October 23, 2009 10:47 AM
Billions of dollars are being stolen from Medicare each year. Steve Kroft spoke to one man who got caught and explained how he managed to bilk the system. 60 Minutes
Watch CBS News Videos Online
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS EXPLAIN HOW TO NOT HIRE AMERICANS TO GET GREEN CARDS FOR ILLEGALS
The following is a video from the Seventh Annual Immigration Law Update held on May 15, 2007. The information following this video is from the Cohen & Grigsby website. Among other things, this firms aids and abets illegals in gaining employment by fraudulently running ads required by the DOL in markets and then reporting to the DOL that they were not able to find any qualified Americans for the position(s) in order to push illegal immigrants into these jobs and secure them a green card. This is a sham and we all should be outraged at this.
Here's their website information: http://www.cohenlaw.com/
Taken from their website:
"IMMIGRATION
In a global economy, conducting business means that your people will pass through more than just a few time zones to get the job done. They may work on another continent at one of your worldwide locations, or they may be a native of another nation working for you here in the United States. When your business goes global, you need attorneys who are experienced in the practice of immigration law.
Cohen & Grigsby attorneys handle a broad range of issues, including inbound immigration for international employees seeking to work or live in the United States and global immigration for domestic or international employees looking to work or live abroad. Our clients include U.S. and multinational corporations, and our attorneys practice before offices of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) and U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) throughout the country. We also represent our clients at embassies and consulates around the world, and we are in direct contact with representatives of other governments on immigration-related matters.
Inbound Immigration
Emigrating to the United States involves the preparation of a host of important documents. To expedite the emigration process, our attorneys ensure that all documentation is properly prepared and filed in a timely manner. We specifically:
Assist clients in securing temporary and permanent visas for employees, their spouses, their children or other immediate relatives.
Work with clients who wish to secure U.S. citizenship.
Ensure that businesses are complying with all federal immigration and labor laws connected to the employment of foreign nationals in the United States.
Keep our finger on the pulse of the changing regulatory climate in this arena so that our clients are fully prepared to deal with new issues that affect their international employees in the U.S.
Obtain visas to facilitate international transfers.
Offer a comprehensive, accurate picture of tax implications and liability issues when companies transfer personnel internationally.
Guide human resources managers as they conduct international recruiting efforts.
Represent foreign nationals who face exclusion or deportation proceedings.
Offer representation and counsel to individuals seeking asylum in the United States.
Global Immigration
Conducting business outside the United States involves much more having employees pack a suitcase, a laptop and a passport. Companies that compete on the world stage realize that they face a host of legal hurdles when they want to recruit at an international location or move their people from here to there. Cohen & Grigsby’s global immigration services include:
Analyzing international work authorization procedures to ensure that companies are in compliance with local regulations.
Constant monitoring of changes in those procedures.
On-site training programs.
Preparation and filing of applications for business visitor visas, temporary work permits, residence permits, entry clearances, entry visas, passports and permanent residence.
Strategic planning for designing immigration program.
Value-Added Services
Cohen & Grigsby’s Immigration Practice Group also provides:
A secure website with client-specific content. Clients may access a host of immigration forms, immigration-related data and an online case tracking system that is password-protected.
A document exchange that allows our clients to manipulate, copy-edit and proof important documents electronically via e-mail. This shortens the process of preparing such documents, thereby reducing overall processing time.
Constant updates on legal issues related to immigration through Cohen & Grigsby’s online updates and newsletters.
Contact Us
Please contact any of the attorneys in our Immigration Group for your inbound or outbound immigration needs."
Here's their website information: http://www.cohenlaw.com/
Taken from their website:
"IMMIGRATION
In a global economy, conducting business means that your people will pass through more than just a few time zones to get the job done. They may work on another continent at one of your worldwide locations, or they may be a native of another nation working for you here in the United States. When your business goes global, you need attorneys who are experienced in the practice of immigration law.
Cohen & Grigsby attorneys handle a broad range of issues, including inbound immigration for international employees seeking to work or live in the United States and global immigration for domestic or international employees looking to work or live abroad. Our clients include U.S. and multinational corporations, and our attorneys practice before offices of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) and U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) throughout the country. We also represent our clients at embassies and consulates around the world, and we are in direct contact with representatives of other governments on immigration-related matters.
