Please listen to this video and send out to all. Send letters and call Congress reminding them that they are making themselves unnecessary to this power-hungry federal administration!!!!!

Once it has all the power, it no longer needs Congress and they are completely expendable!Summary: Barney Frank came out end of last week ( after Congress left town ) and introduced the Bill for the Government to take over the Financial Services Industry. What does it do?

1. Makes Bailouts permanent whereby the President no longer has to go to Congress anymore, he can go directly to the Treasure Secretary and ask for any amount of money to give to ANYONE he wants.

2. Massive job killer3. Massive government takeover besides health care and cap and trade.Because we ALL make financial transactions it will all be controlled by government and will ration capital and the government will decide who gets it!

They will have a 5 person Oversight Board that will oversee the entire United States Financial Industy and ACORN or an ACORN like organization will be one of those 5 people.They are voting on this in the House today, so that means we must now focus on the Senate.Bachman is begging for us to call , to melt the phone lines, to go to district office.

To get perspective:They have calculated that in July of 2009, the government had already taken over 30% of the economy. Add Health Care at 18%, another 15% for the Financial Services Industry which is ALMOST 70% OF THE ECONOMY IN 18 MONTHS!! (That my friends is a fascist/communist country! This is not what our founding fathers gave us!)

Well this just proves again, when you try to bypass the Constitutional process something may bite you back. The EPA ruling was an attempt at an end run about the Constitutional process of 2/3 of the Senate ratifying any treaty that Obama might sign in Copenhagen. The EPA ruling was an obvious stunt by Obama to put a feather in his cap when he goes to Copenhagen and it may have just backfired on him in the America. Congress should be up in arms at the president attempting to bypass them……..AGAIN! (remember the czars and Senate approval prescribed by the Constitution?) There’s some great insight and info about the Clean Air Act that the EPA must follow:

The EPA’s Carbon Bomb Fizzles

The administration has given a skittish Congress another reason not to pass cap and trade.

In the high-stakes game of chicken the Obama White House has been playing with Congress over who will regulate the earth’s climate, the president’s team just motored into a ditch. So much for threats.

The threat the White House has been leveling at Congress (that’s what it is~a threat) is the Environmental Protection Agency’s “endangerment finding,” which EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson finally issued this week. The finding lays the groundwork for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions across the entire economy, on the grounds that global warming is hazardous to human health.(Science does not back this up, as far as a slight warming being hazardous~quite the opposite. Just a slight warming would benefit plants and humans.)

From the start, the Obama team has wielded the EPA action as a club, warning Congress that if it did not come up with cap-and-trade legislation the EPA would act on its own (kind of like a thug or bully would do)—and in a far more blunt fashion than Congress preferred. As one anonymous administration official menaced again this week: “If [Congress doesn't] pass this legislation,” the EPA is going to have to “regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

The thing about threats, though, is that at some point you have to act on them. The EPA has been sitting on its finding for months, much to the agitation of environmental groups that have been upping the pressure for action.

President Obama, having failed to get climate legislation, didn’t want to show up to the Copenhagen climate talks with a big, fat nothing. So the EPA pulled the pin. In doing so, it exploded its own threat.

Far from alarm, the feeling sweeping through many quarters of the Democratic Congress is relief. Voters know cap-and-trade is Washington code for painful new energy taxes (Which translates to continued high unemployment). With a recession on, the subject has become poisonous in congressional districts. Blue Dogs and swing-state senators watched in alarm as local Democrats in the recent Virginia and New Jersey elections were pounded on the issue, and lost their seats.

Industry groups are gearing up for a legal onslaught; and don’t underestimate their prospects. The leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit in England alone are a gold mine for those who want to challenge the science underlying the theory of manmade global warming.

But the EPA’s legal vulnerabilities go beyond that. The agency derives its authority to regulate pollutants from the Clean Air Act. To use that law to regulate greenhouse gases, the EPA has to prove those gases are harmful to human health (thus, the endangerment finding). Put another way, it must provide “science” showing that a slightly warmer earth will cause Americans injury or death. Given that most climate scientists admit that a warmer earth could provide “net benefits” to the West, this is a tall order.

Then there are the rules stemming from the finding. Not wanting to take on the political nightmare of regulating every American lawn mower, the EPA has produced a “tailoring rule” that it says allows it to focus solely on large greenhouse gas emitters. Yet the Clean Air Act—authored by Congress—clearly directs the EPA to also regulate small emitters.

