Let’s keep those pink slips coming and hope for once they can get the message loud and clear. WE DON’T LIKE WHAT YOUR DOING & IF YOU CONTINUE IT WE WILL REPLACE YOU IN 2010 !
Boxed and ready to go
Pink Slip Tidal Wave Hitting Washington D.C.
The surge of pink slips being sent to Congress to warn members against more spending, taxing and government continued today, with the total number surpassing 6 million – of which 1 million have been dispatched in just the last 48 hours or so.
“It’s an amazing feat, to get that many slips to Congress,” Rep. Steven King, R-Iowa, told WND. “If you look through them, you can index each one back to an individual. That’s powerful. There is a person behind each one of the slips.”
“This is putting everyone on notice,” he said. “And I think this is what the American people have been doing for months now, saying if you keep spending and borrowing, you’re going to get fired.”
“Our goal from the beginning was to generate 5 6 million of these notices,” said Farah. “But it now appears we might just be getting started.”
Bachmann cheered the program on, saying she agrees with the campaign and that it is having a major impact on her colleagues. She said she was surprised that so many pink slips were generated even though most Americans had never heard of the program.
She said it’s clear the message – delivered through a stack of “pink slips” now standing more than five feet high in congressional offices – is getting through.
The “pink slips” remind members of Congress they actually work for the taxpayers and list four governmental plans that are unacceptable:
government health care
cap and trade
“hate crimes”
any more uncontrolled spending
“If you vote for any of these, your real pink slip will be issued in the next election,” it warns.
Well here we go again, just as his predecessor G.W., Obama will push for amnesty for illegals. So making sure illegals aren’t covered in the new health care bill is more smoke and mirrors, because they won’t be illegals anymore.
Napolitano Announces Obama Administration Plan to Give Amnesty to Illegal Aliens
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Friday that the Obama administration will push for “immigration reform” by giving the estimated 14 million people who are in the United States illegally “fair pathway to earned legal status.”
“A tough and fair pathway to earned legal status will mandate that illegal immigrants meet a number of requirements—including registering, paying a fine, passing a criminal background check, fully paying all taxes and learning English,” Napolitano said Friday at a panel discussion at the liberal Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.
“These are substantial requirements that will make sure this population gets right with the law,” Napolitano said. “It will help fix our broken system.”
Napolitano said the Obama administration is working to end the recession and put Americans back to work but said giving legal status to illegal aliens will “strengthen our economy.”
“Requiring illegal immigrants to register to earn legal status, as I discussed earlier, will strengthen our economy as these immigrants become full-paying taxpayers,” Napolitano said. “As labor leaders have made clear to me, immigration reform will be a boon to American workers.
Napolitano said that she has seen a “major shift” in the immigration landscape, which the Obama administration hopes will make it easier for Congress to pass new immigration laws.
Included in that shift, Napolitano said, is a more secure border between the United States and Mexico, tougher law enforcement that has resulted in more arrests of criminal illegal immigrants and confiscation of contraband, and fewer people coming into the country illegally because of current economic conditions.
“For starters, the security of the Southwest border has been transformed from where it was in 2007,” Napolitano said. “The federal government has dedicated unprecedented resources to the Mexican border in terms of manpower, technology and infrastructure—and it’s made a real difference.
“Compared to last year, seizures in all categories—drugs, smuggled cash, and illegal weapons—are up dramatically. For example, just looking at bulk cash, Customs and Border Protection has seized at the border more than $34 million in cash being smuggled southbound so far this year—more than four times as much as at this time last year.
“Moreover, the immigration debate in 2007 happened during a period of historically high levels of illegal entry into the United States. Two years later, because of better enforcement and the current economic circumstances, those numbers have fallen sharply. The flow has reduced significantly – by more than half from the busiest years, proving we are in a much different environment than we were before.
“These are major differences that should change the immigration conversation,” Napolitano said.
The secretary said the Obama administration is “committed to this issue.”
“When Congress is ready to act, we will be ready to support them,” Napolitano said.
