived in a mysterious palace in the midst of royal elegance far beyond the microscopic world of the mite. The distance to the king's palace seemed like light years.

This tiny mite decided that the most important work he could ever do was to write about that world-respected king. But, after reflecting for a long time, the frustrated mite abandoned his project. None of his words seemed adequate to describe such a majestic person.

In a very real sense, that is our predicament when we try to understand our glorious and mighty God. He lives in indescribable splendor beyond our wildest imagination. His character is far above the limited scope of our human understanding. The only difference between us and the mite is that, compared to God, we are less than a mite in this universe of more than one hundred billion galaxies.

Your View of God Really Matters …

Close your eyes. In your mind's eye, ask a flea or other small insect to explain every detail of the city in which you live. Its answer will be like us trying to explain the universe. How does comparing yourself to God's greatness affect any false pride you may have?

"The Patriot Post"

Second Amendment

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. -- Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies. -- George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790)

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. -- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. --Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Still 'The Palladium of Liberties' -- Second Amendment

By Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." --James Madison
James Madison's words regarding the "ultimate authority" for defending liberty (Federalist No. 46) ring as true today as in 1787, when he penned them.

Likewise, so do the words of his appointee to the Supreme Court, Justice Joseph Story, who wrote in his 1833 "Commentaries on the Constitution," "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

In recent decades, the "enterprises of ambition" and "usurpation and arbitrary power" among Leftist politicians and their corrupt judicial lap dogs have become malignant, eating away at our Essential Liberty and our constitutional Rule of Law. This has never been more so than since the charlatan Barack Hussein Obama duped 67 million Americans into seating him in the executive branch.

Now more than ever, armed Patriots must stand ready, in the words of Patrick Henry, to "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel."

In June 2008, the Supreme Court, by a narrow 5-4 vote (Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy), reaffirmed, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the people's inherent right to keep and bear arms is plainly enumerated in our Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right, that DC could not ban handguns, and that operable guns may be maintained in the homes of law-abiding DC residents.

This was an important decision affirming the plain language of our Second Amendment and its proscription against government infringement on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

However, Heller pertained to a federal district, and while our Bill of Rights has primacy over state and municipal firearm restrictions, a Supreme Court case to give judicial precedent to that primacy has yet to be decided.

In his dissenting opinion in Heller, 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens expressed concern that the case "may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table," should "the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home."

One might only hope!

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, the next test case for the Second Amendment, which will determine if Chicago's onerous gun restrictions are in violation of the Constitution's plain language prohibition of such regulations by states and municipalities.

Otis McDonald, the 76-year-old plaintiff in this case, is challenging Chicago regulations that make it unlawful for him to keep a handgun in his home for self-defense.

My colleague Dave Hardy, a scholar of constitutional law, particularly the Second Amendment, summarized the arguments as follows: "McDonald v. Chicago illustrated the dichotomy between a government of laws and a government of men. One wing of the Court (perhaps the majority) looked to the essential enumeration of the right to arms; the other seemed to argue that since they, as powerful individuals, did not care for the right, or thought it was one of the Framers' bad ideas, they could disregard it."

That is an apt summary of how all cases are handled by the federal judiciary.

Typical of Leftmedia summations, The New York Times opined, "At least five justices appeared poised to expand the scope of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms."


Only the most uninformed opinion would suggest that asserting the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in Chicago is an expansion of the Second Amendment's scope. But considering the source....

Mr. McDonald's lawyers insist that the 14th Amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause ("no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States") is grounds for overturning Chicago's gun restrictions, and those of other states and municipalities across the our great nation.

Unfortunately, trying to establish a 14th Amendment precedent in and of itself undermines the authority of our Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Recall that there was great debate among our Founders concerning the need for any Bill of Rights. It was argued that such a specific enumeration of rights was redundant and unnecessary to the Constitution and that listed (and unlisted) rights might then be construed as malleable rather than unalienable, as amendable rather than "endowed by our Creator" as noted in the Constitution's supreme guidance, the Declaration of Independence."

To that end, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 84, "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. ... For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

Madison prevailed, however, and for clarity he introduced a preamble to the Bill of Rights: "The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution..."

In other words, the Bill of Rights was enumerated to ensure against encroachment on our inherent rights. Read in context, the Bill of Rights is both an affirmation of innate individual rights (as noted by Thomas Jefferson: "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time..."), and a clear delineation of constraints upon the central government.