This is where green groups come in. The tailoring rule “invites suits,” says Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.), who has emerged as a top Senate watchdog of EPA actions. Talk of business litigation aside, Mr. Barrasso sees “most of the lawsuits coming from the environmental groups” who want to force the EPA to regulate everything. The agency is going to get hit from all directions. Even if these outsiders don’t win their suits, they have the ability to twist up the regulations for a while.

Bottom line: At least some congressional Democrats view this as breathing room, a further reason to not tackle a killer issue in the run-up to next year’s election. Mr. Obama may emerge from Copehagen with some sort of “deal.” But his real problem is getting Congress to act, and his EPA move may have just made that job harder.

Online.WSJ.com

This is absolutely disgusting…..what kind of parent would want their children to see this? This an article from onemillionmoms.com CBS has gotten 24,000 emails to date voicing their disgust with this ad. Help them to raise this to 50,000 complaints.

CBS airs perverted ‘Frosty the Snowman’ Ad

CBS airs perverted ‘Frosty the Snowman’

CBS has combined the raunchy television show “How I Met Your Mother” with the children’s holiday classics “Frosty the Snowman” and “Frosty Returns” in an ad on CBS’s website.

The disgusting result was the video “Frosty the Inappropriate Snowman,” in which Neil Patrick Harris’s voice (in character from the sitcom “How I Met Your Mother”) was dubbed over Frosty footage.

Harris’ Frosty said things like, “We’ve got to have a bros’ night at a strip club” because it’s “healthy” and “harmless.” He also discussed his “porn collection” and “the Dominator 8000 – the best bull whip on the market.”

Well-known scenes of the classic Frosty delighting children by coming to life were perverted by the ad which included Frosty saying, “I have been with a lot of women. Blondes. Brunettes. Redheads. Big boobs. Small boobs. Medium boobs. Some boobs that were big but kind of in a bad way.”

WARNING: Don’t let children see this video:

The new, crude snowman also encouraged the white rabbit in the movie to have sexual fantasies: “You should have hit that. Dude, your pants were already off. You had a classroom full of people to cheer you on. And you can’t knock her up because it’s a dream.”

The voiceovers also included lines showing “Frosty’s” willingness to punch anyone – “I’ll punch a baby. I don’t care.” – and his delight in “scoring front row seats to a lethal injection.”

TAKE ACTION

Please send CBS an email letter urging the network to pull this disturbing “Frosty” ad immediately.
Send Your Letter Now!

NOTE: If you see a commercial or program which is offensive, email us the information. Many of you have done this, and it is very helpful.

What? Obama ran his presidential campaign to stop the war in Iraq. Now he’s accepting the Nobel Peace Prize as a “war president”? Yep! He also said he’d make government more transparent, but a lot of the health care plan is being discussed behind closed doors and he said he was against the Patriot Act, but now he’s extended it instead of letting it expire. So it’s beginning to appear that whatever Obama says, the opposite is the truth.

Obama to accept peace prize as war president

US President Barack Obama, seen here atthe White House, will accept his Nobel peace prize this week as a war president, and will address the awkward timing of his Afghan troop surge announcement head on, the White House said Monday.

AFP – President Barack Obama will accept his Nobel peace prize this week as a war president, and will address the awkward timing of his Afghan troop surge announcement head on, the White House said Monday.

Obama will leave for Oslo on Wednesday and accept the surprise award the next day, on a delicate mission on which he must juggle the status of the prize with his so far limited foreign policy record.(Not to mention he got the nomination just one month after taking office and had done nothing yet and had ran on stopping the war, not expanding it.)

“We’ll address directly the notion, I think, that many have wondered, which is the juxtaposition of the timing for the Nobel Peace Prize and his commitment to add more troops into Afghanistan,” said Obama’s spokesman Robert Gibbs.

“That’s obviously something that he will address,” Gibbs said. Asked whether Obama would accept the prize as a “war president,” Gibbs replied “Exactly.”

The choice of Obama as Nobel peace laureate, and his Afghan troop decision, has sparked anger among some critics and spurred activists to plan demonstrations in Oslo which have prompted a massive security operation.

Earlier, in Norway, Benjamin Endre Larsen, the head of umbrella organization Fredsinitiativet organising a demonstration, told AFP “the Peace Prize creates obligations.”

“The decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan is sad and cynical and this shows that Obama has not understood his obligations.”

“We think that Obama received the prize prematurely, but now that he has it he has to prove himself worthy,” he added.

The Norwegian government has earmarked 92 million kroner (10.9 million euros, 16 million dollars) to cover security needs during Obama’s visit — more than 10 times the prize money awarded to the Peace Prize laureate.