Well here’s another example of the 10th amendment in action as the founding fathers intended and federal nullification because of another overbearing unconstitutional bill possibly coming from Congress/Senate. Arizona has also done the same thing with their Arizona Health Care Freedom Act , the Health Care Freedom for Alaska, as well as Kansas with their Kansas Health Care Freedom Amendment. The health care vote yesterday is far from the end of things – and even when it passes the Senate (which I assume some version will), it’s still not the end of the road for freedom.
The real way to resist DC is not by begging politicians and judges in Washington to allow us to exercise our rights…it’s to exercise our rights whether they want to give us “permission” to or not.
Nullification – state-level resistance to unconstitutional federal laws – is the way forward. It’s peaceful, effective, and has along historyin the American tradition.
Better yet, we expect to see 20-25 states considering legislation to effectively ban national health care in their state in the 2010 legislative session. That same number of states has been able toeffectively prevent the Real ID Act of 2005 from being implementedwithout ever being repealed or challenged in court.
The bottom line? If you want to make real change; if you want to really do something for liberty and for the Constitution…focus on local activism and your state governments.
The Campaign for Liberty has stepped to the plate big time in Virginia, getting out ahead of the feds and finding a sponsor for the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, to be introduced in 2010.
The Act reads, in part:
Neither the Governor nor the Department of Health, the Department of Public Welfare or any other Commonwealth agency shall participate in the compliance with any Federal law, regulation or policy that would compromise the freedom of choice in health care of any resident of this Commonwealth.
Man, just copying and pasting that feels great.
Delegate Bob Marshall (VA-13) deserves credit for agreeing to carry this critical legislation. Now is the time for Virginians to start contacting their state representatives to inform them about the measure and ask for their support should ObamaCare make it out of the Senate.
Credit is also due to Delegate Charles Carrico (VA-5), who has agreed to carry the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act, which is similar to recent measures adopted in Tennessee and Montana.
In marked contrast to the health care “reform” legislation recently passed by the House, neither of these bills exceeds three pages.
This is great news for those in Virginia who still cling to the Constitution, but introducing these bills is just the beginning. Victory will require inexhaustible passion and energy since, as always, we must give our state legislators the courage to defend our freedoms.
And it will take political courage. Nancy Pelosi hasalready saidthat even if such measures pass at the state level, the federal government has the authority to impose its will upon the voters anyway.(No they don’t!) Then stick us with the bill, of course.
Try finding that one in the Constitution.
Thanks, but no thanks, Nancy.
Like the signs say: We’ll keep our money, guns, and freedom; you keep the change.
For those readers that haven’t heard how John Tanner or other representatives voted on the unconstitutional health care bill you can see all the votes here. John Tanner did the right thing and voted against the bill.
Here’s a letter from John Tanner’s office after calling him on health care. See what you think about his response. I know what I think.
Dear Mr. Davis:
Thank you for contacting our office to share your concerns with H. R. 3962, the health care reform proposal considered in the House. I have met with or heard from thousands of Tennesseans, who, like you, opposed the current legislation and others who supported it.
I continue to believe that reform of our country’s health care delivery system is needed and that all Americans should have access to affordable, quality health care. However, after careful review of the current legislation and the analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, I believe the bill will not help control the long-term costs of health care and puts in place an infrastructure that is not fiscally sustainable over time. Therefore, I was unable to support H. R. 3962.
There are many good things in this bill. We should continue our health insurance reform efforts to ensure that no one can be denied health coverage because of a pre-exiting condition and to end the insurance companies’ ability to cancel coverage when someone becomes ill. And, we simply must slow the upward curve of health care costs.
Despite my vote in opposition, H. R. 3962 passed the House by a vote of 220 to 215. The Senate is expected to consider a version of health care reform legislation in the next several weeks. Should the Senate pass its version, a House/Senate conference committee will be required to work out the differences in the two versions. Once a conference agreement has been reached, the House and Senate both will have to vote on that compromise. I plan to continue to work hard to produce a better and more cost-efficient bill that we can all support.
Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Please continue to contact me on issues of concern to you in the future.
Sincerely,
John Tanner, M.C.