Note that the Second Amendment is unique in the Bill of Rights in that it expressly asserts the "right to keep and bear arms" is "necessary," more so than just important, to a "free state."

But as feared by those who argued such rights should not be recorded, the "despotic branch," as Jefferson presciently dubbed the judiciary, has endeavored to limit those enumerated rights by way of convoluted and fraudulent precedents.

Likewise, citing the 14th Amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause suggests the Second Amendment was and remains amendable. That, of course, is an egregious affront to Essential Liberty -- but that's the way the game is played today.

Currently, 41 states issue concealed handgun carry permits, or don't require them at all, for law-abiding citizens. Seven other states allow local municipalities to determine gun restrictions; Illinois and Wisconsin do not even allow that option.

Much of the debate about the need to infringe upon the right to bear arms is framed in terms of safety. Gun-control advocates argue that more guns equal more crime. Those advocating for more lenient gun laws argue that more guns equal less crime. Only one of these diametrically opposed views can be true.

While the latter group is factually and demonstrably correct, basing Second Amendment arguments on the issue of safety is as fallacious as attempting to assert the 14th Amendment argument.

In an editorial this week, the conservative Washington Times opined, "The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city's murder rate plummeted 25 percent. The high court should keep that in mind..."

No, they should not.

After all, violence is a cultural problem, not a gun problem, and certainly not a Second Amendment problem.

What each member of the Supreme Court must only keep in mind is the plain language of the Constitution, the Second Amendment and the First Principle of his or her oath: "To support and defend our Constitution," as should everyone who has taken that oath.

Accordingly, the High Court should find that the gun restrictions in Chicago, and by extension, those in any other state, are in direct violation of the inherent rights of the people "to keep and bear arms.."

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!


"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

Frederic Bastiat


By Neal Boortz


No real shocker here .. only the fact that one Democrat Senator actually let the truth slip. Obama has promised countless times on the campaign trail and since taking office that not one individual earning less than $200,000 a year would see their taxes increase. Any rational person looking at Obama's healthcare proposal could tell you that he was full of horsesqueeze. But Sen. Max Baucus finally said it on the floor of the Senate: "One other point that I think it's very important to make is that it is true that in certain cases, the taxes will go up for some Americans who might be making less than $200,000."
No kidding. Let's take a look at these "some Americans who might be making less than $200,000 a year" ...... 73 million individuals making less than $200,000 a year will experience tax hikes, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis.

It's easy to understand how that happens, considering the taxes included in Obamacare. Here is a chart of from the Heritage Foundation of all the taxes that apply to everyone regardless of income:

"The Web"

Executive order just 'cover' for pro-life Dems

Charlie Butts and Jody Brown - OneNewsNow


With little fanfare -- and few witnesses -- President Obama has signed an executive order barring use of federal tax dollars for abortion under the recently signed healthcare reform bill.

Obama made the commitment to the executive order prior to the final vote on the healthcare reform bill over the weekend, a move designed to lure the backing of enough pro-life Democrats to pass the measure. Signing of that bill on Tuesday was very public, done during a nationally televised ceremony that was interrupted repeatedly by the applause of a throng of cheering Democratic lawmakers and other supporters.

In contrast, when he signed the executive order Wednesday, "it was very private because of its lack of popularity," notes Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List. Who was in attendance? A small group of Democratic lawmakers who traded their healthcare vote for Obama's promise of the executive order -- and no media.

"Without question, if it had been an effective hedge against abortion funding, they would've had enough people there to fill the entire White House lawn and the Capitol lawn and beyond," Dannenfelser states.

Obama is an ardent supporter of abortion rights, and has been described by many pro-life groups as the "most pro-abortion" president in the nation's history. Consequently they questioned the president's sincerity behind the executive order. The Associated Press notes the contrast between the two signings, reporting that the president was "anything but jubilant" on Wednesday as he "awkwardly kept [his] promise."

Dannenfelser laments that President Obama has emerged victorious in the "rhetorical battle" over healthcare reform and abortion.

"He said from the very beginning [that he didn't] believe in funding abortion through healthcare," she points out. "[But] all the while [he was] working behind the scenes to make sure that it had actually happened -- because what he promised during his campaign was that he would make actually it the center of healthcare, which is exactly what occurred."