Inbound Immigration
Emigrating to the United States involves the preparation of a host of important documents. To expedite the emigration process, our attorneys ensure that all documentation is properly prepared and filed in a timely manner. We specifically:
Assist clients in securing temporary and permanent visas for employees, their spouses, their children or other immediate relatives.
Work with clients who wish to secure U.S. citizenship.
Ensure that businesses are complying with all federal immigration and labor laws connected to the employment of foreign nationals in the United States.
Keep our finger on the pulse of the changing regulatory climate in this arena so that our clients are fully prepared to deal with new issues that affect their international employees in the U.S.
Obtain visas to facilitate international transfers.
Offer a comprehensive, accurate picture of tax implications and liability issues when companies transfer personnel internationally.
Guide human resources managers as they conduct international recruiting efforts.
Represent foreign nationals who face exclusion or deportation proceedings.
Offer representation and counsel to individuals seeking asylum in the United States.
Global Immigration
Conducting business outside the United States involves much more having employees pack a suitcase, a laptop and a passport. Companies that compete on the world stage realize that they face a host of legal hurdles when they want to recruit at an international location or move their people from here to there. Cohen & Grigsby’s global immigration services include:
Analyzing international work authorization procedures to ensure that companies are in compliance with local regulations.
Constant monitoring of changes in those procedures.
On-site training programs.
Preparation and filing of applications for business visitor visas, temporary work permits, residence permits, entry clearances, entry visas, passports and permanent residence.
Strategic planning for designing immigration program.
Value-Added Services
Cohen & Grigsby’s Immigration Practice Group also provides:
A secure website with client-specific content. Clients may access a host of immigration forms, immigration-related data and an online case tracking system that is password-protected.
A document exchange that allows our clients to manipulate, copy-edit and proof important documents electronically via e-mail. This shortens the process of preparing such documents, thereby reducing overall processing time.
Constant updates on legal issues related to immigration through Cohen & Grigsby’s online updates and newsletters.
Contact Us
Please contact any of the attorneys in our Immigration Group for your inbound or outbound immigration needs."
Friday, December 25, 2009
Communist Party Touts "labor has unprecedented access to President Obama and can be a significant voice in helping to move him"
Here's a copy of a recent article from a US Communist organizations website. After the article is a video of Andy Stern that mimics the same militant philosophy of the Communist Party:
This article was appeared on the website www.politcalaffairs.net (Marxist Thought Online)
Capitalism’s Failures and the Struggle Forward
By Scott Marshall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor’s note: The following are excerpted remarks of Scott Marshall, Vice Chair, Communist Party USA to the 11th International meeting of communist and workers’ parties held in New Delhi, India, Nov. 19th, 2009. The meeting was hosted by the Communist Party of India and the Communist Party of India (Marxist).
In this terrible time of global economic crisis it is most timely that we seek ways to expand and broaden our slogan "workers and oppressed peoples of the world unite." While our slogan has been around for many generations, today it has more meaning than ever. Today global economic integration has reached new incredible levels. Today global finance capital roams the world pillaging and profiteering on a scale unimaginable in Marx's day.
First let me say a few words about how the crisis is affecting working people in the United States. Just this month the percentage of workers in our country who are long-term unemployed has reached levels not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. In the beginning stages of this crisis we were losing 700,000 jobs or more a month. Today, when some mainstream economists are declaring the recession over, when obscene banking profits are on the rise again, when the stock market is rising again, when finance capital is returning to its unregulated predatory ways with a vengeance, we are still losing around 200,000 jobs a month.
Among young people in the US the unemployed figures are staggering. In the age group of 16 to 24 only about 45 percent have jobs. And that number is much worse for African American, Latino and other racially and nationally oppressed youth. Racism in the US takes an even more terrible toll in this kind of an economic crisis. In the communities of the racially and nationally oppressed the crisis strikes with a particular violence and vengeance.
At the same time, experts who follow the housing markets, say that 2010 will see a whole new rash of home foreclosures with workers and their families being evicted and thrown into the streets. 40 million people are without health care and every month that number rises because in the US many people get their health care through their employer. In what is supposed to be the richest country in the world, because so much of the world's finance capital is centered there, hundreds of thousands of children go to school hungry every day. In many hard hit working class communities, the schools and medical clinics are crumbling and closing. The streets and bridges, the sewage and water systems, the basic infrastructures are neglected and decaying. And vital public services at all levels of government are being cut back and stopped.