Tennessee Congressman Tanner undecided on House health care bill vote this weekend
The House will begin debate on the 2000+ page, $2.4 Trillion health care bill on Friday… and plans to vote on the bill Saturday evening. (11-07-09)
According to both the Washington D.C. and Jackson, TN offices of Congressman John Tanner, Mr. Tanner is currently “reading and reviewing the bill” and has not made a decision as to how he will vote on Saturday.(Give John Tanner a call and help him make that decision to vote against this bill or vote for it and take a chance on losing his seat in the next election.)
Rep. Tanner voted against the original bill in the Ways and Means Committee. Please call and email the Congressman and encourage him to do the same this weekend!
GOP members offer amendment to force Congress to participate in public option
Five House Republicans hope to add to Democrats’ healthcare reform bill an amendment that would automatically enroll members of Congress in the public option program.
The effort, spearheaded by Reps. John Fleming (La.), Joe Wilson (S.C.), Wally Herger (Calif.), Phil Gingrey (Ga.) and Steve Scalise (La.), would bar lawmakers from participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which they currently use for health insurance. Instead, members would have to rely on the Health Insurance Exchange and the public option plan House Democrats are proposing in their latest healthcare reform effort.
“If Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi [D-Calif.] and her Democratic counterparts truly believe that their government insurance option is the best way forward for healthcare in the United States, then they should be fully supportive of amending the bill to ensure that every single member of Congress, both in the House and Senate, is enrolled in it,” explained Rep. Gingrey, who is leading the new campaign.
Many Americans think it’s great that somebody in the government is finally doing something about excessive executive pay. The recent forced pay cuts for executives at AIG, Bank of America and other companies that accepted TARP money strummed a populist chord and brought many cheering to their feet. (They are not trying to apply this to companies that didn’t even get TARP money……the government can’t do that!)
In the meantime, Barney Frank and others in Congress have proposed expanding federal oversight to companies that never took any government money.They argue that the feds should exert control over any company that may pose a “systemic risk” to the U.S. economy. (What? ….this is a free market system…..not communist!)
This represents a huge overstep of government power and a threat to basic liberty.Pay regulations place the government between employer and employee, destroying the sanctity of the private contract.
The founders of the United States understood the threat to liberty posed by a powerful government and devised a system of checks and balances to limit federal power. The Obama administration circumvents these checks by utilizing “Czars” appointed by the President without Senate confirmation or oversight.
Obama is not the first president to utilize “Czars”. The Bush administration had them as well. But the power wielded by these unaccountable appointees continues to grow. Unconstitutional actions by previous administrations do not justify the continuation of those policies and certainly shouldn’t spur us to expand such practices.
Michael W. McConnell, a law professor at Stanford University Law School and a former federal judge, wrote an outstanding piece on the constitutionality of the “Pay Czar.”
“The power to set compensation at large American businesses is especially subject to potential abuse, favoritism, arbitrariness, or political manipulation. It is no reflection on Kenneth Feinberg, who has a sterling reputation and who appears to have approached these sensitive duties with a spirit of commendable integrity, to say that the checks and balances of the Constitution should be scrupulously observed. They were not. Because he is not a properly appointed officer of the United States, Mr. Feinberg’s executive compensation decisions were unconstitutional.”
I’m glad to see this question being asked by a prominent person like Orin Hatch and I think the honest answer to this is NO forced national health care is not Constitutional. But whether a court will have the political guts to rule as such is a different matter.
Sen. Hatch Questions Constitutionality of Obamacare:
If Feds Can Force Us to Buy Health Insurance ‘Then There’s Literally Nothing the Federal Government Can’t Force Us to Do’ ( Maybe Congress should pass a law that everyone has to buy at least $10,000 worth of life insurance or buy a new car this year or buy a new HD television or a computer –where does this stuff stop? I think it stops at the question, Is this Constitutional? In this case I don’t think it is.)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) (Congressional photo)
(CNSNews.com) – Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who has served in the Senate for 33 years and is a longtime member of the Judiciary Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not believe the Democrats’ health-care reform plan is constitutionally justifiable, noting that if the federal government can force Americans to buy health insurance “then there is literally nothing the federal government can’t force us to do.”
Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care reform plan would force all individuals who are citizens or legal residents of the United States to buy health insurance. President Obama has endorsed this provision.
Hatch said if the federal government starts ordering Americans to purchase specific products without being able to plausibly justify that mandate through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce, it will mean “we’ve lost our freedoms, and that means the federal government can do anything it wants to do to us.”
The Commerce Clause, found in Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution, says: “The Congress shall have power to … regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
Hatch said this constitutional language authorizes Congress to regulate some types of commercial “activity,” which is different from authorizing Congress to force an individual American to engage in a commercial activity he or she is not presently engaged in and–as a free person–does not want to engage in. He said that “not one” of his Democratic colleagues has given a coherent constitutional argument to explain where Congress would derive the authority to do the latter.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government has never before mandated that Americans buy any good or service.
In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan formulated by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, the Congressional Budget Office studied that plan’s provision that would have forced individuals to buy health insurance and determined it was an unprecedented act.
“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO concluded. “An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”
“I think there’s a real constitutional issue there,” Hatch said on the CNSNews.com program “Online with Terry Jeffrey.”
“Well, keep in mind the General Welfare Clause hasn’t been used for years, except through the Commerce Clause–Article I, Section 8,” said Hatch. “And frankly the Commerce Clause affects, quote, ‘activities,’ unquote. And, you know, the government telling you you have to buy health insurance–mandating that you have to buy health insurance–is not an activity. That’s telling you you got to do something you don’t want to do.
“Well, let’s put it this way,” said Hatch. “If that is held constitutional–for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance–then there is literally nothing that the federal government can’t force us to do. Nothing.”
When CNSNews.com asked Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) where the Constitution authorizes Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance, Leahy would not directly answer the question, claiming that “nobody” questioned Congress’s authority to do this.
“We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?” Leahy told CNSNews.com reporter Matt Cover. ”Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was equally dismissive of the question of where the Constitution authorized Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance. When reporter Matt Cover asked her the question, she said: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs similarly dismissed the issue without directly saying where the Constitution authorized the federal government to force people to buy health insurance. When CNSNews.com White House Correspondent Fred Lucas asked Gibbs to comment on the fact that some Republicans were questioning the constitutionality of forcing Americans to buy health insurance, Gibbs said: “I won’t be confused as a constitutional scholar, but I don’t believe there’s a lot of–I don’t believe there’s a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity of what they’re commentating on.”
Hatch said that if Congress claimed the power to tell Americans what things they must buy there would be “no limit” to the power of the federal government over the lives of Americans.
Looks like more truth about the Obamacare bill will be coming out one way or the other.
Congressman Says He Now Has ‘About 40 Likeminded Democrats’ Who Will Vote to Kill Health Bill if He Doesn’t Get Floor Vote on Pro-Life Amendment
Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com yesterday that he has organized a group of “about 40 likeminded Democrats” who will vote to kill the health-care bill if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) does not allow a floor vote on his amendment to prohibit federal funds from going to insurance plans that cover abortion.Under Stupak’s plan, the approximately 40 Democrats in his camp would join with all House Republicans in voting to defeat the special House “rule” that would set the terms for debating and amending the health-care bill on the House floor when it is brought up for a final vote. If a majority of the House does not first vote to approve this rule, the health-care bill itself cannot be brought to the floor.“We will try to—we, there’s about 40 like minded Democrats like myself—we’ll try to take down the rule,” Stupak told CNSNews.com. “If all 40 of us vote in a bloc against the rule—because we think the Republicans will join us—we can defeat the rule. The magic number is 218. If we can have 218 votes against the rule, we win.”
“If you hold all 40 of your guys, how many votes do you have?” asked CNSNews.com.
“About 220,” said Stupak.
“So, you’ve got a two-vote margin there?” asked CNSNews.com
“Correct,” said Stupak.
If Stupak’s bloc of Democrats holds together against a rule, Stupak said, “They cannot bring the bill to the floor.”