Dannenfelser contends that all Wednesday's executive order represents is something for pro-life Democrats who voted in favor of healthcare reform to use as cover when they run for re-election. Of their decision, Dannenfelser says they "chose a last-minute fig leaf rather than standing up for the pro-life American majority." And in response, she vows that her organization will labor to elect in their place pro-life representatives "who will not crack under pressure."

Letter Sent to Mr. Rand... Executive Director of AARP


I, and 200 additional people on the two list, received this letter today sent to Mr. Rand who is the Executive Director of AARP. Thought I'd share...


Dear Mr. Rand,

Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. I know it is not what you were looking for, but this is the most honest response I can give you. Our gap in coverage is merely a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith.

While we have proudly maintained our membership for several years and have long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse it's abdication of our values. Your letter specifically stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours. Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace. We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.

Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama administration and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there!

We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces that we expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities.

This Presidential Administration scares the living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage. But even more importantly for our children and grandchildren. Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic. I have never in my life endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them. I don't have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist mindset in power. Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities it requires.

Your website generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING??? Someone has broken into our 'house', invaded our home without our invitation or consent. The President has insisted we keep the perpetrator in comfort and learn the perp language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them.

I DON'T choose to welcome them.

I DON'T choose to support them.

I DON'T choose to educate them.

I DON'T choose to medicate them, pay for their food or clothing.

American home invaders get arrested.

Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans do not get?

Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break & enter to be welcomed?

We travel for a living. Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current administration. One of us is out of touch with mainstream America . Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than one which is power driven.

We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the same. With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible statement to you.

I am disappointed as hell.

I am scared as hell.

I am MAD as hell, and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!

Walt & Cyndy - Miller Farms Equine Transport

Republicans Introduce Bill to Preserve Secret Ballots in Union Organizing

By Matt Cover, Staff Writer


Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C), lead sponsor of a Repblican bill to counter union card-check legislation. (AP photo)

Washington (CNSNews.com) – Congressional Republicans led by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) announced Wednesday that they are sponsoring legislation to protect the right of workers to have a secret ballot when they are deciding whether they want a labor union to represent them.

The bill is designed to counter the proposed union-backed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)--a bill the Republicans say would destroy the secret ballot system currently used in union organizing.

The Secret Ballot Protection Act was introduced in both the House and Senate in an effort to preempt EFCA, which is expected to be introduced later this year.

The bill would prohibit a union from being recognized based solely on employees signing publicly signing union authorization cards at the public urging of union organizers. It would provide that a union may only be recognized by an employer, following certification by the National Labor Relations Board, if it has won majority support in a secret ballot election conducted by the NLRB.

Critics of EFCA – known as card-check – charge that by requiring the government to certify a union if a majority of workers publicly sign cards in support of unionization, the bill would effectively remove the rights of workers to vote on unionization as they do now--via secret ballot.

DeMint echoed those criticisms, asking why congressional Democrats, who support EFCA, would want to take workers’ rights away in the middle of a recession.

“Why would we be using these difficult times as an excuse to expand unionization,” the conservative South Carolina Repuiblcan asked at a press conference announcing the GOP’s alternative proposal.

“Why does this Democrat majority, (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid (D-Nev.), want to deny American workers the fundamental right of secret ballots when union bosses are trying to unionize?”

The answer, DeMint offered, was that card-check was simply political payback for unions who helped elect Democratic candidates during the 2008 elections.

“The answer is pretty simple,” DeMint said. “It’s not about fairness to workers. It’s not about getting this economy going again. It’s not about protecting jobs. This is political payback, plain and simple.”

Republicans said they were fearful of workers being pressured to sign union cards by professional organizers. Organizers are used by big labor unions to conduct registration drives at factories or other business locations – with the aim of forming new unions.

The Republicans said they had already heard testimony of workers being harassed and intimidated because they refused to sign the union cards.

“If you use the card-check method, as has been proposed with the Employee Free Choice Act, the expectation is that there will be intimidation,” Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.) warned.

“We’ve heard testimony, in the HELP (Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions) subcommittee, of examples of intimidation.” Kline continued. “We had a witness who, in testimony, described tactics used in a card-check campaign at her company in Oregon, that during that card-check drive she and her colleagues were subjected to badgering and immense peer pressure, her quote.”