France24.com

Here’s a great article about what will probably be the next battle against Obamacare.

The States Will Be the Next Battlefield in the Fight Over ObamaCare

by Brian Garst

Right now the battle over government-run health care is centered in Washington D.C. Numerous protests have been held at the Capital, including the massive 9.12 Project march, where hundreds of thousands traveled from all over the country to protest excessive spending, bailouts, and big government proposals for reforming healthcare. Another ten thousand showed up in November for a “House Call” protest, arranged on very short notice, specifically targeting healthcare legislation pushed by Democrats. These same activists are also burning up the phones before every major vote. Despite the unprecedented strength of this small government uprising, we must face the very real possibility that, while these protests will no doubt keep participants motivated leading up to the next election, they may not be enough to stop passage of ObamaCare. Depending on the outcome of today’s fight, tomorrow’s could very well be at the state level, and eventually in the courts.

According to the American Legislative Exchange Council, lawmakers in 24 states have at least pledged to introduce legislation modeled after their Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which nullifies an individual mandate to purchase federally approved health insurance. This amounts to a bold reassertion of the 10th Amendment, that long ignored protection of state sovereignty against federal infringement. Thirteen of these states have already filed or pre-filed constitutional amendments to protect the rights of individuals to make their own healthcare decisions.

One of these states is Arizona, where voters will decide the issue by statewide ballot in 2010. When voting on the Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, citizens of the Grand Canyon State will have an important opportunity to take the lead in fighting federal overreach. A similar measure was only narrowly defeated — by 8,000 votes out of over 1.8 million cast — in 2008. Given the extreme likelihood that the 2010 electorate as a whole will be in a more anti-Obama mood than the one that swept him into office in 2008, there is reason for optimism that the measure will pass.

So what happens if Arizona, or any other state, passes such an amendment? Unfortunately, that is unlikely to be the end of it. ObamaCare supporters will quickly challenge the amendment in court, lest other states be tempted to follow suit and protect their citizens and healthcare markets from federal control.

The Constitution is fairly clear on this question. The federal government has a limited set of enumerated powers, while everything  else is reserved to the states and the people. None of these powers includes the ability to force people to purchase health insurance, or anything else for that matter. Sadly, modern Constitutional jurisprudence is far removed from the document it is purportedly based on. By consistently misinterpreting the commerce and general welfare clauses, the courts have allowed significant extra-constitutional growth of the federal government over the course of the nation’s history.

Despite this state of affairs, there is some hope that even a court system based on the flawed constitutional understanding of modern jurisprudence will balk at the audacity of ObamaCare. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service acknowledged that, “it is a novel issue whether Congress may use [the commerce] clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service.” And when this same issue arose in 1993 during the HillaryCare battle, the Congressional Budget Office found the mandate to be “unprecedented,” noting that, “the government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” Still, lacking any Supreme Court precedent, a potential legal battle could go either way.

There can only be a legal battle, however, if the states and the people first reassert their sovereignty.

In order to insure that happens, activists should fight not just in Washington D.C., but also in the legislatures of their home states. Don’t just call Nancy Pelosi — who doesn’t care — or some moderate Senator who can be bought off by a few hundred million dollars in pork, but also call your state representative and tell him or her that you want an amendment to protect the rights of citizens to decide what, if any, insurance they want to purchase.

Many lawmakers across the U.S. are already sticking out their necks by standing up against a federal takeover of the healthcare industry. Legislators from 15 states held a press conference on Dec. 4th to unveil a letter, signed by over 100 lawmakers from 45 states, opposing ObamaCare. We must now put pressure on their colleagues to join them. If elected officials in Washington D.C. cannot be counted on to fulfill their duty to pass only those laws within their constitutional authority, then we have no choice but to look elsewhere to recapture our rights.

BigGovernment.com

Do tell! Well today we have more insanity from the Obama administration. Just before going to Copenhagen he does something to get a feather in his hat. Since they haven’t even started on the Cap & Trade bill yet Obama needed something before the Climate Summit at Copenhagen. So as if we didn’t know CO2 is hazardous to our health. Duh! Just another way to kill any recovery of the economy and small businesses. Who’s side is this man on?

Obama and crew will not wait for the outcome of Copenhagen or the passage of the Waxman-Markey climate bill, predicted for 2010 at the earliest. Obama will declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant this week.

