While I’ve been wanting to post items at a state and local level, it’s getting quite difficult in some respects to do so. Because when the Constitution is under assault, particularly from a member of Congress, we are under assault. And we must do everything lawfully in our power to ensure the Constitution is indeed held as the Bible and supreme law of our land.
As reported on Tuesday by a number of news sources (here and here are a couple notable ones), Humana Health Care, a major health insurer in America, reportedly sent out a letter to its senior customers about pending Medicare cuts in the Senate version of the federal health care legislation. Word of this somehow got out to Sen. Max Baucus (Madd Maxx in my book), the primary writer and sponsor of the Senate bill who subsequently ordered an investigation into Humana by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMMS), courtesy of course, the Obama Administration.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the normally very mild mannered Republican from Kentucky, reacted in an unusually terse response, not only saying that it was a natural (and right) progression to come to Humana’s conclusion but that it was a bullet into the 1st Amendment rights of Humana.
You can read (and I highly recommend you do) two press releases from the senator (here and here). It is the only site I know where it is noted that Sen. McConnell and his office have contacted CMMS as to what legal reasons permitted its actions.
I also urge you to watch the You Tube video below of the speech (roughly 7 minutes) and draw your own conclusions. As the senator acknowledged, Humana is a constituent of his so he does have an obligation to consider their views in this legislation. But that aside, Sen. McConnell has stated he would defend any individual’s or company’s right to support or oppose any piece of legislation. That doesn’t necessarily mean he will agree with them at the time he casts his vote. But he absolutely defends their right to speak out, for or against. And he has said so in this video.
And isn’t that what our elected officials are supposed to do?
I can’t help but believe the citizens of Montana, a largely liberty and libertarian state with strong support for the 2nd Amendment, have to be shaking their heads that they elected a senator who wants to deny anyone’s 1st Amendment rights.
The citizens of Montana should initiate and circulate a petition to recall Sen. Baucus. It doesn’t matter that he’s not up for reelection next year. If anyone reading this is from Montana, it’s up to you to start the process. If you know someone from Montana, please forward this to them. Any Congressman or senator who seeks to subvert the Bill of Rights is one that does not need to be representing the people. It doesn’t matter what political party they are from and it doesn’t even matter whether the truth is being spoken.
Yes, the 1st Amendment does NOT have a clause to prevent lying. If the truth is being misrepresented somewhere, it is up to the affected individual(s) or group(s)to find and use all the avenues at their disposal to get out their message. It is NOT the job of the federal government to silence those who are speaking out by launching criminal investigations. . Asking one’s members to oppose legislation because it is potentially detrimental to them (regardless of whether it actually is) fully falls within the 1st Amendment.
And for the record, it appears that Sen. McConnell and Humana were not only in their rights to speak out as they did, but they were on solid ground as well. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has allegedly affirmed their concerns.
So what’s a company supposed to do when a branch of government in DC validates a major insurer’s fears but another arm (the Obama Administration).
Go back to July 1st, 1987 on the floor of the U.S. Senate when Sen. Ted Kennedy made this absolutely bizarre and unbelievable claim in a speech about President Reagan’s nominee to the federal bench, Judge Robert Bork.
“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”
Funny, as recklessly ludicrous of a statement as that was, I don’t recall anyone in Congress challenging the 1st Amendment rights of the now late senator from Massachusetts. In retrospect, perhaps Republicans should have called for an investigation into the 1969 death of Mary Jo Kopechne in exchange for his right to condemn Judge Bork as he did.
Also funny how Chappaquiddick Ted didn’t seem to mind the rogue police in Washington traveling to Florida to break down the doors of the home young Elian Gonzalez stayed at, an egregious violation of the 4th Amendment.
Oh, by the way, where are the so-called defenders of the Bill of Rights, the ACLU, in this matter? Probably AWOL, looking for another plaque of the 10 Commandments to remove.
Let’s read the 1st Amendment together, folks:
Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Let’s get something straight here. The 1st Amendment applies to every American, period! It does not exclude public officials who may want to pray in Jesus’ name before a city council meeting or a government worker wishing to read his or her Bible at lunchtime. The ACLU’s concept of the 1st Amendment is that government officials must check their faith at the door once they enter. This is utterly and totally BASELESS but it has been perpetuated for decades by these lefties and bought into by sincere but misguided folks.