Stupak’s amendment was defeated by a vote of 28 to 30 in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, when that committee was drafting its version of the health-care bill. Stupak’s serves on the committee and is chairman of its Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
Stupak said that House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter (D.-N.Y.) has told him there is “no way” her committee will write a rule that allows a floor vote on his amendment. The Democratic majority on the Rules Committee, Stupak said, acts on the direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The health care bill approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee creates health insurance “exchanges” in each state. These “exchanges” would sell government-approved health insurance plans. The bill would also provide federal subsidies to people making up to 400 percent of the poverty level to use when buying insurance plans in the exchange.
The committee approved an amendment sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (D.-Calif.) that would require that there be at least one health care plan in each exchange that covers abortions. People would be able to buy these abortion-covering insurance plans with federal subsidies, although they would also be required to pay an extra premium of at least $1 to theoretically pay for the abortion part of their coverage. Stupak and other pro-lifers—including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops–argue that money is fungible and that any federal funds going to an insurance plan that covers abortions is in fact a federal subsidy of abortion.
Stupak’s amendment–which mirrors the language of the Hyde amendment that is incorporated each year into various appropriations bills including the Health and Human Services appropriation–would prohibit federal funds from paying for any part of a health plan that covers abortions.
Stupak told CNSNews.com that although he has about 40 votes now to kill the rule for the health-care bill if Speaker Pelosi does not allow a floor vote on his amendment, he said that situation could change when the rule is brought to the floor and the voting on it actually takes place.
When the vote is going on, Stupak said, the Democratic leadership will “twist arms” and try to persuade the 40 would-be defectors to fall back in line with the party.
As you read this remember Bill Frist’s family’s notorious Columbia Health Care Company defrauding the federal government.
Bill Frist: Obama Health Plan “Is Not Socialized Medicine”
Bill Frist, the former Republican leader of the Senate, put government involvement in health care in perspective yesterday, noting that none of the bills under discussion would control over the doctors, hospitals, or tell these doctors how much they are getting paid, etc. (Oh no? the government will just dictate how much they will pay the doctors & hospitals and if they can do a procedure or not or if they can do anything for a patient based on their age………..they won’t control them though.(wink- wink))
And explained Frist, a surgeon, if the government doesn’t actually run it, or own, it ain’t socialism.(then why do they call it “government run health care?” Because the public option according to Barney Frank is the only way to get to a single payor system in America.)
Speaking on C-Span, he also raps the more extreme elements of his party for casting it that way. (Via ThinkProgress)
“What the Obama administration is doing is not socialized medicine,” Frist says. “You hear a lot of people on the extreme say that socialized medicine is going to come in and control everything. Socialized medicine is where the government owns the hospitals. They own the doctors and they decide how much people are getting paid. And that’s not what’s in these bills.”
He also has an interesting perspective on England’s socialized system, where he worked as a heart surgeon for a year, and found it not too bad. He thought we would do it better here.
I bet this is definitely one promise he won’t keep…….he wants the Hate Speech Bill too bad…..But hopefully he’ll get enough pressure to keep that promise. He has put himself in a box.
Email Obama To Veto Hate Bill and Keep His Promise
America has a golden opportunity to destroy the federal hate crimes bill, attached to the defense authorization bill. Both will soon be headed to Pres. Obama for signing.
Obama warned all spring that he will veto the defense spending bill if it asks $100 billion for extra F-35 warplane engines.
Congress is now demanding exactly that.
The American people must require Obama to keep his word and veto the defense/hate bill.
Email these two messages to the President immediately:
Mr. President, I will vote out Democrats at midterms if you sign the freedom-destroying federal hate crimes bill.
Mr. President, I expect you to keep your promise to veto any military authorization bill that wastes $100 billion of taxpayers’ money on unnecessary F-35 jet engines.
Send these two messages in separate emails. You may cut and paste them in at www.whitehouse.gov/contact or mail them to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20500.
The defense/hate bill could be on Obama’s desk by early next week. Powerful Democrats, the Anti-Defamation League, and the homosexual lobby are working hard right now to persuade Obama not to keep his promise of veto. It’s up to us to work harder to make sure he fulfills it.
Send these messages NOW!
We could lose some important free speech next week.
Steve Hilton
babybttrfly
Mike