Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable
Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!
"Daily Motivations"
"Pressure is a word that is misused in our vocabulary. When you start thinking of pressure, it's because you've started to think of failure." -- Tommy Lasorda
Whether it is an unexpected act of kindness, providing extraordinary customer service, or being sincerely interested in every word that someone says…great leaders usually have one thing in common: They consistently do more than is expected. -- Marcy Blochowiak
"The man who doesn't relax and hoot a few hoots voluntarily, now and then, is in great danger of hooting hoots and standing on his head for the edification of the pathologist and trained nurse, a little later on." -- Elbert Hubbard
"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)
The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia.... (Acts 13:4 NIV)
When I was a new Christian, the Holy Spirit impressed me to visit the president of one of the largest oil companies in the world. I was very uncomfortable, but I felt I must be obedient to God's leadership. I was amazed when the tycoon immediately agreed to see me.
As I arrived at his office, he asked, "What can I do for you, young man?" I got right to the point and asked him about his relationship with Jesus Christ.
This powerful business leader sitting in front of me began to weep. He had received Christ as a young boy but had spent his entire adult life pursuing success. As he had gained the world, he felt that he had lost his soul. His wife, his children, particularly his Lord - he wanted them all back in his life. We wept together.
As I stood to leave, he told me that he had not been in a church for thirty years, and that he intended to change that pattern on the following Sunday. I left his office rejoicing that I had obeyed the prompting of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit often guides us through inner impressions or promptings. But there are many ways in which our sovereign God can reveal His will to us. However, we must walk by faith and not by sight. God is so faithful, and we need only be attentive and sensitive.
Your View of God Really Matters …
Ask God today to help you walk by faith and not by sight. Listen closely for His voice.
"The Patriot Post"
"No nation was ever ruined by trade, even seemingly the most disadvantageous." --Benjamin Franklin and George Whaley, Principles of Trade, 1774
"I think all the world would gain by setting commerce at perfect liberty." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 1785
"Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections.. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations." --George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Re: The Left
"President Obama's State of the Union address was the greatest American rhetorical embrace of fascist trope since the days of Woodrow Wilson. I am not suggesting Obama is a Nazi; he isn't. I am not suggesting that he is a jackbooted thug; he isn't (even if we could be forgiven for mistaking Rahm Emanuel for one). President Obama is, however, a man who embodies all the personal characteristics of a fascist leader, right down to the arrogant chin-up head tilt he utilizes when waiting for applause. He sees democracy as a filthy process that can be cured only by the centralized power of bureaucrats. He sees his presidency as a Hegelian synthesis marking the end of political conflict. He sees himself as embodiment of the collective will. No president should speak in these terms -- not in a representative republic. Obama does it habitually." --columnist Ben Shapiro
Political Futures
"Barack Obama is probably the most union-friendly president since Lyndon Johnson. He has obviously been unable to stop the decline of private-sector unionism. But he is doing his best to increase the power -- and dues income -- of public-sector unions. One-third of last year's $787 billion stimulus package was aid to state and local governments -- an obvious attempt to bolster public-sector unions. And it was a successful one: While the private sector has lost 7 million jobs, the number of public-sector jobs has risen. The number of federal government jobs has been increasing by 10,000 a month, and the percentage of federal employees earning over $100,000 has jumped to 19 percent during the recession. Obama and his party are acting in collusion with unions that contributed something like $400,000,000 to Democrats in the 2008 campaign cycle. Public-sector unionism tends to be a self-perpetuating machine that extracts money from taxpayers and then puts it on a conveyor belt to the Democratic Party. But it may not turn out to be a perpetual-motion machine. Public-sector employees are still heavily outnumbered by those who depend on the private sector for their livelihoods. The next Congress may not be as willing as this one has been to bail out state governments dominated by public-sector unions. Voters may bridle at the higher taxes needed to pay for $100,000-plus pensions for public employees who retire in their 50s. ... Obama's Democrats have used the financial crisis to expand the public sector and the public-sector unions. But voters seem to be saying, 'Enough.'" --political analyst Michael Barone
For the Record