The list of capitalism's failures in this crisis is very long. And of course we know that the crisis hits many in the developing world much harder than it hits the developed countries.
There are always two sides to the class struggle. Two major events are now turning the tide of working class struggle in a more militant and fighting direction in my country. The first is the rise of the movement that defeated the ultra-right Republican Party in the 2008 election and elected Barack Obama. That same movement also defeated many ultra-right members of the U.S. Congress. I know that internationally there are some mixed feelings about the role of president Barack Obama. Let me be clear, he is not a communist, he is not a socialist, and on some issues he is quite a moderate liberal. At the same time, after eight years of George Bush, the worst warmongering president and administration in US history, the election of Barack Obama opens a whole new terrain of struggle for the working class in the US and in the world. And after 30 years of vicious neoliberal attack on the US labor movement, on the working class and on the people's movements in the US, the election of Barack Obama opens the door for a whole new fight for economic justice, peace and equality.
Barack Obama, as I said, is no revolutionary – it’s true. But he doesn’t have to be a revolutionary to do some pretty important things to support labor and the working class. I won’t go into a whole domestic list but it is significant for those of us who work for a living in the US. He did inspire a movement and mobilize a broad coalition of democratic forces to defeat McCain and the ultra right. And, more importantly for our meeting here – he has taken some steps to curb some of the worst features of the international policies that he inherited from the previous administration. As on the domestic scene, in international affairs it will be the mobilization of the peoples forces and labor that will be decisive in shifting US policy even more – the left and the people’s forces had very little affect on the Bush administration – we can help move the Obama administration in a better direction.
The movement that elected Obama was, and continues to be, a broad coalition of social forces including even some sectors of capital. But at its heart is what we like to call the core social forces, the working class and its organized sector the labor movement, the racially and nationally oppressed, women, youth, and the gay rights movement.
The other major event that is helping to turn the tide was the September 2009 convention of the AFL-CIO, the largest labor federation in our country. I believe history will record that convention as a major turning point for our working class. This convention was the culmination of changes and developments that began in the mid-1990s. The AFL-CIO convention in 1995 was a major break with some of the worst features of class collaboration and the Cold War that began with the anti-Communist witchhunts of the early 1950s. In the mid ‘90’s the labor movement began to develop a more class struggle approach. After the '95 convention US labor began to develop its own independent political apparatus. It became more militant in the economic struggle. It increasingly began to see the global nature of capitalism. Further it even began to understand that the labor movement had to be more than just the defender of its own members, it had to become the voice and movement of the whole working class.
The 2009 Convention of the AFL-CIO, which I attended, deepened these trends and was remarkable in many ways. It elected a new leadership, more militant and more rooted in the fighting industrial union traditions of my country. Richard Trumka the new president comes out of the militant traditions of the mine workers union. On the day after his election at the convention he went straight to Wall Street and blasted the banking and insurance industries for causing the economic crisis both at home and abroad. He called for strong new regulatory steps to curb their reckless speculation and for breaking up those banks deemed “too big to fail.” The federation has vigorously pursued a “break up the big banks” policy and mobilized it’s member unions to fight for sharp new limits on finance capital. In another first for our labor movement the convention also elected two women, one African-American, to the other two top leadership positions of the AFL-CIO.
There are way too many examples of labor’s new policies for me to list now but I would like to mention one that I think is important to our international movement and illustrates a new direction and new possibilities for international labor solidarity. I have with me a letter, well publicized in the labor press in the US from Richard Trumka to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In it he says that the AFL-CIO believes that the coup government in Honduras to be totally illegitimate. The letter says the coup’s repression of the trade unions and democratic movements in Honduras make it impossible for there to be free and fair elections this November. And the letter strongly calls on the US State Department to stop all aid to Honduras until the coup is overturned and President Zelaya is returned to power. The letter also says that the position of the AFL-CIO was taken in consultation with the Honduran labor unions.
This is but one dramatic example of the new thinking in US labor on international questions. US labor also strongly opposes the wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. (And I should mention here that labor has unprecedented access to President Obama and can be a significant voice in helping to move him.) The convention also passed a resolution calling for an end to travel and monetary restrictions against Cuba and for better relations. These are examples of US labor breaking with the US State Department and US imperialism on international issues for the first time since the cold war began after World War II. We think this opens a whole new world of possibility for rebuilding and strengthening world labor and working class solidarity. And we think that Communist and Workers parties have a critical role to play in helping to take advantage of the new possibilities. It is really time for labor, on all sides of the old cold war political divide to reconsider and rethink labor unity.
Comrades, in our opinion the global economic crisis continues unabated. According to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund the world nation’s produce somewhere in the neighborhood of $65 trillion in goods and services each year. At the same time, according to the International Bank of Settlements, over $515 trillion is speculated in derivatives, credit default swaps and similar forms of exotic finance schemes. Think of it – such incredible imbalance. It’s staggering – think of the stolen surplus value represented in this deadest of all parasitic finance capital. Think of the problems of the world’s people that could be solved with that kind of money.
We think it is also important to look at the splits in capital in this period. In the US there is growing evidence of splits between manufacturing capital and banking capital. This is not just splits between big and small business and may open up serious lines of attack for regulating and reigning in some of the most predatory practices of speculative finance capital around the world.
We have much to discuss and think about. But I would like to end with a paraphrase of something Fredrick Engels once said, “an ounce of actions is worth a pound of theory,” something to that effect. We are most interested in how our parties can play a concrete role in helping to bring about real organized struggle along the lines of “workers of the world unite.” This needs to begin with what we can do to help unite and broaden the global labor movement. Marx and Engels did not say, “Workers of the World – unite to share information.” It was clear that they meant workers of the world unite for struggle. How can we make that a reality in today’s real world. What are our first concrete steps. We hope our meeting and deliberations can move us closer to making it happen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andy Stern, the head of SEIU (Service Employees International Union), one of the largest labor unions in the United States, was on the record in this video using the same "Worker's of the world Unite" mantra used by the Communist Party for decades. Andy Stern also has been the "TOP VISITOR" to the White House with 22 visits in just the first 6 months of this year. Is this who you want in charge of our healthcare? Is this who you want having the ear of the President of the United States? I see no difference between Andy Stern, SEIU, AFL-CIO, ACORN and all of the other associates of President Obama and the Communist Party. They are one in the same. They want to "Fundamentally Transform" The United States of America. Even though this article states that President Obama is not a Communist, it is apparent his agenda is fraught with a need to move this country to a Socialist, Marxist or Communist country. It is apparent he is against capitalism. It is apparent he is trying to "fundamentally transform" this great country into a socialist country.
Therefore, it is our duty to let him and all of the other Communists, Marxists and Socialists that have invaded Washington know that, we the people, will not stand by and see this wonderful country destroyed. We must show up at the voting booths in November 2010 and vote these thugs out of office. If they want to live in a socialist society, I suggest they go find a socialist country that better suits them and MOVE!!!! We will even buy them a ONE-WAY TICKET TO THEIR PARADISE!!!!
Michele
"I realize that on the sea of life, I can't control the weather, but I can adjust my sails." UNKNOWN
This article was appeared on the website www.politcalaffairs.net (Marxist Thought Online)
Capitalism’s Failures and the Struggle Forward
By Scott Marshall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor’s note: The following are excerpted remarks of Scott Marshall, Vice Chair, Communist Party USA to the 11th International meeting of communist and workers’ parties held in New Delhi, India, Nov. 19th, 2009. The meeting was hosted by the Communist Party of India and the Communist Party of India (Marxist).
In this terrible time of global economic crisis it is most timely that we seek ways to expand and broaden our slogan "workers and oppressed peoples of the world unite." While our slogan has been around for many generations, today it has more meaning than ever. Today global economic integration has reached new incredible levels. Today global finance capital roams the world pillaging and profiteering on a scale unimaginable in Marx's day.
First let me say a few words about how the crisis is affecting working people in the United States. Just this month the percentage of workers in our country who are long-term unemployed has reached levels not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. In the beginning stages of this crisis we were losing 700,000 jobs or more a month. Today, when some mainstream economists are declaring the recession over, when obscene banking profits are on the rise again, when the stock market is rising again, when finance capital is returning to its unregulated predatory ways with a vengeance, we are still losing around 200,000 jobs a month.