We exhale carbon dioxide. Does that mean that we will  have to register with the government as being a polluting entity? Plants grow faster with more co2 and  they need less water and can stand higher temperatures. What is amazing  is that co2 compared to all other gases in the atmosphere only comprises .054% of the all gasses available. (That’s 45 thousandths of 1%)

The Environmental Protection Agency has declared carbon dioxide dangerous (duh!) and this will probably result in the government requiring businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other “greenhouse gases” to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions. Congress need not be consulted and no law need be enacted.

An EPA “endangerment finding” would allow the federal agency to use the federal Clean Air Act to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions.

EPA action would signal to the United Nations, the Copenhagen globalists and their phalanx of NGOs that Obama is serious about eliminating carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sending western civilization back to the Dark Ages.

Business Fumes Over Carbon Dioxide Rule by EPA

An “endangerment” finding by the Environmental Protection Agency could pave the way for the government to require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions — even if Congress doesn’t pass pending climate-change legislation. EPA action to regulate emissions could affect the U.S. economy more directly, and more quickly, than any global deal inked in the Danish capital, where no binding agreement is expected.

Many business groups are opposed to EPA efforts to curb a gas as ubiquitous as carbon dioxide.

China’s factory chimneys pour out smoke in Shanghai, China.Despite a global economic slump, worldwide carbon dioxide pollution jumped 2 percent last year, most of it from China, new figures show. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko, File)

An EPA endangerment finding “could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said in a statement. “The devil will be in the details, and we look forward to working with the government to ensure we don’t stifle our economic recovery,” he said, noting that the group supports federal legislation.

EPA action won’t do much to combat climate change, and “is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy,” said the National Association of Manufacturers, a trade group that stands as a proxy for U.S. industry.

EPA action would give President Barack Obama something to show leaders from other nations when he attends the Copenhagen conference on Dec. 18 and tries to persuade them that the U.S. is serious about cutting its contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions.

The oil industry has warned that climate legislation could force some U.S. refineries to shut down, because importing gasoline from countries without emission caps could be cheaper than making the gasoline on domestic soil.

The issue of how curbing emissions would affect jobs in developed countries (like India & China which are the worse polluters) is likely to erupt in Copenhagen in the battle over how much rich countries should pony up for cleaner technologies in developing nations.(again like India & China~spreading the wealth)

The vast majority of increased greenhouse-gas emissions is expected to come from developing countries such as China and India, not from rich countries like the U.S. But developing countries have made it clear that their willingness to reduce growth in emissions will depend on what rich countries do first. That puts a geopolitical spotlight on the U.S.

online.WSJ.com

The Manhattan Declaration

A Call of Christian Conscience

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Letter: Sign the Christian manifesto called Manhattan Declaration

Has anyone heard this yet? Along with this:

“All of the subsidy for health care falls away when your income is at 59,000 and that’s joint income. It doesn’t take a lot for two wage earners to get up to 59,000 so at 58,000 a person receives full government subsidy on health care. At 59,000 most likely your employer paid health care goes away, you have to purchase it in the private market and people could be looking at anywhere from 12 to 20 thousand dollars non-tax free money in purchasing private health care. That would be a disaster for Middle America. At 59,000 the health benefits go away.”

In addition to this: “Based on a model developed by Obama’s  Council of Economic Advisors Chair Christina Romer, it is estimated that some 4.7 million jobs could be lost as a result of taxes on businesses that cannot afford to provide health insurance coverage.”

Obama health care plan projected to cost 5.2 million jobs.

And the current idea for mandating employers to insure employees or pay a fine would cost employers $49 billion dollars. Do You Want Universal Healthcare?

Obama health care plan projected to cost 5.2 million jobs

In an interview on Fox News on August 27th Mark Wilson of Applied Economic Strategies made the economic case against the current plan for health care reform.

Michele Bachmann says the same thing at about 5:20 into this interview below.

He said the current idea for mandating employers to insure employees or pay a fine in the form of a tax would cost employers $49 billion dollars and cause the loss of an additional 5.2 million jobs. In addition wages would be “stunted” for another 10.2 million wage earners.

This seems like a high cost to make sure that everyone is covered. Doesn’t it make more sense to lower costs of health care and health care insurance and keep the quality? Americans that are insured are happy with their coverage and their health care.

We do need to lower the costs, because the cost to purchase insurance is escalating and Medicare costs are crippling the budget. Reform is needed but not government control or the proposed public option. Here are some things to consider.

Deficit
Government spending is out of control. Spending that is likely to trigger inflation as we begin to come out of this recession. It was announced this week that in the next decade the deficit is going to be$2 trillion more than originally projected. We cannot afford any more expensive entitlements that we don’t have a definitive plan to pay for.