“She ‘exercised her free choice not to be in a union and her work life became miserable because of it.’ That’s the expectation if you go to card-check,” Kline added.

The House and Senate Republicans also cautioned that allowing unions to form without using elections could force already stressed businesses into un-profitability, something which they said made absolutely no sense at any time, but especially in a recession.

“Why would we take the business model that has virtually destroyed the American auto industry and try to force it onto the entire American economy,” DeMint offered.

“This is the American auto industry business model – to force people to join a union if they’re going to work,” DeMint added. “We see how well that’s worked.”

The Republican members of Congress insisted their initiative was not intended to be an impediment to unionization, arguing that workers should always have the right to unionize, but that they should also have the right to vote on it.

“We are on the side of the worker,” Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon (R-Calif.) said. “The workers, they have all the rights to form a union. If they want to have a union, that’s totally available, we just don’t want to tip the playing field so that they, the workers, lose their rights.”

Republican Senators Warn Obama on Recess Appointment of NLRB Nominee

By Sam Hananel, Associated Press


Washington (AP) - President Barack Obama could make his first recess appointment during the upcoming Easter break, but it won't come without strong pushback from Republicans.

All 41 GOP senators sent a letter to Obama on Thursday urging him not to appoint union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board when Congress goes into recess starting next week.

Republicans and business groups portray Becker as a radical who would push an aggressively pro-union agenda. Democrats call him eminently qualified to serve on the board that certifies union elections. The GOP has blocked Becker's confirmation for months. Senate Democrats could not muster 60 votes last month to move it forward.

The board has been forced to postpone hundreds of cases because three of its five seats are vacant.

Ed Schultz Calls for 'Socialism' of Airwaves With Return of Censorship Doctrine

By Jack Coleman


... aka, the "Fairness Doctrine." And since the sole purpose of reviving this deservedly moribund government policy would be to silence conservative voices on radio, I avoid its Orwellian title.

On the same day President Obama signed his budget-busting health bill into law, Ed Schultz seized on the next opportunity for government control, one without a remote connection to reforming health care.

As described by Brian Maloney at The Radio Equalizer --

Feeling emboldened by the Democratic Party's success in imposing ObamaCare on the American public, lefties are already looking for the next hot issue to shove down our throats. For MSNBC libtalker Ed Schultz, it's the airwaves that should be subjected to a socialist government takeover.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2010/03/25/ed-schultz-calls-socialism-airwaves-return-censorship-doctrine#ixzz0jDE53FiK

Here's what envious class warrior Schultz told his equally resentful radio audience on Tuesday (click here for YouTube audio clip) --

SCHULTZ (initially responding to caller claiming "virtual war" between Democrats and Republicans): It is a cultural war that's taking place in America, you're exactly right. And it's being played out over the airwaves of America. And I hope the Democrats now turn to the Fairness Doctrine. It's time now for the Democrats to consider the Fairness Doctrine when you've got Rush Limbaugh out there saying, it's, we've got to defeat these bastards. He is now openly admitting that he is going to work against and campaign against the Republican, against the Democratic Party and campaign against Obama, and he is motivating people with the microphone and he's electioneering.

Keep on talking, Rushsky! Hell, maybe I'll get on 600 stations too, or how many you own or whatever. The fact is, look, it's not a level playing field when it comes to the audio culture of the country. Ownership has its privileges. When you own, I will be honest, if I owned 500 stations, the Drugster wouldn't be on any of 'em. And that's just where it's at right now. But maybe we have reached the point where the Congress needs to equal it out. Equal out the audience.

So much for the constitutional mandate of equality of opportunity. An impatient Schultz prefers the unconstitutional imposition of equality of outcome.

A few minutes later, Schultz made this pious observation (second part of audio clip, starting at 1:27) --

SCHULTZ: Just keep in mind, there aren't any poor people with microphones.

Followed by the atypically honest coup de grace (third part of audio, 1:34) --

SCHULTZ: And so, I think that, you know, hell, if we're going to be socialist, let's be socialist all across the board.

Give the man credit where credit is due. Two years after a campaign in which Obama was described by critics as a socialist in moderate garb, at least one of Obama's disciples is finally conceding the point. Which begs the question -- why so defensive in the past about the political ideology that dare not speak its name? But not so anymore -- bravo for your belated candor!