Government officials, like anyone else, should be free to speak out on any matter they wish to without fear of repercussions (libel, defamation matters and death threats, of course, excluded). Unfortunately, Resident Obama finds the Constitution an obstacle to his agenda, having once termed it as “flawed”.
If there is something in our Constitution that is flawed, which I do not accept (well, maybe the Founders couldn’t have envisioned a failing post office system as we have today – I’ll concede this one point), there is a remedy for it. And that is either a constitutional convention or an amendment that gets 2/3rds vote in both Houses and ratification in 3/4ths of the states.
I would invite the Resident, upon proving his constitutional credentials for citizenship, to address those flaws and have Congress alter them, doing so the right way.
Sorry, I don’t see that occurring any time soon.
But what I do see is that a U.S. senator, duly elected by the voters of the state of Montana, has committed a flagrant civil rights violation by attempting to punish a private entity (acknowledging that entity’s participation in the Medicare program) with sanctions (I assume monetary and perhaps even criminal) for simply opposing a bill that will likely permanently alter our social infrastructure as never seen in our 233 year history.
As a former co-host of an Internet radio show, I had the privilege last year to spend with Sen. McConnell for a few minutes on a number of issues. Although the responses to my questions and that of the other host were not necessarily what we hoped for and weren’t directly answered, the gentleman from the Bluegrass State was typical of southern legislators – friendly and courteous. So I did get to know the senator just a little bit better.
Sen. McConnell did not state Sen. Baucus by name but he left no doubt in his speech as to who he was referring to, addressing him as a colleague who introduced the Senate health care bill. Everyone following the health care debate knows this is Sen. Baucus. And Sen. Baucus must be held accountable for his actions.
That is why I will be making a few contacts in that part of the country to see if some group out that way will launch a recall petition of Sen. Baucus. It MUST be done. I will also be sending this post to Sen. McConnell’s office. It’s bad enough when America gets bad legislation, especially when lies are used to make laws. We can revert most bad laws. But it is infinitely worse when a member of Congress seeks to stifle a company’s right 1st Amendment right to legitimately express their views on a matter that will seriously affect them as well as the entire nation. Sen. Baucus, if what was stated by Sen. McConnell to be factual – and there appears to be no lie, must be educated on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that as a senator he was and is sworn to uphold.
It’s entirely possible that a recall petition will have little or no legal weight to it. Legal experts can have at it on that one. But it sends the message that violating the 1st Amendment rights of any American citizen is blatantly unconstitutional and a stiff penalty must be put in place to anyone, particularly a public official, who takes action to silence them. Sen. Baucus is such an official and even if the recall petition ends up being legally meaningless, the public attention brought to his actions and a heavy no confidence vote from the citizens of Montana potentially have at least four effects:
- It diminishes Sen. Baucus’s public standing, knowing how poorly his constituents view him.
- It handicaps his power as committee chairman to shepherd his health care bill thru the U.S. Senate, knowing that he has little respect for the U.S. Constitution, be it for either his 1st Amendment violations or the knowledge that the Constitution gives Congress NO AUTHORITY to regulate the health of our lives.
- It warrants his personal resignation because he no longer has the backing of the citizens of Montana to adequately represent them.
- It sends a message to voters across America to take measures (even symbolic ones) to recall their own legislators (state or federal) when their officials attempt to subvert the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
If violations such as these continue to occur without remedy, then our Constitution becomes nothing but words and our country ends up being lost forever because America’s foundational guiding light has crumbled.
It’s time to recall Madd Maxx. Montanans, it’s time to begin the process.
At the end of this post will be a link to an important petition that we will send to the “Big 4”. But please read the entire post before signing the petition.
For those who have read my previous posts, you may have noticed that I call the bogus POTUS (President of the United States) as “Resident Obama” and not “President”. If I were to call Mr. Obama “President”, I would be recognizing his official position.
Unfortunately, I don’t recognize Obama as a legit prez because I am convinced that he is not a natural born U.S. citizen, according to Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
And so because I don’t see Barack as constitutionally legit, some folks will add me to the “birther” list. If they wish to do so, that’s fine. Those calling us “birthers” willfully ignore that this is more than Obama producing a birth certificate. This is a legal question that has yet to be answered by a United States court, a point well made by one of the litigants who has thus far already challenged Obama’s eligibility, Leo Donofrio.
And it is an issue that will not go away, no matter how hard the left as well as the likes of Ann Coulter & Mike Medved on the right wish it would. It is the most important issue in America today and each day the Resident ignores what millions of Americans want him to produce, the current constitutional crisis worsens.
If I recognized the Resident as “President”, then we can move on and defeat the socialist agenda of Barack and his leftist allies in Congress. But until we have legitimate proof of his U.S. citizenship, as far as I’m concerned – and I daresay millions of Americans are as well – every action taken by the Resident – be it a bill signed, executive order given or internal appointment, including his czars – is null and void.
As Phil Berg and his Obama Crimes website says, “The United States Constitution requires that our president be a natural born citizen of the United States.” And because we have no bonafide proof that Obama is natural born – be it a birth certificate, school records, medical records – that he is, we must assume that at best the Resident is a naturalized citizen and at worst an illegal alien.
Unfortunately, outside of World Net Daily’s relentless coverage and periodically from Michael Savage, there are hardly any well known Internet news and radio figures are covering the Obama eligibility issue. And that includes Rush, Hannity, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin, the latter being man who regularly writes on and quotes the Constitution and calls Obama out on it but ignores it when it comes to Obama’s questionable U.S. citizenship.
So it’s time to ratchet up the pressure and turn up the heat on the “Big 4” who wield a ton of conservative political clout but who, for whatever reason, refuse to say a thing on it.
Given that there is at least one suit that should be going to trial and that virtually every big name source outside of WND is not covering it, in this writer’s view, there is no excuse – zip, zilch, zero, nada – for any of them to continue staying silent.
Now let me hasten to add that there may well be political considerations, including threats of loss of station licenses or God forbid worse, for their silence. However, since nothing and no one is stopping Obama and since this issue could well galvanize the public more than any other, even including the health care monster, this is the time for the men who have assumed the lion’s share of conservatism to do their patriotic duty and tell the truth, even if it costs them their shows and station’s broadcast licenses.
It doesn’t matter what these individuals have said. Their comments, while compelling on most issues, especially on Obamacare, seem to have developed an Obama immunity. Their frequent addressing Obama as “President” does not help matters, though perhaps given their environment, they may not have a choice. Given that ABC is very pro-Obama and that these men who oppose Obama are on ABC affiliates (like our WLS-AM in Chicago), this may be a very real problem. Yet push is coming to shove because of how bad things have become in America with Obama.
And maybe the petition at the end of this post will be what is needed to force their hand.
Those on the left as well as those on the right like Coulter who think we are nuts for forcing the eligibility issue willingly ignore two irrefutable facts why the actions of Attorney Phil Berg (a Democrat nonetheless) of Obama Crimes, Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation and others are fully legit:
- Why has Obama spent well over a million dollars to fight these suits if there is no merit to them?
- Do conservative patriots and lawyers have the thousands, if not millions, of dollars to challenge the Resident in court? Surely they would not spend so much capital, especially in these recession days, if they were not convinced that the Constitution was being violated and than an ineligible “president” was sitting in the White House. After all, what lawyer, regardless of his or her wealth, like throwing money into cases that have no legitimacy?
For all these reasons and more, we must insist that Rush and Hannity (the #1 & #2 talk show hosts in America) as well as Mark and Glenn speak out now.
If you agree, please sign our petition and forward to everyone you can. You can also e-mail them, though it is doubtful you’ll get a personal reply. But do let them know and do be polite.
We don’t have a timetable when to get the signatures on the petition to the above individuals and we don’t have a set number that we need but it goes without saying that we need thousands and hundreds of thousands of signatures. A million may seem like a gargantuan amount but perhaps that is what it will take to get Rush and company to speak out.
Rush claims an audience of 20 million listeners daily, the largest of any show in America. It might seem impossible to get 2 million of his listeners to sign this petition but as the saying goes, “whatever it takes”. Let’s get them in. Post this anywhere and everywhere! Up the ante! Thank you and God bless.
Folks, when you read all this stuff about the health care bills making their way thru Congress and the “death panels’ that former Gov. Sarah Palin mentioned in her Facebook post, the very thought of these bills’ existence should frighten the you-know-what out of you. But if you still think national health care legislation is compassionate, consider two of the key players in it – our bogus POTUS Barack Obama and his Health & Human Services Secretary, the Rebellious Kathy Sebelius – and ask yourself if you trust them to ensure your wellness.
Resident Obama was identified less than two years ago as the most liberal senator in the nation for 2007. No doubt his unequivocal position in favor of partial birth abortion and yes, infanticide, helped seal his ranking. Even his own Fact Check, the board of which he once sat on, concedes his opposition to the “born alive” bills – both in Washington (which passed without dissent) and in Illinois – are due to his 100% pro-abortion positions.
Here’s Fact Check’s Jess Henig to confirm:
“Obama’s critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies’ welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing “born-alive” bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.”
When abortion crusaders (even partial birth ones) like Hillary Clinton and the late Ted Kennedy supported the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) as they did in 2002 and Obama did not (though he was not in the U.S. Senate at the time and claimed if he was, he would have backed it), you can draw your own conclusions but in the same way he would not protect an unborn child, I have a tough time believing he would protect Grandma & Grandpa or a disabled child or adult (the “painkiller” becomes the alternative for them).
Granted, Obama did vote with the entire U.S. Senate to save the life of Terri Schiavo (as did the entire Senate) but when you read how he regretted his vote the way he said he did, would you trust him with healthcare and your life?
If you want to know the whole scoop on Obama and his pro-death positions unlike anyone else in America, just Google Obama Jill Stanek, and read what this brave Illinois woman has done to shine the light on Obama’s pro-death views. On life issues, Jill has covered him more than probably most anyone else.
Now as HHS Secretary, the Rebellious One should not be trusted in any form. This woman, the former governor of Kansas (which boggles the mind that such a person could be elected in a fairly strong red state), had endless ties to the late George Tiller, believed by many to be the worst of the worst abortionists in America. You can read it all and view the many damnable pictures here.
Warning: other links at this site (those in the left margin) may be tough for some to view.
There are other sites that document Tiller and Sebelius but Operation Rescue’s special site on Tiller is, in this writer’s view, the best out there.
Also, the page connecting Obama, Tiller and the Rebellious One – under the first picture in the link immediately above – is not working.
Anyway, when you look at Obama and the Rebellious One and notice their hard rock solid stances for all abortions and in the case of Obama, infanticide, it becomes very easy to see why you wouldn’t want to trust them with your health care. In light of it all, the “death panels” now seem to have more compelling merit to me – one for the unborn, another for the Terri Schiavo types and yet another for the elderly.
So if you wouldn’t trust Obama and the Rebellious One to protect “the least of these“, why on earth would you trust them with “the most of the rest“?
I rest my case. And that’s a fact.
Although this may seem like I’m in the tank for the Republican Party, I’m far from it. However, let’s face the facts. While I am a huge 3rd party guy (see my previous post), unless there is an organization that can put both the money and the manpower together, the road to lead us there is virtually insurmountable. Both parties are in the fix to stop the Constitution, Libertarian and American Independent Parties and both do all they can to keep the “little guy” (3rd party) out.
But if Mitt Romney is poised to be the go to guy, I got news for the GOP. Your party is once and for all finished. I will continue my quest for a third party guy and I will expose the Mittster all I can and get others to do the same. Why? Because this is an insane pick for the party that stands a golden chance to drive out the Democratic Party once and for all.
In short, Romney is the guy who is responsibile for same sex marriage in Massachusetts and the movement of the homosexual movement in that state. If you don’t believe me, go check the Romney Deception and take your time reading thru this long page and all the links with it. The facts do not lie and it would be pure idiocy to accept on blind faith that Romney has changed. The public voted for so-called change in Resident Obama and boy, did they get change like they never expected. He was the same old same old socialist Commie as a U.S. senator and is only worse now because he leads the country and no one has the ball to challenge his citizenship “credentials” (he has none).
Romney had all sorts of time as governor of Kennedy/Kerry land to show his true credentials. When he left office at the end of 2006, he failed to do the one thing that could have turned it around for him, despite all his negatives. He could have reversed his order for clerks to marry homosexuals since there was nothing in the state Constitution to support it and since, contrary to the so-called “mainstream media”, the state Supreme Court did not actually order Romney to strike down the state’s marriage laws. But he did nothing, despite a letter from countless pro-life and pro-family leaders (it’s linked at the site) telling him that as the CEO of the state he could reverse his what we first thought was a misguided ruling.
It’s all at the Romney Deception link – go check it out and ask yourself if you think this guy should be the go to guy in 2012 (or sooner if Barack can be tossed for being an illegal and a new election takes place – seemingly impossible, yes I know, but I’m willing to be like British Phil Collins and believe this can be “Against All Odds”.
That should be enough to force Romney and all his money to the park bench. But if you need more evidence that he shouldn’t be the nominee, look no further to his state’s version of Obamacare which he signed into law and which includes $50 abortions and Planned Parenthood a seat on one of the state’s health care boards.
But besides the abortion part, as with Obamacare, Massachusetts residents are fined if they choose not to participate or carry health insurance, something I didn’t think Republicans supported.
And if that’s still not enough, just as Obamacare is expected to bankrupt the country, Romneycare has caused untold and unexpected financial expenses to spiral out of control as Cato reports.
Romney is Obama lite, minus a few other things. The GOP doesn’t need him. As JFK once said, “we can do better”. And the GOP better, now that there are stark comparisons to the health care boondoggle.
And lest I ignore the keen sense of the obvious, if those attending the Values Voter Summit think Romney is so good because of his eloquent speech and want to give him the green light, then as far as I’m concerned, the VVS knows beans about values. Because it had one lacking them as their crusader.
And if someone wants to take me on for opposing Romney as anti-Mormon, sorry, you’re doomed to fail. Since the U.S. Constitution does not provide a litmus test on religion, I have no problems with a Mormon as president provided his values are mine.
But that said, Romney’s values are definitely not mine.
Although Mike Huckabee is in stark contrast to Romney on life and marriage issues, as governor, he took every opportunity to promote big government and worst of all, his support for the illegals almost rivals that of Obama and Romney – take a look.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council thinks the Huckster is “well oiled”. He’s probably right. Huckabee’s immigration positions with his more recent claim that he’s for secured borders seems to me more of a tool of slick marketing.
And if you think Mr. Perkins has credibility in his support of the Huckster and the Mittster, perhaps reading this might make you reconsider.
Huckabee was opposed to the feds raiding his state’s Tyson chicken plant by 1000-1 and now we’re supposed 4+ years later to believe he’s seen the light. Well, he may indeed have seen the light of the gospel of Christ by coming to the Savior and later becoming a Baptist minister but he certainly violated his Christian faith by opposing federal law on illegal aliens
Sorry, no dice on either man. If this is the best the GOP can do, Lord help us.
In that summit, which I believe might be skewed as I suspected it was last year (contact me privately in the comments section if you want to know more – will send you a letter in Word to that effect with all the specifics – I may yet post it), there’s only one candidate out of those 9 in attendance I would consider supporting. And that is Congressman Mike Pence of my own state of Indiana. It’s not because he’s a fellow Hoosier – he is. It’s because his consistent voting track record for limited government is one that Americans can be proud of and one which the demand for excellence is exceeded. It’s not perfect. But it’s darn close.
Gov. Palin, notwithstanding her teen daughter’s out of wedlock birth and her very likable demeanor, should be disqualified because for putting a pro-abortion, Planned Parenthood judge at the Alaska Supreme Court – see here (with related links).
There seems to be differentiating opinions as to whether this choice was of Palin’s own making or forced upon her but from viewing all the evidence and from what I do understand about governors, I believe the former governor of Alaska should have held firm to her pro-life conscience and said NO to any pro-abort candidate for the bench. What could happen to her if there were indeed procedural issues that would force her to violate her conscience – throw her in jail?
This piece seems to back up my beliefs.
As for the remaining participants at the VVS – Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum – here’s some quickies; will put in links later.
- Pawlenty is kind of center-left on the enviroment and global warming, though pro-life, not sure he’s doable.
- Gingrich recently bought into the global warming conspiracy, he’s out.
- Jindal – good guy but soft on Obama, also his citizenship might be an issue as it is believed that he is a naturalized citizen like Gov. Schwarzenegger and not natural born. We already have a huge constitutional crisis at hand with Obama not proving he’s natural born. We don’t need that with Jindal.
- Ron Paul is one of the Constitution’s best friends and his adherence to it is thoroughly respected, however, his deafening silence on the Obama eligibility matter disappointed lots of us.
- Sen. Santorum – great friend of pro-lifers, unrivaled in marriage and totally pro-life and has taken hits for us but name recognition and being out of the public spotlight for several years now may keep him from going very far.
Oh, and yes, I know Congressman Pence has not addressed the Obama eligibility issue but he’s the best of the lot and the only one I would be really excited to support. Anyone who takes on the president of the United States (like when he did against President Bush on prescription drugs for seniors) is certainly one I would endorse for the White House.
Your thoughts, please.
Yeah, I know this is not a local, state or national issue as this blog says but it’s one item I haven’t seen addressed on the Internet and one that gnaws at me. And that is when individuals (mostly 3rd party folks and independents) say that there isn’t a dime’s difference between the two major political parties and why we desperately need a 3rd party in Washington.
I am most certainly convinced that a third party is warranted in Washington as well as statewide. We’ve seen what money and power can and will do to those who make a career of it in Congress, be they Republican or Democrat. And both parties have bought into the DC political culture that frequently leave them out of touch with their constituents back home.
But if you look at both the Democrat and Republican platforms, they are like apples and oranges. Among other things, the Republican platform is for traditional one man/one woman traditional marriage and the full protection of the unborn. The Democrat platform is just the opposite.
However, I want to concentrate on two issues – taxes and the national health care bill (Obamacare) currently being debated in Congress. You may occasionally find a Republican in support of some form of taxation proposed by a Democrat. But you’ll virtually never hear of a Republican initiating a tax hike. That’s because they almost never do. Both parties have a habit of spending but only one likes raising taxes.
And if you look at the health care bills in both the House and the Senate, both are full of taxes, fines and a host of other ways (now often referred to as “fees”) to raise money to pay for their political joyriding. But they’re not sponsored or endorsed by Republicans, though one Republican (Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine) is playing footsie with the opposite party in hopes of compromise.
The Democrat Party is the party working to create national health care which, if enacted and signed into law, would essentially oversee virtually every aspect of our lives. The legislation – its provisions, its penalties and its scope – are so beyond anything an average person can imagine. Republicans, despite all their faults – their spending, their compromises with Democrats, their failure to reduce the size and power of Washington – have never sought to control every American’s life in any way, shape or form. Constitutional liberties would be extinct with the passage of a socialist health care bill.
We cannot have this occur. America must send a stern message to every Democrat in Congress so that just as occurred in the fall of 1994 after Washington tried passing Hillary Care, the same will occur less than 14 months from now, only in much greater proportions.
Democrats went from a 78 seat majority in the House (256 Democrats, 178 Republicans, 1 independent) at end of 1994 to a 26 seat minority (230 Republicans, 204 Democrats, 1 independent) at the start of 1995. This was the biggest Congressional landslide for Republicans in history.
Currently the legislative makeup is virtually identical now as it was then with 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. Polls show Democrats facing a trouncing next November. A 52 seat reversal now, as it was at the start of 1995, will give the Republicans a majority in the House.
But unlike then, with a radical “president” in the White House and with no one in Congress or the courts willing to challenge him on his constitutional eligibility, despite growing public awareness of the missing birth certificate and other documents, we have a much worse occupant in the White House today than then. Republicans don’t need a 26 seat majority. They need like a 100 seat majority. Much better yet, they need a 2/3rd majority (290 seats) to stop Obama garbage and force good legislation to come into being (assuming a 2/3rd GOP majority in the Senate, which at the moment is likely dubious). Ideally, a 300 seat majority (all but unheard of ) is needed to thwart Democrat power (allowing for a few wayward Republicans to side with Democrats, which still would give the GOP the 2/3rd majority) and to send political shockwaves throughout the U.S. that a national health care bill will never rear its ugly head again.
For Republicans to get 300 seats, there would have to be 122 Democrats sent to the unemployment line with no gains for open seats and things like that. We could allow for a few conservative Democrats (Mike Ross of Arkansas, Dave Boren of Oklahoma, Gene Taylor & Travis Childers of Mississippi and Bobby Bright & Parker Griffith of Alabama come to mind) to permanently cross the aisle to the Republican Party (numerous Democrats did during Hillary Care). Personally I think they should as I can’t see how anyone could in good conscience be a Democrat any more. The old time Democrats were pro-American, pro-American sovereignty and for the little guy. Those Truman types are all but extinct. Any conservative Democrat should now think of switching sides or facing an opponent next November. In this writer’s mind, the only good Democrat is a dead or defeated one.
With the current 58-40 Democrat controlled Senate (the demise of Sen. Kennedy creating one vacancy and the ailing Sen. Byrd all but ready to create another, though both seats will go to Democrats), Republicans would have to pick up 27 seats next November (a third of U.S. senators will be up for reelection) in order to get a 2/3rd margin in the Senate. While I think a 300 seat majority in the House is possible (though no doubt will be daunting to achieve), Democrats winning only 7 seats out of a possible 34 in the Senate is only theoretically so. However, the GOP should shoot for at least a dozen wins to get back in the majority, a more realistic possibility.
But with Democrats and Obama doing everything to destroy the greatness of America, I believe Republicans need to field candidates in every House district without exception with a special emphasis to unseat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Though an uphill battle, it can be done. House Speaker Tom Foley of Washington state was sent packing after the “94 election so it can be done again, though admittedly San Francisco (Pelosi’s district) is more liberal than Washington state.
Now it sounds like I’m favoring Republicans right now. Well, yeah, I am – in a way. But before you jump to conclusions, I have a plan I want the GOP to pursue, should it field a majority in either chamber (it better win at least the House). And here’s what I want it to do.
If the GOP wins in either chamber, I want each Republican without exception to sign a term limit of 12 years in Congress (any combination of years in the House and or Senate. Any hesitancy to sign such a pledge must be met with a primary opponent in 2012 (for the House). Failure to sign a term limits pledge means America desperately needs a bonafide 3rd party. And America will need one if the Democratic Party goes extinct (which it should). America is much better off with Republicans in charge but it does not need a one party system, else the GOP could run away like a freight train with its power, though I don’t think that party desires to control every facet of our lives as the Democratic Party does.
Republicans, upon taking power in 2011, must without exception shoot for term limits for all of Congress. It must pass legislation to gut the IRS and all taxes except for a 10% national sales tax (if 10% is good for the Lord, it’s good for the government – and not a penny more). It must also defund ALL of Obama’s czars and zero out ALL pork barrel spending.
And it MUST address the Obama constitutional eligibility crisis!
I know third parties can put Republicans out of power. It did so with Ross Perot in “94 and it had done just that in numerous state legislative and gubernatorial races over the years. Yes, I know both parties control the purse strings and make it difficult, if not virtually impossible, to have a third party, like the Libertarian, Constitution or American Independent Party, get a seat in Washington. These parties are stifled at every turn. But with the hopeful eventual demise of the Democratic Party, one of them will need to be a good counter to the GOP. There is no need for a new Democratic Party but there is a great need for an alternative to the GOP.
I consider myself an independent, though I have usually punched the GOP ticket. But that doesn’t mean I’m happy with it. It’s just that there’s no comparison between Republicans and Democrats. One party has a few nuts, the other has a good 80-90% radicals. America needs checks and balances in its parties and government overall.
But it starts with the Democratic Party. The party that is now the American Communist Party and the party of the ACLU must be forever extinguished. We may not even have a country next year. But if we do, we must save it. And it starts with putting Democrats out of power and Republicans strictly abiding by the Constitution.
Your thoughts, please. Thank you.
When I heard that Barack Obama was going to be speaking to America’s schoolchildren last Tuesday, like many other parents of public school students, I blew a gasket. It seems like Americans cannot avoid hearing or seeing this man wherever he goes. It already bothers the hell out of me that he has a radical homosexual (mature content) working in his Dept. of Education. It further disturbs me that his education secretary sought to establish a school for homosexual students when he (the education secretary) was in charge of Chicago’s schools (I moved to Indiana from Chicago). Now he was going to be up to something – obviously not going to deal with this issue but perhaps use the school children to prop up his failing Obamacare that significant majorities of Americans repudiate or address some other form of his political agenda.
What was even more troubling were the content that was distributed to teachers as laid out in the Dept. of Education’s (DOE) plans – here for Pre-K thru 6th grade and here for 7th thru 12th. On top of that, though I have no link source to back it up, rumor had it that Obama and Secretary Arne Duncan intended for these items to bypass school boards and go directly to the teachers. Speculation is that because school boards generally are the ones that give approval to the textbooks and other sources used in school classrooms and many school boards would not be approving of this material. However, I cannot officially confirm this as true, though it is believable.
But what is believable is that the speech that was given last Tuesday, which was relatively tame but nothing I couldn’t have said myself, was altered shortly before being aired because of the outrage across the country. Many parents prepared to opt their kids out for the day unless the school districts either decreed that they would not allow the Internet video to be shown or that parents could sit in on the video with their children. Many parents rescinded their intents after reading the content of the speech online. I read it myself but that stlil did not change my intent. My son stayed with his grandparents last Tuesday. It was the right decision. My son, though having learning difficulties, now knows that while the office of the president of the United States is worthy of the highest respect, the current occupant there, whose U.S. citizenship status is questionable, is not.
I find it already disgusting that Obama would even think to address our kids, given the connections he has had thru the years – Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Khalid Rashidi, Louis Farrakhan, “Father” Mike Pfleger, etc., let alone his dangerous agenda. One parent on an education blog said he didn’t want Obama within 10 feet of his child. But it wasn’t just Obama opponents that were outraged. Even liberals like this one found it “creepy” and a close friend of mine saw the similarities to Castro’s Cuba. I agree with both of them.
As a taxpayer in my son’s district, I was displeased to find out of the deafening silence that came from it. When I first heard that this speech was coming, which was on the Wednesday prior to, I e-mailed and faxed every high official in the school district as well as the principal of every school in this district and e-mailed the entire school board (no fax or other contact info was available for them) as to why the silence. I urged the district to do one of three things:
- Put a note for every student to take home regarding this event and advise them to follow the procedures in the school district’s handbook if they were uncomfortable with Obama speaking.
- Post a notice on the district’s website as well as on each school’s site as to the pending speech and the options parents have.
- Leave a message on each school’s “dial-a-home” recorder (they call every Friday afternoon with announcements from the school) so parents would be aware of what was coming.
Unfortunately, the school district ignored all my recommendations and other than an e-mail from the district’s superintendent advising me that Stevie (my son) could be excused during the speech, I heard from no one. This was a disservice to me and to the community, many of which were not aware of what was to come for whatever reason. The school district here is overall a pretty good one and very respective of parents. They succeeded in removing an offensive high school reading book last fall, thanks to one concerned parent. But their silence here was very disappointing.
Thank goodness Northwest Indiana’s number one paper, the Northwest Indiana Times, covered the story before and after and was for the most part fair and unbiased in its coverage. It’s too bad some parents found out about this speech this way rather than thru the school system.
I could say much more but I want to hear what you have to say, particularly if you have children in the public school system. Did your district notify you in advance of this speech? What was the overall reaction of school and district officials? Did they commit to air this video? If you opted out for the day or just the session, were you hassled in any way? Please share your experiences with me or feel free to make any other related comments to this event. If I have time, I’ll be glad to respond to your points or try to answer any questions you may have. I appreciate your visit!