Insurance Companies
High costs are not caused by private insurance companies. Medicare costs per insured are actually higher than private insurance companies. Reform the industry by allowing competition across state lines. In some regions there is a virtual monopoly. Allow companies to offer comprehensive or catastrophic coverage. Take other measures such as tort reform to lower costs so people can afford to buy their own policy. Don’t undercut the industry with a cheaper public option designed to undermine the industry and put them out of business. The public option is the first step to a government take over of the system or a single payer system.

Free Market Economy
The government does not have the incentive to cut costs. Private business wants to make a profit. The more they cut costs the more profit they will make, so they have an incentive to cut costs. Private companies including insurance companies are more likely to cut costs, provide customer service, and innovation in care. The profit motivation is a powerful one.

The American people are ready to reform the system to lower costs, let’s not sacrifice the quality or our freedom in the process. Let’s not let the current economic “crisis” to drive through another bill the American people don’t want and won’t solve the problem. If we make health care affordable many more of us will be covered, and the rest of us will have health care we can better afford. There are lots of good ideas out there, so lets not rush into any decision that will be virtually impossible to undo later.

Examiner.com

If this measure doesn’t concern you, then you just don’t see what’s happening. Our federal government since Obama took office is taking over everything from Banking,insurance companies, the auto industry and maybe soon the health insurance business. To add to that they’re being given the power to split up “healthy” companies that “appear” to be a risk of getting to big to fail. Yes you heard me right! I don’t think most people understand when your federal government is picking who succeeds and who fails that is a fascist economy plain and simple.

House Panel Approves Systemic-Risk Measure, Advancing Overhaul

A House panel approved legislation strengthening U.S. authority to police large, complex firms that pose risks to the economy, advancing the Obama administration’s effort to overhaul U.S. financial rules.

The House Financial Services Committee voted 31-27 today for a bill creating a council of regulators to monitor systemic risk, shifting the cost of a failure to the financial industry and giving regulators the power to break up healthy firms.

The legislation would give the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. the authority to dismantle systemically risky firms and merge two bank regulators, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

The legislation was amended by Representative Paul Kanjorski, a Pennsylvania Democrat, to let regulators dismantle healthy, well-capitalized financial firms whose size would threaten the economy.

The measure removes a three-decade ban on congressional audits of Federal Reserve interest-rate decisions, an amendment offered by Representative Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas who has called for the abolition of the central bank.

Another amendment creates a fund to cover the government’s costs for unwinding a failed firm. The measure puts the FDIC in charge of the fund, to be supported by fees from companies with more than $50 billion in assets that would generate as much as $150 billion.

The legislation is part of the Obama administration’s plan to overhaul U.S. rules governing Wall Street to prevent a repeat of last year’s financial market collapse, leading to more than $1 trillion in taxpayer bailout programs.(Which the government shouldn’t have done in the first place.)

The committee today began debating legislation to create a national insurance regulator, the last piece of House Financial Service Committee Chairman Barney Frank’s overhaul package. Insurers are regulated by states.

“A federal insurance office will provide national policy makers with access to the information and resources needed to respond to crises, mitigate systemic risk and help ensure a well-functioning financial system,” said Kanjorski, sponsor of the legislation.

Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said the panel would vote on the insurance legislation later today, and the full House would begin debate on the regulatory legislation on Dec. 9.

Business Week.com

Well this is some good news for a lot of Tennesseans.I think he knows there’s a good chance he wouldn’t win in 2010. I’m not so sure about Roy Herron replacing him.

Rep. John Tanner Retiring: Herron Running

Longtime Congressman Not Running For Office In 2010

Tennessee U.S. Rep. John Tanner will retire next year after 11 terms in Washington.Tanner was first elected to the 8th district representing rural northwestern Tennessee in 1988 and has not faced a serious challenge since.Republicans claim Tanner’s departure is due to a potentially tough re-election race next year, as the GOP targets Democrats in rural districts.Early Wednesday morning, State Sen. Roy Herron announced he will run for Tanner’s seat.In a statement, Herron said, “Given the challenges facing this nation, this state, and this congressional district, I feel like I can help make a difference by serving in Congress.Herron told the Associated Press he was dropping out of the 2010 Tennessee governor’s race for the congressional campaign.”In the morning, instead of campaigning in 95 counties, I’ll be focused on the counties in the 8th Congressional District,” the AP reported Herron said.Herron’s own press release early Wednesday morning stated, “You deserve a much fuller explanation of my decision than I can give at this late hour. I will be back in touch with you soon to share more. For now, I respectfully ask for your consideration, your support and your prayers.”

WSMV.com