"[T]he Obama administration's new budget will propose to zero out funding for Nevada's Yucca Mountain nuclear repository -- in effect, killing it. Instead, the Energy Department has announced the formation of a 'blue ribbon' commission 'to provide recommendations for developing a safe, long-term solution to managing the nation's used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.' ... And why are we forming yet another blue ribbon commission to study a matter that has already been studied to death? The commission is empowered to study 'all options' except the one that has already been chosen by the United States government. So much for the previous blue ribbon commission that had settled on the Yucca Mountain site. American taxpayers have already invested more than $13 billion over 30 years to build the facility and make it redundantly safe. ... There is nothing dishonorable about opposing nuclear energy -- though the greenies who claim that global warming is their chief worry have some explaining to do if they reject nuclear power -- but there is something dishonest about claiming to favor nuclear power while simultaneously short-circuiting the most viable solution to the problem of long-term waste storage." --columnist Mona Charen
The Last Word
"I can't recall the wheels coming off the bus of any expert-driven hysteria as fast or as completely as they are now coming off the global-warming scare. ... News of the manipulations, distortions and frauds perpetrated to advance and preserve the environmentalists' cause celebre are so numerous and coming so fast, it's hard to keep up. First, of course, there were the e-mails and computer files leaked from Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) -- one of a handful of climate-research centres around the world that are the pillars of the United Nations' claims about impending climate doom. ... Then a couple of weeks ago came the news that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN's climate-change arm, had based its most recent findings on Himalayan glacier melt on an old study that had never been peer-reviewed or even published and which was based entirely on the speculation (not research) of a single Indian scientist who now works at the environmental think-tank run by the head of the IPCC, economist Rajendra Pachauri. This by itself wouldn't be devastating, except that the scientist in charge of the glacier chapter of the IPCC's latest assessment report (AR4) admitted he had known the melt estimate was wrong but had included it anyway because 'we thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.' That's not climate science, it's environmental activism, pure and simple.... Another revelation of malfeasance this week was the discovery that the chapter on Amazon rainforests in the IPCC's AR4, the one that included the often-repeated claim that 40 per cent of the forest is under imminent threat from climate change, was written not by climate scientists but by an policy analyst who works for environmental groups and a freelance environmental author. ... In all, so far, at least 16 major claims made in AR4 (the report for which the IPCC won a Nobel Prize) have been shown to have originated with environmental groups rather than scientists.... Does all this prove global warming is a hoax? I believe it does. But at the least, it shows the science is far from settled." --Edmonton Journal columnist Lorne Gunter
"The Web"
Pray For Our Nation
http://www.greatdanepro.com/Pray%20For%20America/index.htm
What the Tea Party Movement Must Never Forget
http://www.americanvision.org/article/what-the-tea-party-movement-must-never-forget/
by Gary DeMar,
What is government? When this question is asked, most people respond by equating government solely to a centralized civil State. Even our language reflects the confusion: “Government? It’s in Washington,” or “The government will take care of its citizens through its many programs.” Both of these statements reflect a misunderstanding of the true nature of government. They portray the idea that the only governing institution is a political one. Historically, however, the term “government” was always qualified in some way, unlike our present-day definitions.
Our educational system reflects the same confusion. A generation ago, high school classes dealing with state government were given the title “Civics.” The emphasis was on the function of government in civil matters. This is no longer the case. Before World War I, textbooks dealing with national government were qualified with the title “Civil.” An example of this can be seen in a textbook used in 1903: Elements of Civil Government. According to its author, “The family... Is a form of government, established for the good of children themselves, and the first government that each of us must obey.”[1] The book continues by defining five areas of civil government: “the township or civil district, the village or the city, the county, the State, and the United States.” [2] The term “government” as the older educational definition indicates, is broader than the State. Textbook writers were aware that there were personal (self), family, church, school, and civil governments, each having a legitimate realm of authority. Civil government was seen as only one government among many.
To deny the validity of the many governments and the responsibilities that each has under God, would be to deny the authority that belongs to each of them in the realm of their activity. If we as individuals neglect our personal governing duties, then we can expect the state to assume the role of all other legitimate governments and claim to be the sole government, while labeling all others as counterfeits. Therefore, to see the state as the only governing institution “is destructive of liberty and of life.”[3]
The concept of the multiplicity of governments was as old as our country, because the principles were extracted from biblical principles. Noah Webster’s definition of government in his American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) reflects the biblical concept of the diversity of governmental authority. Webster defined government in this way: “Direction; regulation. ‘These precepts will serve for the government of our conduct.’ Control; restraint. ‘Men are apt to neglect the government of their temper and passions.’”
While Noah Webster defined government in terms of personal self-control, most modern definitions largely limit government to the realm of institutions, especially civil or statist governments. This is made evident by the fact that the definition for civil government is placed first in modern dictionaries. Nowhere are self- and family governments even listed. For example, Webster’s New World Dictionary (1972) defines government as “The exercise of authority over a state, district, organization, institution, etc.”
Noah Webster, in the older definition, even goes on to include family government as part of the complete definition before he deals with the government of an individual civil government at the state or national level. He defines family government as: “The exercise of authority by a parent or householder. ‘Children are often ruined by a neglect of government in parents.’” According to the Bible, it is the duty of parents to govern in the home: “And fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). It is not the duty of a civil government to interfere with the affairs of the family. Too often, however, parents neglect their God-given duty to raise their children in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord.” When this happens, we can expect the State to take an increasingly dominant role in family affairs. Such a role is to the detriment of the family. The State on many occasions has even claimed ownership of children.
If generations continue to be indoctrinated with the modern definition of “government,” they will neglect their own personal, family, church, and local governing duties. They will believe that these responsibilities are outside their area of authority and jurisdiction. Each generation will become more dependent on the “benevolent” State for care and security. We are beginning to see such a trend. “Today, most Americans have lost their faith in Christ as Savior, and they expect civil government to be their savior. They have no desire for the responsibilities of self-government, and so they say to politicians, ‘Do thou rule over us.’ Instead of Jesus Christ as their good shepherd, they elect politicians to be their shepherds on a program of socialistic security for all.”[4]
Government begins with the individual and extends outward to include all institutions. Presently, however, most Americans are unaware of the varied nature of government. The civil sphere of government has assumed responsibility to be the government. It is sad that many Americans are thankful that Washington has relieved them from what they believe is the heavy burden of governing themselves, their families, churches, and schools. If the people of the United States do not once again establish self-, family, church, local, state, and national governments and limit them in power and authority, our nation is doomed.
Conde Pallen’s “utopian” novel Crucible Island depicts what happens when the God of the Bible is rejected and the State becomes God. Man looks for a substitute provider so “the individual should have no thought, desire, or object other than the public welfare, of which the State is the creator and the inviolable guardian. As soon as the child is capable of learning, he is taught the Socialist catechism, whose first questions run as follows”:
Q. By whom were you begotten?
A. By the sovereign State.
Q. Why were you begotten?
A. That I might know, love, and serve the Sovereign State always.
Q. What is the sovereign State?
A. The sovereign State is humanity in composite and perfect being.
Q. Why is the State supreme?
A. The State is supreme because it is my Creator and Conserver in which I am and move and have my being and without which I am nothing.
Q. What is the individual?
A. The individual is only a part of the whole, and made for the whole, and finds his complete and perfect expression in the sovereign State. Individuals are made for cooperation only, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth.[5]
The central focus of all realms of government is the regenerating work of Jesus Christ. Institutions and civil governments are made up of people who are governed by the condition of their hearts. If the heart is in rebellion against God, we can expect undisciplined and ungovernable people. If the heart has been made new in Christ, we can expect a people who will govern their lives according to the governing principles of Scripture. A. A. Hodge speaks of the essence of the new heart, regeneration, as consisting of “the implantation of a new governing principle of life—from the fact that it is a ‘new birth’ [John 3:3], a ‘new creation’ [2 Cor. 5:17], wrought by the mighty power of God in execution of his eternal purpose of salvation, and that it is as necessary for the most moral and amiable as for the morally abandoned.”[6]
North Carolina: Muslim 8th-grade teacher says it was a "hate crime" that students left a Bible on her desk
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/02/north-carolina-muslim-8th-grade-teacher-says-it-was-a-hate-crime-that-students-left-a-bible-on-her-d.html
Maybe the students were indeed taunting her by leaving the Bible and the card. Eighth graders can be like that, whatever the religion of the teacher may be. But when the teacher is Muslim, adolescent taunting becomes a "hate crime."
"Religious conflict leads to teacher's suspension," by T. Keung Hui for the Charlotte News and Observer, February 18 (thanks to Parsimonious):
APEX -- A Wake County middle-school teacher may be fired after she and her friends made caustic remarks on a Facebook page about her students, the South and Christianity.
Melissa Hussain, an eighth-grade science teacher at West Lake Middle School in southern Wake County, was suspended with pay Friday while investigators review her case, according to Greg Thomas, a Wake schools spokesman. The suspension came after some of Hussain's students and their parents objected to comments on her Facebook page, many revolving around her interaction with Christian students.
Hussain wrote on the social-networking site that it was a "hate crime" that students anonymously left a Bible on her desk, and she told how she "was able to shame her kids" over the incident. Her Facebook page included comments from friends about "ignorant southern rednecks," and one commenter suggested Hussain retaliate by bringing a Dale Earnhardt Jr. poster to class with a swastika drawn on the NASCAR driver's forehead.
"I don't defend what the kids were doing," said Murray Inman, a parent of one of Hussain's students. "I just couldn't imagine an educator, or a group of educators, engaging in this kind of dialogue about kids." [...]
In Hussain's case, the comments in question were on the public side of her Facebook page. She has since limited public access.
Parents of children in her class said they learned about the comments last month, leading them to complain to the school three weeks ago.
The picture of Jesus
Parents said the situation escalated after a student put a postcard of Jesus on Hussain's desk that the teacher threw in the trash. Parents also said Hussain sent to the office students who, during a lesson about evolution, asked about the role of God in creation.
On her Facebook page, Hussain wrote about students spreading rumors that she was a Jesus hater. She complained about her students wearing Jesus T-shirts and singing "Jesus Loves Me." She objected to students reading the Bible instead of doing her work.
But Annette Balint, whose daughter is in Hussain's class, said the students have the right to wear those shirts and sing "Jesus Loves Me," a long-time Sunday School staple. She said the students were reading the Bible during free time in class.
"She doesn't have to be a professing Christian to be in the classroom," Balint said. "But she can't go the other way and not allow God to be mentioned."
Hussain, a 2004 Florida State University graduate, has been a Wake teacher since 2006. Her religious affiliation isn't on her Facebook page.
Gee, what could it be?
'Merry Christmas'
The flash point for the comments came after the Bible was left on Hussain's desk in December. The Bible was accompanied by an anonymous card, which, according to Hussain, said "'Merry Christmas' with Christ underlined and bolded." She said there was no love shown in giving her the Bible.
"I can't believe the cruelty and ignorance of people sometimes," Hussain wrote on her Facebook page.
Hussain also said she wouldn't let the Bible incident "go unpunished."...
I wonder what form the punishment might have taken.
J.C. WATTS: The mother of all bailouts to come
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/the-mother-of-all-bailouts-to-come-85760442.html
J.C. WATTS: The mother of all bailouts to come
J.C. WATTS
I'm all for bipartisan agreements that make sense. However, when I look at what is unfolding in Congress in the name of bipartisanship on banking reform, it makes me extremely nervous.
Here we go again.
Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., are working on bipartisan legislation to revamp the regulatory structure of the financial services industry. The House passed Rep. Barney Frank's version Dec. 11. The bill from Frank, D-Mass., would create a controversial Consumer Financial Protection Agency and codify a permanent bailout authority for the federal government.
The big question for Americans who hate bailouts is whether the Senate will follow the House's lead and grant the Federal Reserve the statutory authority to bail out individuals, partnerships or corporations to the tune of $4 trillion.
On Page 506 of the House-passed bill, which is titled the "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act" is the following language: The amounts made available under this subsection shall not exceed $4,000,000,000,000.
This so-called "reform" and "consumer protection" legislation authorizes a $4 trillion bailout fund for Wall Street. That is more money than President Obama's 2011 budget ($3.8 trillion), the gross domestic product of Germany ($3.7 trillion), and between five and six times the amount of the Troubled Assets Relief Program. A majority of House members actually voted for a bill containing $4 trillion in new bailout authority. You just can't make this stuff up. It is really in the bill.
David Reilly, a columnist for Bloomberg News, said the bill "authorizes Federal Reserve banks to provide as much as $4 trillion in emergency funding the next time Wall Street crashes. So much for 'no-more-bailouts' talk. That is more than twice what the Federal Reserve pumped into markets last year. The size of the fund makes the deal-making in the Senate's health care bill look minuscule."
Current law allows the Federal Reserve to open the lending window in "unusual and exigent circumstances." According to the Congressional Research Service, this authority had been used in the past to authorize entities created by the Federal Reserve's Bear Stearns merger and bailout of AIG. Nowhere near $4 trillion has been committed under existing authority.
An explicit authority would be created under the Frank approach to financial services reform to allow the Federal Reserve to make $4 trillion in commitments in unusual and exigent circumstances.
This provides the Federal Reserve with more authority to bail out failing industries without the need for getting the prior consent of Congress. The words "unusual" and "exigent" are vague and ambiguous enough to give the Federal Reserve sweeping new bailout authorities to dispense massive commitments to private and public entities.
Here's how it would work: The Fed would have to make a written determination that a "liquidity event exists that could destabilize the financial system" with a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Financial Oversight Council. The next step would be to secure the written consent of the secretary of the treasury as another condition to the commitment of monies, and the president would have to certify that an emergency exists. The Fed then would authorize a Federal Reserve bank to make a commitment in consideration for "notes, drafts, and bills of exchange" consistent with the order from the Fed, Treasury and the president. The House and Senate would be notified of the action by the Fed. There is a requirement that the secretary of the treasury believes that the funds will be paid back.
I remind you these are all the same entities who were asleep at the wheel in oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, allowing them to run amok.
There is a provision for a joint resolution of congressional disapproval, but the commencing of any resolution would not happen until after the commitment of funds had already been made. It is unlikely that members of Congress would be able to unravel any action.
The Senate has the power to run away from this new bailout authority or to embrace it when senators debate financial services reform legislation. The direction that Dodd and Corker take in negotiations on this important issue will have severe ramifications for government policy on the proper role of the Federal Reserve to prop up failing companies in times of crisis.
If this bill passes the Senate with bailout authority intact and gets one step closer to the president's desk, then voters will be mad at yet another abuse of the taxpayers' dollars. The idea of a small and limited government is inconsistent with the idea that the Federal Reserve should have $4 trillion more in bailout authority.
J.C. Watts (JCWatts01@jcwatts.com) is chairman of J.C. Watts Companies, a business consulting group. He is former chairman of the Republican Conference of the U.S. House, where he served as an Oklahoma representative from 1995 to 2002. He writes twice monthly for the Review-Journal.
ABC News to cut half its domestic correspondents, close bricks-and-mortar bureaus [Updated]
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/02/abc-news-to-cut-half-its-domestic-correspondents-shut-down-all-bureaus-except-washington.html
As part of the deep cuts announced this week at ABC News, the network plans to close all of its physical bureaus around the country except Washington and halve the number of its domestic correspondents.
ABC News President David Westin confirmed in an interview Friday that the network's ranks of bureau correspondents, which currently number several dozen, would be cut in half and be replaced with "digital" journalists who would be expected to shoot and edit their own stories.
“We will have as many total journalists as we do now,” he said.
Although the network will keep a minimal staff presence in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami and Boston, it will shut down its bricks-and-mortar bureaus there and ask its remaining employees to work from the local affiliates. The Washington bureau will remain open, but its size will be substantially reduced.
[Updated at 1:10 p.m.: Kate O'Brian, ABC's senior vice president of news, said that although the network eventually plans to shut down its physical bureaus in the long term, it is still examining all of its leases and is not going to immediately vacate all offices. The news division has not yet approached affiliates about housing network correspondents, but has found that model works in Denver and Detroit.]
The mood was grim in Los Angeles, the largest bureau outside of Washington. The 40-plus staffers were told this week that only a few producers would remain and only two correspondents would be assigned to cover the West, down from a total of six who work out of Dallas, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Many functions that had been done out of the bureau will be handled by a “logistics desk” in New York. Demoralized employees, who did not want to be quoted by name for fear of losing their jobs, said the severity of the cuts would make it nearly impossible to swarm major stories such as the perennial wildfires in Southern California.
Westin said the network would cope with the reduced manpower on breaking news stories by hiring freelance crews and making use of its expanded team of digital journalists, staffers who would be able to handle multiple tasks. Although a majority of stories will still be covered by traditional four-person crews, Westin said he expected a “plurality” of pieces would be done by people shooting and editing their own video. The digital journalists will be stationed in two-person teams around the country.
“I’m sure we will learn more as we go forward, but we have enough experience to be quite confident that we can not only maintain but in some cases enhance our editorial quality,” he said.
This week, the network began sending out letters offering voluntary buyouts to all nonunion employees, and is posting openings of the new digital journalism positions.
“This is a really big change,” Westin said. “Some people are going to embrace it and some people will believe it won’t work. I respect both those groups of people. It’s a question of who wants to work here in the way we’re going to change the place. ... I’m quite confident we will have enough people who are enthusiastic and up to the task.”
-- Matea Gold
Pelosi to Dems: Support health bill, even if it kills career
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/politics/pelosi_career_dems_support_health_rv5IyPk9kkDq3eM9vaiVJJ/0
WASHINGTON — The White House called for a "simple up-or-down" vote on health care legislation today as Speaker Nancy Pelosi appealed to House Democrats to get behind President Barack Obama's chief domestic priority even it if threatens their political careers.
In voicing support for a simple majority vote, White House health reform director Nancy-Ann DeParle signaled Obama's intention to push the Democratic-crafted bill under Senate rules that would overcome GOP stalling tactics.
Republicans unanimously oppose the Democratic proposals. Without GOP support, Obama's only chance of emerging with a policy and political victory is to bypass the bipartisanship he promoted during his televised seven-hour health care summit Thursday.
"We're not talking about changing any rules here," DeParle said. "All the president's talking about is: Do we need to address this problem and does it make sense to have a simple, up-or-down vote on whether or not we want to fix these problems?"
DeParle was optimistic that the president would have the votes to pass the massive bill. But none of legislation's advocates who spoke on Sunday indicated that those votes were in hand.
"I think we will get to that point where we will have the votes," predicted Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., a member of the Senate Democratic leadership. "I believe that we will pass health care reform this spring."
In a sober call to arms, Pelosi said lawmakers sometimes must enact policies that, even if unpopular at the moment, will help the public. "We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress," she said. "We're here to do the job for the American people."
Pelosi said it took courage for Congress to pass Social Security and Medicare, which eventually became highly popular, "and many of the same forces that were at work decades ago are at work again against this bill."
It's unclear whether Pelosi's remarks will embolden or chill dozens of moderate House Democrats who face withering criticisms of the health care proposal in visits with constituents and in national polls. Republican lawmakers unanimously oppose the health care proposals, and many GOP strategists believe voters will turn against Democrats in the November elections.
Pelosi, from San Francisco, is more liberal than scores of her Democratic colleagues. But she generally walks a careful line between urging them to back left-of-center policies and giving them a green light to buck party leaders to improve their re-election hopes.
Her comments seemed to acknowledge the widely held view that Democrats will lose House seats this fall — maybe a lot. They now control the chamber 255 to 178, with two vacancies. Pelosi stopped well short of suggesting Democrats could lose their majority, but she called on members of her party to make a bold move on health care with no prospects of GOP help.
"Time is up," she said. "We really have to go forth."
Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking Republican leader in the House, made it clear Republicans see a Democrats-only bill as an election-year issue.
"If Speaker Pelosi rams through this bill, through the House ... they will lose their majority in Congress in November," he said.
The White House is redoubling efforts to remind voters that the Senate passed an Obama-backed health care bill in December with 60 votes. Every Republican voted against that bill. A Republican Senate victory in Massachusetts in January, however, left Democrats one vote shy of the number necessary to overcome GOP filibusters.
As a result, a new plan would call for the House to pass the Senate bill and send it to Obama. The Senate would then use budget reconciliation rules to make several changes demanded by House Democrats. Those rules prohibit filibusters.
Exactly what the legislation would look like remained a matter of negotiation within Democratic ranks. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, "is working with his caucus, the White House and the House leadership on strategy and next steps," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said Sunday.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky renewed his party's demand that Obama and the Democrats start over and write a bipartisan health care bill. He said that while the reconciliation process has been used to pass legislation in the past, it should not apply to health care legislation.
"There are a number of other Republicans who do not think something of this magnitude ought to be jammed down the throats of a public that doesn't want it through this kind of device," McConnell said.
Pelosi said that "in a matter of days" Democrats will have specific legislative language on health care to show to the public and to wavering lawmakers. She predicted voters will warm up to the bill once they understand its details.
"When we have a bill," she said, "you can bake the pie, you can sell the pie. But you have to have a pie to sell."
At that point, added House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, top Democrats will make their pitch to their members.
"Within the next couple of weeks we're going to have a specific proposal and start counting votes to see whether or not those proposals could pass," he said.
Pelosi appeared on ABC's "This Week" and CNN's "State of the Union." DeParle and Cantor were on NBC's "Meet the Press," Hoyer was on CBS' "Face the Nation," while Menendez appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and McConnell spoke on CNN
Obama has saved us!
Via E-mail from Chuck Sproull (not the author)
Obama has saved us!
That is right - I will say it: THANK GOD FOR BARAK OBAMA
WHY?
He destroyed the Clinton Political Machine - Driving a stake thru the heart of Hillary's Presidential aspirations - something no Republican was ever able to do. Remember when a Hillary Presidency scared the daylights out of you?!
He killed off the Kennedy Dynasty - No more Kennedys trolling Washington looking for booze and women wanting rides home. American women and Freedom are safer tonight!
He is destroying the Democratic Party before our eyes!
Dennis Moore had never lost a race - quit
Evan Bayh had never lost a race - quit
Byron Dorgan - had never lost a race - quit
Harry Reed - GONE
These are just a handful of the Democrats whose political careers Obama has destroyed! By the end of 2010 dozens more will follow!
In December of 2008 the Democrats were on the rise. In the last two election cycles they had picked up 14 senate seats and 52 house seats. The press was touting the death of the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party.
In one year Obama put a stop to all of this and will probably give the house, if not the senate back to the Republicans.
He has completely exposed liberals and progressives for what they are. Every Generation seems to need to relearn the lesson on why they should never actually put liberals in charge. He is bringing home the lesson very well!
Liberals tax, borrow and spend - check
Liberals won't bring themselves to protect America - check
Liberals want to take over the economy - check
Liberals think they know what is best for everyone - check
Liberals aren't happy till they are running YOUR life - check
He has brought more Americans back to conservatism than anyone since Reagan
In One year he rejuvenated the Conservative movement and brought out to the streets millions of Freedom Loving Americans
Name me one other time in your life that you saw your friends and neighbors this interested in taking back America !
In all honesty, one year ago I was more afraid than I had ever been in my life. Not of the economy but of the direction our country was going. I thought Americans had forgotten what this country was all about. My neighbors, friends, strangers proved to me that my lack of confidence in the Greatness and Wisdom of the American people was flat out wrong.
When the American People wake up, no smooth talking teleprompter reader can fool them!
Barak Obama woke up these Great Americans
Again I want to say: Thank you Barak Obama!
"The e-mail Bag"
How is this for Nostalgia?
by jungleloo
http://www.loomanchu.com/how-is-this-for-nostalgia
How is this for Nostalgia?
Good one!!
Remember when Ronald Reagan was president.
We also had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash...
Now we have Obama and no Hope and no Cash.
No comments:
Post a Comment