One of the things I find laughable about Schultz's screed is how it is clearly motivated by Schultz's resentment of Limbaugh's greater success. Since Schultz can't compete with Limbaugh in the "audio culture of the country," he wants like-minded censors in the Obama administration to rig the game in the guise of creating a "level playing field."

Yet given an opportunity to own 500 stations, Schultz admits, Limbaugh "wouldn't be on any of 'em." See how it works? "Fairness" for thee, not for me.

I have an expression for this type of liberal, one emboldened by rigged success and singular in his focus on controlling the lives of others. His is the voice of the guard in the gulag.

EDITORIAL: Obama's constitutional malpractice

Health care plan would make the Founders sick



Americans have grown used to Congress claiming the right to regulate and control everything they do. But by what right can

Congress force Americans to purchase health insurance?

This question is at the root of lawsuits filed by 14 states challenging Obamacare's requirement that those without health insurance must obtain it or face fines of $2,085 per household or 2.5 percent of income - whichever is greater.

Defenders of the new law point to the constitutional provision empowering Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Commerce Clause to extend well beyond what a common-sense reading would support. In the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn, the high court ruled that farmer Roscoe Filburn could not grow wheat in excess of limits set by the 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act. It did not matter that the wheat was grown on his own land for his own use - in this case feeding his chickens. According to the court, "control of total supply ... depends upon the control of individual supply." If enough farmers like Filburn grew their own chicken feed, they would not buy it, and this would have an impact on commerce nationwide. The Congress that can regulate Roscoe Filburn's chicken feed can regulate anything.

Still, Congress never claimed it could force people to take up farming or any other vocation. This is the radical interpretation of the Commerce Clause embedded in the health care bill. It is not a power to regulate commercial activity, but to compel it.

The change is unprecedented. All previous Commerce Clause cases have dealt with regulating pre-existing activity, but if someone is not buying health insurance, there is no commerce to regulate. The clause has never been used to compel private citizens not engaged in commerce to spend money on a government-mandated program. This is a new, extreme and potentially dangerous interpretation.

Professor Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law defends the individual mandate on the grounds that the Commerce Clause "includes authority to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. In the area of economic activities, 'substantial effect' can be found based on the cumulative impact of the activity across the country."

This is a significantly flawed view as applied to the individual mandate because almost everything people do or choose not to do has a "substantial effect" on commerce. It would by extension give Congress the power to regulate all human activity or inactivity. Professor Chemerinsky's interpretation of the Commerce Clause represents a significant threat to human freedom because it gives Congress essentially unlimited power. The Constitution is an instrument created to limit the power of government, not a vehicle to justify its infinite reach. Thus, any line of argument that grants limitless powers under the Constitution is inherently wrong. Any laws justified by such claims are, by the same reasoning, abhorrent to the Constitution and must be overturned.

The states fighting Obamacare in court are concerned with more than just health care. At stake are two fundamental views of the nature of the Constitution. In one, government power is limited. It enables and supports human liberty, serves as a referee to keep the game fair and punishes criminals who break the law. In the other view, government is a coercive mechanism that aims at perfecting a social vision in which personal freedom takes a back seat to the utopian plan where the ends justify the means.

The lawsuits arising from the government health care takeover will help to clarify these issues. They will force the government to justify its actions in terms that will be acceptable not only to the courts, but also by the people. Whether or not the states prevail, it is doubtful that the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress will be able to satisfy the public that their rights and liberties, not to mention health and pocketbooks, have to be sacrificed in pursuit of this particular vision of paradise.

"The e-mail Bag"

The Window Through Which We Look


A young couple moved into a new neighborhood The next morning while they were eating breakfast, The young woman saw her neighbor hanging the wash outside.

"That laundry is not very clean," she said. "She doesn't know how to wash correctly. Perhaps she needs better laundry soap."

Her husband looked on, but remained silent.

Every time her neighbor would hang her wash to dry, The young woman would make the same comments.

About one month later, the woman was surprised to see a Nice clean wash on the line and said to her husband:

"Look, she has learned how to wash correctly. I wonder who taught her this."

The husband said, "I got up early this morning and Cleaned our windows."

And so it is with life. What we see when watching others Depends on the purity of the window through which we look.

I hope that you have a very blessed day

No comments: