http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/12/AR2009091200971_pf.html
12 September 2009
11 September 2009
The Radical Left and the American Constitution
When I saw the results of America’s presidential election, it left me in profound sadness. Not because of any one man, but because it showed what a radical turn this nation has taken. It showed just how much the extreme radicals have gotten control.
You’re going to soon see that this is a very different America than it was before the election.
All the signs show that it really didn’t matter who won—America is losing its power quickly, and no one man could turn that around. The economy is in a disastrous condition. This will combine with the nation’s moral decline and loss of national will to devastate us.
But now, those problems will be made worse by the stranglehold of far-left liberals on the highest echelon of the government. Let me give you an example of what I mean.
Negative Liberties
In a 2001 radio interview, Barack Obama revealed some of his shocking ideas about how the government should run.
Here is what he said about the 1953-1969 Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, which was a very activist court: “To that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical.” Notice this! “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution” (emphasis mine throughout).
The extremely liberal Warren Supreme Court wasn’t radical enough, in Mr. Obama’s opinion.
Mr. Obama was talking about how the constraints on the Constitution need to be removed. He was revealing where he believes the Founding Fathers erred in writing the defining legal charter of the United States!
This is a man who has been in the Senate for only three years—and spent half of that time running for president—who believes he knows where the Founding Fathers were wrong.
“Generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties,” Mr. Obama continued. “It says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”
That is true, and it is a major reason the Constitution was so successful in establishing this nation. The Ten Commandments are the same way. They are mostly “thou shalt nots,” explaining those things God commands you not to do. That gives a law-abiding people a tremendous amount of freedom! Not only are you free from those sins that lead to spiritual and physical slavery, but also, everything else that does not violate that law is good in God’s sight.
Mr. Obama’s statement was not alarming to most Americans because the Ten Commandments mean so little to them today!
Essayist Bill Whittle wrote this in response to Mr. Obama’s interview: “The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population. Barack Obama sees the limiting of government not as a linchpin, but rather as a fatal flaw …” (National Review Online, Oct. 27, 2008).
This is Mr. Obama’s view of the Constitution. When he says it should have stated what the government must do on the people’s behalf, he is talking about federal social programs. As he said in the same radio interview, this means taking wealth from some citizens and redistributing it to others in the form of health care, welfare and other social benefits.
A lot of that thinking was what destroyed the home mortgage firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That crisis is at the heart of America’s financial meltdown.
Still, the radical left think they know exactly what should be done on behalf of the people.
Understanding Human Nature
The Founding Fathers created the Constitution to limit the government’s power because they had lived under a tyrant who decided, according to his own whims, what was fair for the people and what wasn’t. The Constitution gave them a certain protection from evil human nature. The founders based this charter on certain biblical principles, not just human reasoning.
What happens if you don’t have a Constitution to hold back the liberal left? You end up with a welfare state and a loss of many freedoms!
I believe Mr. Obama sincerely thinks his ideas will solve America’s problems, and I’m not saying he is malicious.
But what kind of decisions do you think he will make in office? What kind of judges do you think he will appoint? Judges who will uphold the Constitution? No—he is going to appoint judges who will reject parts of the Constitution and remove its restraints so liberals can do whatever they want with the government!
The mainstream press, which is supposed to be unbiased and is supposed to be our watchman, has also become radicalized. Many of its journalists and commentators will not even consider an opposing view. They go to great lengths to bury the serious flaws of their own candidates, and at the same time they work actively to propagate every negative piece of information they can find to attack any opposing viewpoint.
Liberals want to revive the Fairness Doctrine, which states that the media must present both sides on each issue. But are they doing this because they want to correct the radical, one-sided bias of most of the mainstream press? No—what they really want to do is shut down dissent. Conservative commentators, particularly radio talk-show hosts, are concerned that the radical left will use its new power to silence their views.
You see the same radicalization in our educational institutions. There is generally only one side taught in most of our colleges and universities.
Who would have thought, even a few years ago, that we would choose such radical people to rule us? This is only the vanguard of our people’s moral and spiritual decline. The radical left is leading the way.
What a huge shift! What happens to make people so drastically different from how they were just 10 years ago? Why is America acting like it is in a trance while this radicalization takes place? Because the nation is rapidly degenerating before our eyes.
The Point of No Return
At a campaign appearance in Denver, Mr. Obama had a hundred thousand people show up. Why are these gigantic crowds so enthusiastic about him? What is really going on here?
It has a lot to do with human emotion, wild imagination—and desperation. The answer is that people are in distress. They are troubled. They see grave problems facing our nation. And they are looking desperately for solutions—for a savior. But people never look in the right place.
There is something unseen moving these events, influencing these people. It explains why people are acting as they are. The Bible shows us what that unseen factor is.
Revelation 12:9-10 say Satan the devil has been cast down to this Earth. He is in a white-hot rage and is preparing real trouble for America. He is going to destroy this land! And he is going to destroy Britain and the Jewish nation as well, in the immediate future!
Thomas Sowell, a black conservative, said during a television interview just before the election, “Sometimes people will say, ‘It is just as well to let those guys get in there and discredit themselves, then we’ll win in the backlash.’ People said that when Hitler was rising in Germany. And many of those people that said that died in concentration camps. … There is such a thing as the point of no return.”
In my article in our September issue, I used the same phrase. America has passed the point of no return.
We are experiencing the end-time prophetic fulfillment of a statement God made about Judah anciently: “But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy” (2 Chronicles 36:16). In other words, they had passed the point of no return.
Can we see what this watershed election means for the future of this nation?
Yes, America is deeply flawed. But no matter what you think of this nation, it has kept a lot of tyrants off people’s backs, and it did begin with a wonderful, noble idea linked to God and the Bible.
But the Bible says its time is over. We are entering a period called “the times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24).
We have been anticipating this development for a long time. Herbert W. Armstrong foretold of the time we are in now for some 50 years. This is about to affect you, whether you realize it or not.
Verse 12 of 2 Chronicles 36 says Jeremiah delivered words out of God’s own mouth, and that God expected King Zedekiah and the people to humble themselves before His prophet.
Jeremiah is an end-time book. Is there a work that is literally speaking from the mouth of God today? There is, and that ought to be sobering to all of us!
God expects us to discern when the words are coming from the Spirit of God. But America, Britain and the Jews as nations have refused to do that. Just as people don’t believe in Satan’s flaming wrath, you don’t see much interest in God today. They have refused to repent—liberals and conservatives—and have forgotten their past history with God. They have passed the point of no return. They have gotten so far from God that they can no longer be reached by words. As a result, they are going to be victims of Satan’s raging wrath!
Those are the words from God’s mouth, and somebody has to stand up and proclaim them! Like Jeremiah, someone must speak from the mouth of God! That is sobering, but also should fill us with joy!
Hope and Change
Amid all this bad news, we must not fail to see the good news. The good news is that these dramatic events are a sign! Christ said it would be exactly this way just before He returned. He is coming!
Lamentations 2:8 shows God is stretching out a line and measuring the destruction of biblical Israel for its rejecting Him. For a short span of time, this is bad news. But it is leading to the return of Jesus Christ to save mankind from extinction and a time when man will finally learn his own futility and then turn to God!
We have gotten to the point now that if Christ didn’t intervene, no flesh would be left alive on this Earth (Matthew 24:22). This is what man has achieved. People want to look to men to save them, to be their messiah. And look at man’s crowning achievement: the potential to obliterate all mankind off the planet! Christ prophesied about that explicitly, but even professing Christians of this world don’t talk about what He said! They only talk about the person of Christ.
It is true that you don’t see much joy on the Earth today. Mankind is turning to the most radical and risky of governments for change and hope. That will result in the worst kind of change imaginable—but it will also lead to the return of our true Savior, Jesus Christ. Then, God says, He is going to fill this Earth with His government, and with real joy and real hope! •
via thetrumpet.com
Great article and still true today. This information still needs to circulate even today.
10 September 2009
New Blog Post: Talk is Great, But the 2010 Mid-Term Elections Won't Mean Anything Without Drastic Changes.
There has been a lot of talk and excitement regarding breaking the liberal Democrats’ complete control of Congress in 2010. This is a great thing to see going through conservative circles in the social media world. However, this is only talk. Without some drastic measures taking place there is little chance that things in Congress will be much different after November 7, 2010 regardless of who is in control of Congress. If the Democrats retain control, America will be headed down the road to socialism at a breakneck speed that will exceed what we see today. If the Republicans take over, with many of the same politicians that are there now, the trip will be down the same road only at a little slower speed. Don’t believe me? Look at the so-called Republicans that have sided with the Democrats in the House on cap and tax and in the Senate on the cloture vote over the Cass Sunstein confirmation. With Republicans like these, a Republican majority will do little good. These RINOs are more afraid of being called names by their Democratic peers and the media than they are of their constituents and the majority of Americans who don’t like seeing the direction America is going. Oh sure, they will provide a great deal of excuses and evading statements but it is nothing short of selling out America and its founding principles. We conservatives have a great opportunity as the liberals have completely exposed themselves only to find out that they are the ones out of step with the American voter. If you don’t believe me, look at approval numbers for Obama, Congress, and their agenda for proof.
The first thing that has to happen is the state parties need to stop listening to the media and the national party know-it-alls and the national party needs to stop sucking up and listening to the mainstream media. Everyone needs to be loved, but come one. No matter what the Republicans do they will never get any serious positive coverage from the mainstream media and it is time to put a stop to this grade school crush Republican leadership has with the media. The whole argument that Republicans need to stop listening to their “right-wing” and be more moderate and inclusive is nothing more than a lesson in defeat. This has been the mantra of the national party for several years and it hasn’t worked. Look at 2008, the choices for President was Obama who would take America by bullet train to socialism and McCain who would take us via steam train. Either way America was headed down the wrong road. In Congress, it was the same story with “moderate” Republicans being swept from power by liberal Democrats. Other advice lovingly offered by the media and their pundits, again parroted by those in the national Republican party, is that a true conservative cannot win a national election or consistently at the state level. Also along these same lines, conservatives are told that voters don’t want conservative candidates and won’t vote for them because they are out of step politically with the electorate. Look at the 1980, 1984, 2000, and 2004 Presidential election cycles. The candidates that won were either staunch conservatives or put up the façade of being conservative. The Gingrich revolution in the 1990s is an example of this congressionally. So that advice is complete bunk as well. Besides, in the past several election cycles, there have been little in the way of national or congressional candidates that were either true conservatives or stuck to their conservative values once elected. Those candidates, who either were or appeared to be conservative, running at the national level were ridiculed by their own party and the “moderate” (read liberal) wing of the party until these conservative candidates were ran off leaving us with the option of voting for the lesser of two evils rather than a candidate that conservatives could truly support. What the Republican parties at the state and national levels need to understand is that it is through putting up a candidate that offers a diverging opinion is what the election process is all about. Trying to get a candidate as close to the other guy in their positions as possible is a sure recipe for defeat. Besides, many of the Democratic candidates go through amazing gyrations to look conservative while the media is beating up on the Republican for having conservative (at least some) values. If the Democrats and their liberal media allies are trying to make their candidates look at least a little conservative and ridiculing the Republicans for appearing the same way should tell the Republican strategists a great deal. But it doesn’t and Republicans continue to be told that only “moderates” can win.
Second, the fervor currently seen among conservatives must be transferred to the elections. True the Republican Party has violated our trust time after time, but it unfortunately still is the best vehicle to get conservative candidates elected. There has been a lot of talk about forming a third party, but that has been tried by both the right and left several times to no avail. There is no other nationally organized party that has the ability to do so. Conservatives should take a lesson from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party who have taken control of the party and eventually led their party to total control of the legislative process of the federal government that we have today. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. We conservatives need to take control of the Republican Party from those who want candidates to mirror the beliefs those of the Democratic Party solely to be “inclusive” and loved by all. For proof of what moving towards a more “moderate” position will do for the party, look at what happened electorally after Teddy Roosevelt and the Congressional Republicans went “moderate” and later refused to support a conservative candidate and 2008 with Bush and Congressional Republicans as they were looking more like Democrats than Republicans.
Third, this fervor must be maintained in the long term. Those in the media, the Democratic Party, and the Republican national party understand that the conservatives of the country periodically wake up and raise complete hell when things get bad enough but then lose interest and go back to their daily lives of working to feed the insatiable appetite of the federal and state governments. So if the conservatives can be patted on the head and endured long enough or cowed by being called racists, bigots, homophobes, etc. they will go away and then things go back to the way it was. (Remember opposition to healthcare reform and the tea parties have also garnered ridicule and derision from some in the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party apparatus.) The most radical of liberals have been extremely patient and look where it has gotten them. A President and Congress who believe like they do and are willing to push their agenda regardless of what the majority of Americans want. This is a lesson that conservatives need to learn. The country did not get this way overnight and therefore things will not change overnight. It will take time with setbacks and disappointments along the way. But only by staying the course will we be successful.
You may be saying this is all well and good but how do conservatives go about accomplishing this and turning the direction of the country back towards what the Founder’s had intended and is in line with the Constitution.
First of all, you and all of your conservative friends need to become very active in the local party. Don’t know of any? Then maybe it is time to get to know your neighbors, friends, and co-workers on a political level. You don’t have to walk up and say something like, “hey George, what are your political beliefs” or “what is your opinion on healthcare reform?” This can cause some awkward moments and potentially turn off the individual or cause an unnecessary argument should they be a liberal. If you talk to someone long enough you can generally tell what they believe from comments they make whether or not it is regarding political issues. You may be surprised how many around you are conservative but keep that fact to themselves out of fear of ridicule and derision from others. Once you start finding the conservatives around you then get together and become highly active in the local political world. Start out at the county level first and then focus at the state level. Yes this will take some time out of your already busy schedule, but if you think something is important enough you will find the time. While you are at it, make it a family affair. It is never too early to get your kids involved in learning the political process. It is a good way to counter the indoctrination that they will receive at school and from Hollywood. Remember that the Republican Party is still a bottom up organization. If enough county and state parties can be brought around to return to conservative principles then it will flow up to the national level. This includes making sure those who are elected to the executive boards of these county and state parties are of a type that can be effective in a public relations role. Remember that the impression that the leader presents flows over the entire organization. If the voters truly understood what conservatives believe rather than the intentionally misleading image presented by the media, many would realize that they agree with conservative principles more than that of the liberals.
Second, those in the state parties should not be afraid to recruit conservative candidates to run in the primaries against an incumbent that is out of step ideologically with conservative values or cannot stand solidly on their values after election. One way the ruling “moderates” of the party maintain power is to admonish/threaten the state and county parties not to have challengers to the incumbents or to put forth too conservative of a candidate. The argument is that by having a robust primary election it will damage all of the candidates to the point that the winner in the primaries will not be viable in the general election or that it will appear that the party is in disarray. You bet the party is in disarray! Those who we have elected to take our values and concerns to Washington D.C. have done nothing but stab us in the back repeatedly and we are TIRED of it! By taking this advice from the national party, it keeps their friends and themselves firmly in control of the party apparatus which means nothing will change. Therefore, it is imperative that the executive committees at the country and state levels are of such a character that they will do what is right and not cave to the self-serving interests of those at the national level.
Third, don’t get frustrated and quit if things don’t change right away. Remember that, like Rome, the situation we are in currently wasn’t built in a day. If you don’t get the perfect conservative candidate the first go around, support the best candidate available and then hold their feet to the fire. If they produce acceptable results, re-elect them. If not, get someone else to do the job. The trick to this is to be consistent. One time of letting things slide will open the door to going back to the way things were whether it is caving to national or re-electing someone that did not hold up to conservative ideals. If a candidate or the national party sees consistency in holding the line then they are more likely to tread lightly. There is nothing more worrisome to a candidate than knowing what the consequences will be should they do something that their constituents and supporters are not happy with. On the other hand, there is nothing more liberating to a candidate than knowing that regardless of what they do their constituents will re-elect them anyway. Why do you think some of those in Congress feel safe in ridiculing and attacking their constituents when they speak up in opposition to proposed policies or legislation?
The same goes for changes in direction in policy. Again America got to where it is over many decades and it won’t turn around in a day, year, or a single election cycle. It will take time and patience. As one looks at the political history, the liberal factions of this country have done a good job advancing their agenda through patience and longsuffering. It started with Wilson, continued with FDR’s New Deal, Truman’s solidifying New Deal programs permanently, LBJ and his Great Society, Clinton who made some strides for the liberal agenda but failed on healthcare, and now Obama who may just be the one to get many of the past policy failures put into place due to having liberal Democrats control Congress. Liberals know they will not get it all at once and are willing to wait years to make the next policy or program implementation or advancement of their agenda.
Another reason for patience is because of the special interest lobbies and the bureaucracy involved at the federal level. Special interest lobbies, while in many ways are a necessary evil, are well funded and enticing to elected officials to fall into line. Some of this issue can be dealt with through some common sense campaign finance reform. Then there is the bureaucracy problem. The bureaucrats know that the elected officials will one day be gone or distracted by another pressing issue and if they drag their feet long enough they won’t be forced to change anything they do. If that doesn’t work, then the old excuse generator goes to work long enough to wear down elected officials to the point that they give up.
Finally, this country has become so dependent on handouts from the federal level, whether it is welfare for individuals/families or welfare for the states that shutting off the money spigot all at once will cause some major economic issues nationally. But a slow, organized, and deliberate reversal of the welfare state can be accomplished. The only caveat is that there must be a very well organized campaign to explain to the American people why this needs to be done and who will be affected. There must already be in place rebuttals when the left and their media allies start the personal attacks about how conservatives are trying to kill old people and starve children. If it is done correctly, I believe that it will work over time. In conjunction to this, there must be jobs or educational opportunities available for those who will be displaced off of the welfare rolls. I would rather see a Civilian Conservation Corps than just regular welfare payments sent to those who are capable of working and/or going to school. What should be left is the infrastructure to help those who are truly in need or unable to provide for themselves. Oh by the way, just because someone has a handicap doesn’t automatically mean they are unable to provide for themselves. I have a deaf sister and hard of hearing brother-in-law who currently make more than I do. They refuse to let the fact that they have hearing issues stop them for succeeding.
The time is right for another conservative revolution in Congress. But it is up to us conservatives to see that it happens effectively. Should candidates or incumbents that do not hold up our values be sent back to D.C. nothing has changed. Is it better than what we have now? Maybe, but America will still be going down the same road just a little slower. What is needed right now is for those who ascribe to conservative values and beliefs to step forward and be willing to do what is necessary to begin changing the course this country is on and steer it back in the direction that the Founding Fathers had intended when they fought for their independence from Great Britain and later in drafting the Constitution we enjoy to this day.
One last thought, when things get hard and there are setbacks, and it will happen, remember that the creation of this great country was a long and arduous journey. The last sentence of the Declaration of Independence reads: “And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” Those who signed this great document and those who drafted and fought for the ratification of the Constitution willingly sacrificed a great deal and persevered against nearly impossible odds to accomplish these feats. We, as conservatives, must also be willing to make the same pledge to each other, be personally determined to persevere to the end, and rely “on the protection of Divine Providence” as well in order to labor as needed to return this great country to the direction and values that the Founding Fathers intended.
TRANSCRIPT: Obama Addresses Congress on Health Care Reform - For those of us who can't stand listening to Obama speak.
TRANSCRIPT: Obama Addresses Congress on Health Care Reform
President tells Congress he wants a health reform bill that will require people to have insurance, similar to state-based car insurance mandates.
FOXNews.com
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
PEOPLE WHO READ THIS ALSO READ
OBAMA: Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, and the American people:
When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month, credit was frozen, and our financial system was on the verge of collapse.
OBAMA: As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is still many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them.
(APPLAUSE)
Until -- until those -- until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive. Until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes.
OBAMA: That it our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we've taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on the path to recovery.
I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.
ad_icon
But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came here to build a future. So...
(APPLAUSE)
So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future, and that is the issue of health care.
I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.
(APPLAUSE)
It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform.
OBAMA: And ever since, nearly every president and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell, Sr., in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.
(APPLAUSE)
Our collective failure to meet this challenge year after year, decade after decade, has led us to the breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed and can't afford it since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer.
Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expensive to cover.
OBAMA: We are the only democracy, the only advanced democracy on Earth, the only wealthy nation that allows such hardship for millions of its people.
There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.
In other words, it can happen to anyone.
But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem for the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today.
More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance, too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.
One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.
Another woman, from Texas, was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size.
That is heartbreaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: Then there's the problem of rising costs. We spend one- and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages.
It's why so many employers, especially small businesses, are forcing their employers -- employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely.
It's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally, like our automakers, are at a huge disadvantage.
And it's why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it, about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.
Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined.
OBAMA: Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.
(APPLAUSE)
Nothing else.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, these are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how. Now, there are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would -- where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody.
On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.
I have said -- I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.
(APPLAUSE)
And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the several -- past several months. During that time, we've seen Washington at its best and at its worst. We've seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week.
OBAMA: That has never happened before.
Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses, hospitals, seniors' groups, and even drug companies -- many of whom opposed reform in the past.
And there is agreement in this chamber on about 80 percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.
But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.
Well, the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.
(APPLAUSE)
Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: Now's the time to deliver on health care.
(APPLAUSE)
Now's the time to deliver on health care.
The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals.
It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance for those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.
(APPLAUSE)
It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge -- not just government, not just insurance companies, but everybody, including employers and individuals.
And it's a plan that incorporates ideas from senators and congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans, and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.
Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan.
First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the V.A., nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.
(APPLAUSE)
Let me -- let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.
What this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most.
(APPLAUSE)
They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime.
(APPLAUSE)
We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of- pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick.
(APPLAUSE)
And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies.
(APPLAUSE)
Because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse.
OBAMA: That makes sense. It saves money, and it saves lives.
(APPLAUSE)
That's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan: more security and more stability.
Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you...
(APPLAUSE)
... if you lose your job or you change your job, you'll be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you'll be able to get coverage. We'll do this by creating a new insurance exchange, a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.
Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we give ourselves.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, for those individuals and small businesses who still can't afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we'll provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need.
OBAMA: And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned.
This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have preexisting medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill.
(APPLAUSE)
This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign; it's a good idea now, and we should all embrace it.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those, and especially the young and the healthy, who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage.
The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits.
If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors.
And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, just can't be achieved.
OBAMA: That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.
(APPLAUSE)
Likewise -- likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers.
There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can't afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements.
But...
(APPLAUSE)
But we can't have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees.
OBAMA: Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part. And while there remains some significant details to be ironed out, I believe...
(LAUGHTER)
... I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance; an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage; and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.
And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole.
Still, given all the misinformation that's been spread over the past few months, I realize -- I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight, I want to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.
Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.
Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie plain and simple.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: Now...
(APPLAUSE)
Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
(UNKNOWN): That's a lie.
(AUDIENCE BOOING) (ph)
OBAMA: That's not true.
And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up: under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, my health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system.
Now, as proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly- sponsored insurance option, administered by the government, just like Medicaid or Medicare.
So let me set the record straight here.
OBAMA: My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there's choice and competition. That's how the market works.
(APPLAUSE)
Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company.
And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly -- by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.
Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people. They do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill, they are rewarded for it.
All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."
Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that, but an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, let me -- let me be clear.
(APPLAUSE)
Let me be clear, it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.
Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government, and they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option, but they won't be. I've insisted that, like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums its collects.
But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.
OBAMA: Now, it is...
(APPLAUSE)
It's -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn't be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles.
To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it.
(APPLAUSE)
The public option -- the public option is only a means to that end, and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.
And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: For example -- for example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan.
These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that, if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice.
(APPLAUSE)
And -- and I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.
(APPLAUSE)
Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public, and that's how we pay for this plan.
Now, Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future.
(APPLAUSE)
I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit now or in the future -- period.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promise don't materialize.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for, from the Iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy.
(APPLAUSE)
I will not make that same mistake with health care.
Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care don't make us any healthier. That's not my judgment. It's the judgment of medical professionals across this country.
And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, I want to speak directly to seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.
More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years.
OBAMA: That's how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. And that...
(APPLAUSE)
That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.
The only...
(APPLAUSE)
The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies...
(APPLAUSE)
... subsidies that do everything to pad their profits, but don't improve the care of seniors.
And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, these steps will ensure that you -- America's seniors -- get the benefits you've been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pockets for prescription drugs.
(APPLAUSE)
That's what this plan will do for you. So don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut -- especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past...
(APPLAUSE)
... and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program.
OBAMA: That will not happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody.
We have long known that some places, like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania, offer high-quality care at costs below average.
So the commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system -- everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.
Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Now, much...
(APPLAUSE)
Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers.
And this reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money -- an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts.
And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long run.
Now, finally, many in this chamber, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the costs of health care.
(APPLAUSE)
Now -- there you go.
(APPLAUSE)
There you go.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So -- so -- so I'm proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know...
(APPLAUSE)
... I know that the Bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these ideas. I think it's a good idea, and I'm directing my secretary of health and human services to move forward on this initiative today.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, add it all up and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent -- but spent badly -- in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.
Now, this is the plan I'm proposing. It's a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight -- Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.
But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it.
(APPLAUSE)
I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out. And I will not...
(APPLAUSE)
And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time; not now.
OBAMA: Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most. And more will die as a result.
We know these things to be true.
That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed -- the ones who suffer silently and the ones who shared their stories with us at town halls, in e-mails, and in letters.
I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.
In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, his amazing children, who are all here tonight.
And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform -- "that great unfinished business of our society," he called it -- would finally pass.
He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things."
"What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."
One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom, and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and, yes, sometimes angry debate. That's our history.
For some of Ted Kennedy's critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their minds, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government. But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here -- people of both parties -- know that what drove him was something more.
His friend, Orrin Hatch, he knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend, John McCain, knows that. They worked together on a patients' bill of rights. His friend, Chuck Grassley, knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.
On issues like these, Ted Kennedy's passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience -- the experience of having two children stricken with cancer.
OBAMA: He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick. And he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance, what it'd be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent, "There is something that could make you better, but I just can't afford it."
That large-heartedness, that concern and regard for the plight of others is not a partisan feeling. It's not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character.
Our ability to stand in other people's shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together, that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play. And an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.
This has always been the history of our progress.
In 1935, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it.
In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down.
OBAMA: They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.
You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom.
But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited.
And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter -- that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.
That was true then. It remains true today.
I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road, to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.
But that is not what this moment calls for.
OBAMA: That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard.
(APPLAUSE)
I still believe...
(APPLAUSE)
... I still believe that we can act when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things and that here and now we will meet history's test, because that's who we are. That is our calling. That is our character.
Thank you. God bless you and may God bless the United States of America.
END
via foxnews.com
56 Standing Ovations, 1 laughing fit, 1 outburst against Obama followed by liberal boos, plenty of whining about opposition, and lots about Obama. Other than that nothing new in the way of details or substance. Why is it taking so much face time in front of the camera for Obama to sell his plan? NO ONE WANTS IT!! Besides he enjoys seeing himself on tv and hearing himself talk.
Czar backlash builds: Democrat calls for removal - Now there's bipartisanship I can agree with!
Washington is waking up.
Via the Tulsa World, Democrat Rep. Dan Boren wants the removal of all czars who have evaded the confirmation process — also expresses his opposition to Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory czar nominee (who is subject to confirmation hearings):
U.S. Rep. Dan Boren said Congress should use the power of the purse to push the Obama administration to remove so-called czars that do not go through a confirmation process.
Responding to questions during a telephonic town hall, the Oklahoma Democrat said he was glad Van Jones, who resigned over the weekend as controversy continued to build over past statements, has left his post.
Boren joined others in criticizing the growing trend to name czars to lead efforts in specific areas.
Such officials do not go through oversight hearings or a confirmation vote in the Senate.
Boren referred to them as unelected bureaucrats who do not answer to lawmakers. “It is something I have heard a lot about,’’ he said.
Even though such czars do not go through a confirmation process, Boren cited the “authority’’ that came along with the congressional control over the power of the purse.
He also singled out Cass Sunstein, who was picked by Obama to be the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget.
Boren cited Sunstein’s reported views on animal rights, adding they are out of step with those of Oklahomans.
“I don’t believe he should be appointed to anything,’’ Boren said.
Posted in: czarsSee what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
YEA!!!! There are some Democrats left. Hat tip to the Congressman!
I wish him well.
This is a very good sign.
More please.
This is The United States of America not Russia, and this country does not have czars. Get rid of them all. Now.
Dan Boren has his good points. He’s MUCH better than his uncle, David Boren.
He’s on the Board of Directors of the NRA.But, he supported the “stimulus”, he was an Obamamaniac, he supported Sonia Maria Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.
This is a good sign, but he needs to do more.
Sounds like someone very worried about his reelection prospects. I’ll believe it when I see legislation proposed, not mere hot air blown into the political ether.
What’s wrong with Sunstein, every kooks kook. I don’t see what would be the problem for the parent rat suing for catching and killing one of their kids.
Glenn Beck is talking about Cass Sunstein right now. Congress is putting the man up for confirmation today, as we speak. This is being rushed through…again, the tactic of this marxist administration. They plan to ram it through against some very strong objections. Stay tuned.
By the way, my husband and I just spent 4 days in the company of some rabid leftists. Fortunately, there were a few conservatives, but I was uncomfortable and felt somewhat intimidated. I made one small, non-confrontational comment and this lady glared at me and said, “What did you just say?” It was ugly. And this was a lady who had been very nice and friendly for two days. But as soon as I let slip I was a “conservative”, she changed toward me, and made me feel threatened. This is really bad, folks. I was so relieved to get out of there. And I won’t subject myself to that kind of scenario again!
One democrat with a conscience. WHO KNEW!
Rep. Dan Boren deserves phone calls and emails from us voicing our approval of his position because I’m sure he’s being blasted by his liberal constituents. It wouldn’t hurt for us to call our own senators and representatives asking them to push for the removal of the czars… the momentum is there, it just needs a harder push.
On September 9th, 2009 at 10:22 am, MTNEER said:
Sounds like someone very worried about his reelection prospects.Yep! It’s a great way to keep these folks in line. They ought to be reminded (on a regular basis) of who they work for!
I just followed MM’s link to Rep Jack Kingston’s bill HR 3226 that would cut off funds for “advisors” to the president who have not been confirmed by the Senate. Representative Dan Boren’s name did NOT appear among the co-sponsors of the bill. Hmmmmm…….
On September 9th, 2009 at 10:28 am, 30 pcs of silver said:
They ought to be reminded (on a regular basis) of who they work for!
30pcs, Amen to that! I wonder at what point in our history did Congressmen stop representing their constituents to Washington and start representing Washington to their constituents?
Liberals get trillions of dollars of action, conservatives get a few words. So it was in the Bush years and so it is in the time of the Obamaniacs.
Can you imagine someone trying to run their marriage like that?
“Honey,” as the husband rushes out the door, “I’ve got another big date tonight. It’ll be expensive and our budget can’t afford it, but I’ll get a raise some day. I promise. In the meantime, I love you. Bye!”Can this marriage be saved? I think not.
I hope not.Obama’s next Czar?
…not mine, but appropriate
We could have/should have predicted this. When one branch of the federal government is perceived to usurp on the powers of another, eventually there will be push back. The appointment of all of these positions under the executive branch was certainly eventually going to cause the legislative branch to respond.
Even though such czars do not go through a confirmation process, Boren cited the “authority’’ that came along with the congressional control over the power of the purse.
At least one rep on the Left is thinking about safeguarding the constitutional authority of Congress; let’s hope the others catch on fast.
On September 9th, 2009 at 10:37 am, Jet Jaguar said:
On September 9th, 2009 at 10:28 am, 30 pcs of silver said:
They ought to be reminded (on a regular basis) of who they work for!
30pcs, Amen to that! I wonder at what point in our history did Congressmen stop representing their constituents to Washington and start representing Washington to their constituents?
Jet, that’s the million dollar question. Hopefully, we’ve learned a very valuable lesson from all of this … we need to stay vigilant. Human nature being what it is and all.
“And I won’t subject myself to that kind of scenario again!”
We have your back, Happyscrap. Into the lions’ den we must go. Confrontation, at this point, is unavoidable.
I wonder at what point in our history did Congressmen stop representing their constituents to Washington and start representing Washington to their constituents?
1865, when the government went from a federal form to a national form. Since then, slowly, the national government has been seeking more and more power over the citizens and the states.
On September 9th, 2009 at 10:37 am, Jet Jaguar said:
Amen to that! I wonder at what point in our history did Congressmen stop representing their constituents to Washington and start representing Washington to their constituents?Probably about the time they stopped holding their townhalls in the townhall and started holding them in the union hall.
Great quote at Politico today:
“The true impact of congressional or party leadership is declining every day compared to the power of blogs and talk radio,” said longtime Democratic pollster Paul Maslin. “It was surprising to me that Obama and company were caught unaware by this.
Like I keep saying, our government is losing its legitimacy. A “post-pastisan” government united to defy the will of voters is doomed to fail. It could all topple in next year’s elections.
One thing is for sure, conservative ideas are very popular and the pols who embrace them, have little to fear from their party leaders and the cultural elites.
On September 9th, 2009 at 10:27 am, happyscrapper said:
I made one small, non-confrontational comment and this lady glared at me and said, “What did you just say?” It She was ugly.FIFY
Glare back and ask why she hates the Constitution so much. Guaranteed she will avert her eyes.
“Vigilance” is the word of the movement. I’ve seen it used a few times of late in this and other blogs. Vigilance also scares the beejeezuz out of the politicians. They get comfortable in their ivory tower up on the hill and forget for whom they work and from whom they derive their authority. Vigilance scares the MSM, too. They’ve forgotten the meaning of the word and have sold their collective souls for their narrow-minded cause. What shred of integrity they had left slithered away in 2008. We, the people, must maintain the vigilance. We must keep an eye on our children – know what goes on in the classroom, know the teacher, the principal, the administrators. We must become involved in our governance. Simply voting every two or four years and then settling into our comfortable lives, letting the foxes guard the henhouse will get us into the situation we face today. Vigilance is driving the tea party movement to DC this weekend. Vigilance elicits respect and/or fear from the fools on the hill. There is, indeed, a grassroots movement in this country; a low, rolling thunder that portends the coming tsunami. It is fueled by vigilance. “Vigilance” is the word of the movement.
On September 9th, 2009 at 10:42 am, DBNinKY said:
At least one rep on the Left is thinking about safeguarding the constitutional authority of Congress; let’s hope the others catch on fast.He’s defending Congressional turf against the Executive. It has nothing to do with defending Constitutional principles.
He. Is. A. Democrat.
Can we use having some of these kinds of Democrats on our side on particular issues? Of COURSE. But do not forget what they really are. They are allies of conservatives in the same way Stalin was our ally in WWII.
You have to be on constant vigil with these slicksters in the Obama administration. As a backlash against the Czars builds, look for the Obamanites to start changing the titles of these usurpers and burrow them deeper into the bowels of the White House.
But do not forget what they really are.
Agreed. But at this point, where I am faced with the complete loss or watering-down of my family’s health coverage so close to actually happening, any port in a storm.
You’re going to see a lot of rats looking for cover as it gets closer to the election next year. They’re all going to say what they think we want to hear.
We need to watch what they do, however, and call them on it. Then vote them out. Time to clean house.
I haven’t read all the comments so if this has been included, I apologize.
Congressman wants all ‘czars’ to testify
By Jordan Fabian – 09/09/09 10:11 AM ET
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) on Wednesday called for President Obama’s “czars,” or appointed high-level advisers, to testify before Congress about their “authority and responsibilities” in the executive branch.link here
punk reid of hemorrhoid fame is suppose to be behind the push to confirm sunstein the equally moronic one. pushing it thorugh a little on the shady side since reid hasn’t done an ethical thing in years.
On September 9th, 2009 at 11:17 am, Rogue Cheddar said:
On September 9th, 2009 at 10:27 am, happyscrapper said:
I made one small, non-confrontational comment and this lady glared at me and said, “What did you just say?” It She was ugly.
FIFYGlare back and ask why she hates the Constitution so much. Guaranteed she will avert her eyes.
How did you guess that she was ugly??
= Yeah, she really was. This was not the time to be confrontational because it was a social setting with family and friends. These people were friends of a distant cousin from Eugene, Oregon who was there for a visit, so we felt we needed to be “polite”. It wasn’t easy!! I’m so glad to be home.
P.S. Thanks to those of you who showed me how to put in the cute little smiley faces, etc. I will try not to drive you nuts with them!
Somebody, please stop me!!
Community Auditions song (revised)
Czar of the day, who will it be.
Your vote may hold the key.
It’s up to you.
Tell us who, will be czar of the day.On September 9th, 2009 at 11:33 am, happyscrapper said
Finally found my tip did you?
On September 9th, 2009 at 11:31 am, happyscrapper said:
This was not the time to be confrontationalIt wasn’t you who made it confrontational.
because it was a social setting with family and friends. These people were friends of a distant cousin from Eugene, Oregon who was there for a visit, so we felt we needed to be “polite”.
But apparently they didn’t.
It wasn’t easy!! I’m so glad to be home.And we’re glad to have you back.
On September 9th, 2009 at 11:33 am, happyscrapper said:
You women seem to go through a lot of emotions in a heartbeat.
What kind of world do we live in that makes it an odd occasion when someone wants to know what the hell is going on?
Our Congressman, Chet Edwards (D-TX), who I heard had been in the running for Obama’s VP, told a town hall audience that anyone who objects to Federal health insurance on a constitutional basis is a radical extremist.
Ok–I asked ages ago how to make the little smiley faces too, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…
(don’t pay that spacey no nevermind–that biotch is craaazeeee)
On September 9th, 2009 at 11:42 am, spaceycakes said:
What kind of world do we live in that makes it an odd occasion when someone wants to know what the hell is going on?We never had these problems until the Fourth Estate decided to get in bed with the government. The media used to ask the hard questions, now the people have to do it for themselves.
On September 9th, 2009 at 11:47 am, spaceycakes said:
Ok–I asked ages ago how to make the little smiley faces too, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…(don’t pay that spacey no nevermind–that biotch is craaazeeee)
I..er…um…
On September 9th, 2009 at 11:47 am, spaceycakes said:
Ok–I asked ages ago how to make the little smiley faces too, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…Make sure you put a space after the sentence then a colon(:) followed by a close parentheses())
Like this:)
I just finished breakfast with several friends, we are a mixed group of dems and republicans
For the first time I saw real anger at how Obama has bungled everything they worked to give him. Their words not mine. They see the majoritys in both house as being squandered by a tone deaf, self-importance that they claim to have not seen before now in Obama. I suggested it was always there and that we tried to tell em, but well you cna guess how that went.
It was a good time and until next week we all agreed to watch the president continue to over-expose him image this week and waste political capital. It saddened my dem friends and uplifted my hopes that finally the true face of our marxist in chief is actually being exposed to all
On September 9th, 2009 at 11:47 am, spaceycakes said:
Ok–I asked ages ago how to make the little smiley faces too, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…(don’t pay that spacey no nevermind–that biotch is craaazeeee)
Well, Spacey, it’s not that we don’t like you.
It’s just that, weeeeell, we don’t like you.we don’t like you
thought so.
I know how to make
I have not been a particular supporter of Dan Boren; not because of him, but because of the political side of his family (David Boren)and their use of politics for personal gain. However, for all you who aren’t familar with Oklahoma, Dan Boren is sandwiched between Inhofe and Coburn on the Senate side and Sullivan (Tulsa) in the first district. Dan is from the second district (mine) which is gerrymandered from the Osage, around the eastern side of Oklahoma, down to “little Dixie” (heavily conservative Democrat). All but Dan are Republicans and not RINOS. All are conservative, including Dan.
Oklahoma has a long history of getting rid of politicos that go to Washington and turn left. We also have a history of getting rid of politicos that are so far right as to be embarrassing to the state. We also have a history of ssupporting moderates and conservatives of all races and genders from either party.
Dan Boren is doing what his constituents want. I am coming around to him more every day. However, he is part of the Democrat caucus and as such abets taking power from conservatives. Dan initially did not have town hall meetings because he “knew what his constituents wanted”. I once took this in a perjorative manner, but since have ascertained that he did indeed know what his constituents wanted. He did have a few meetings anyway, which, I am sure reinforced his knowledge of what his constituents wanted.
Oklahoma started out socialist and populist. That lasted until Truman – Johnson. We have voted conservative ever since. However, we still have a few inane liberals that like to write letters to editors, but we mostly use them for humor and entertainment.
On September 9th, 2009 at 12:18 pm, spaceycakes said:
I know how to make
(Just in case you haven’t seen something similar.)
Dan Boren doesn’t like Czars. I wonder how he feels about Nepotism?
On September 9th, 2009 at 12:18 pm, spaceycakes said:
You know who your friends are
2009 at 12:19 pm, Old Country Boy said:
So nice to see another Okie on here. Ditto on your comments. Our conservative roots run deep and the fact that we are proud of them sets us apart from other states. My transplanted Michigander husband mentioned last night how proud he is to be an “Okie!”
wooHOOOOO
Feels good to be on board.
I was tired of the short bus.
DNC/Obama motto
RUN AS A CENTRIST…
GOVERN AS A SOCIALIST!On September 9th, 2009 at 12:32 pm, spaceycakes said:
wooHOOOOOFeels good to be on board.
I was tired of the short bus.
Careful now. It’s like makeup and padded bras. A little goes a long way.
Rogue–allrighty then.
I use lots of one, and have no need for the other.
On September 9th, 2009 at 12:19 pm, Old Country Boy
But, I remember that looney, leftwing liberal Mike Synar. He would run as a Conservative, then vote as a liberal. We finally got rid of him when we cleaned house in ‘96.
On September 9th, 2009 at 11:37 am, Rogue Cheddar said:
On September 9th, 2009 at 11:33 am, happyscrapper said
Finally found my tip did you?Yes, Cheddar! I do believe yours was the one that broke the code for me! Thanks! I will put an extra pile of Parmesano/Reggiano on my hot dish tonight in your honor.
I love the eye roll!
You may have noticed that it doesn’t take much to entertain me.
Did anyone listen to Glenn Beck this a.m.? Sounds like something BIG is coming down the pike soon. Maybe tomorrow. He always delivers, so I am getting the popcorn ready.
Spacey – you’re a hoot, smiley art or not.
Hi Happy, this is the ‘Other Happy’ and yes, I’m listening to Beck here at work (our family business).
I just emailed my Senators and let them know that even though I am a vegetarian and animal lover, Cass Sunstein takes the animal rights issue too far and that such and unbalanced approach makes him unqualified to supervise regulations for the “people.” I hope they got the pun.
On September 9th, 2009 at 1:35 pm, happy2behere said:even though I am a vegetarian
My eldest daughter is almost 40 now and decided to become vegetarian while still in junior H.S. Her problem is that she doesn’t like tofu or mushrooms, but LOVES cheese. You get the picture. She is overweight (just a little). I think we have more vegetarians in our immediate family than most, and I don’t know why. As for me, I eat meat a few times a week, but don’t need much! The only time I fix a big steak is when Obama tells us not to. Stay happy, and I will too!
proud to be a ‘hoot’–I’ve been called much worse. But let’s leave family out of this…
On September 9th, 2009 at 10:27 am, happyscrapper said:
I made one small, non-confrontational comment and this lady glared at me and said, “What did you just say?”
You should have repeated yourself, quite loudly and slowly as if she were deaf or slow. It might not have defused the situation, but it would have amused most everyone else.
ECS
You fellow Oklahomans may remember David Walters who ran for Governor in 1990. He managed to mortgage his house for 10 times its value and used that money to get elected. It was illegal and he did get caught but still became Governor. Later he held a $25,000 a plate dinner and used those funds to pay off that mortgage. Campaign finance reform at its best. Democrats able to give $25k to their candidate skirting the legal limit of $1,000. At that time there were also 200+ Corporation commissioners indicted for fraud based on kickbacks from contractors. Mr Anthony from CR Anthony was instrumental in bringing them down. JC Watts was in the middle of that but escaped indictment. David Boren was right in the middle of all that too.
I think Walters pleaded guilty to some lower crime and did not run for reelection but he bought it the first time. Follow the money.
Before we get a bazillion posts on the corrupt democratic OK politics, we put Walters in jail, Harris is now sort of living on a reservation in Arizona I think, after he was removed from office. A bunch of commissioners were jailed. A long term EX senator from little dixie is still fighting to stay out or get released from jail. Most of this was the left over from the socialist – to – conservative movement. Now if the rest of you could do that for the federal government, we would all be happy.
By the way, Oklahoma had some very honest and respected democrat politicians – speaker of the house Carl Albert from Bug Tussle (in little dixie), James R. Jones and the David Boren (now OU president). In Oklahoma, the university presidencies are reserved for ex-governors or high ranking people in the Dem party. If we have a retiring ex-governor and no university, they create one for him. (sarc)
Hmm.. Walters pleaded guilty to a misdemeaner campaign violation and was given a 1 year deferred sentence.
A reference to a “deferred sentence” is normally to a sentence where, if the defendant successfully completes a period of probation, the charge is dismissed without a conviction being entered. The result is that the person can truthfully deny having been convicted of the underlying criminal offense.
If the defendant violates the terms of that probation, the conviction is entered and they are sentenced on the charge.
He didn’t go to jail for campaign finance violations. I believe his jail time was for insurance fraud. I think its safe to say he was a little bit of a crook but was able to parlay that criminal activity into a Governorship. Not a bad trade off. 1 year deferred sentence as described above for 4 years as Governor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