Among young people in the US the unemployed figures are staggering. In the age group of 16 to 24 only about 45 percent have jobs. And that number is much worse for African American, Latino and other racially and nationally oppressed youth. Racism in the US takes an even more terrible toll in this kind of an economic crisis. In the communities of the racially and nationally oppressed the crisis strikes with a particular violence and vengeance.
At the same time, experts who follow the housing markets, say that 2010 will see a whole new rash of home foreclosures with workers and their families being evicted and thrown into the streets. 40 million people are without health care and every month that number rises because in the US many people get their health care through their employer. In what is supposed to be the richest country in the world, because so much of the world's finance capital is centered there, hundreds of thousands of children go to school hungry every day. In many hard hit working class communities, the schools and medical clinics are crumbling and closing. The streets and bridges, the sewage and water systems, the basic infrastructures are neglected and decaying. And vital public services at all levels of government are being cut back and stopped.
The list of capitalism's failures in this crisis is very long. And of course we know that the crisis hits many in the developing world much harder than it hits the developed countries.
There are always two sides to the class struggle. Two major events are now turning the tide of working class struggle in a more militant and fighting direction in my country. The first is the rise of the movement that defeated the ultra-right Republican Party in the 2008 election and elected Barack Obama. That same movement also defeated many ultra-right members of the U.S. Congress. I know that internationally there are some mixed feelings about the role of president Barack Obama. Let me be clear, he is not a communist, he is not a socialist, and on some issues he is quite a moderate liberal. At the same time, after eight years of George Bush, the worst warmongering president and administration in US history, the election of Barack Obama opens a whole new terrain of struggle for the working class in the US and in the world. And after 30 years of vicious neoliberal attack on the US labor movement, on the working class and on the people's movements in the US, the election of Barack Obama opens the door for a whole new fight for economic justice, peace and equality.
Barack Obama, as I said, is no revolutionary – it’s true. But he doesn’t have to be a revolutionary to do some pretty important things to support labor and the working class. I won’t go into a whole domestic list but it is significant for those of us who work for a living in the US. He did inspire a movement and mobilize a broad coalition of democratic forces to defeat McCain and the ultra right. And, more importantly for our meeting here – he has taken some steps to curb some of the worst features of the international policies that he inherited from the previous administration. As on the domestic scene, in international affairs it will be the mobilization of the peoples forces and labor that will be decisive in shifting US policy even more – the left and the people’s forces had very little affect on the Bush administration – we can help move the Obama administration in a better direction.
The movement that elected Obama was, and continues to be, a broad coalition of social forces including even some sectors of capital. But at its heart is what we like to call the core social forces, the working class and its organized sector the labor movement, the racially and nationally oppressed, women, youth, and the gay rights movement.
The other major event that is helping to turn the tide was the September 2009 convention of the AFL-CIO, the largest labor federation in our country. I believe history will record that convention as a major turning point for our working class. This convention was the culmination of changes and developments that began in the mid-1990s. The AFL-CIO convention in 1995 was a major break with some of the worst features of class collaboration and the Cold War that began with the anti-Communist witchhunts of the early 1950s. In the mid ‘90’s the labor movement began to develop a more class struggle approach. After the '95 convention US labor began to develop its own independent political apparatus. It became more militant in the economic struggle. It increasingly began to see the global nature of capitalism. Further it even began to understand that the labor movement had to be more than just the defender of its own members, it had to become the voice and movement of the whole working class.
The 2009 Convention of the AFL-CIO, which I attended, deepened these trends and was remarkable in many ways. It elected a new leadership, more militant and more rooted in the fighting industrial union traditions of my country. Richard Trumka the new president comes out of the militant traditions of the mine workers union. On the day after his election at the convention he went straight to Wall Street and blasted the banking and insurance industries for causing the economic crisis both at home and abroad. He called for strong new regulatory steps to curb their reckless speculation and for breaking up those banks deemed “too big to fail.” The federation has vigorously pursued a “break up the big banks” policy and mobilized it’s member unions to fight for sharp new limits on finance capital. In another first for our labor movement the convention also elected two women, one African-American, to the other two top leadership positions of the AFL-CIO.
There are way too many examples of labor’s new policies for me to list now but I would like to mention one that I think is important to our international movement and illustrates a new direction and new possibilities for international labor solidarity. I have with me a letter, well publicized in the labor press in the US from Richard Trumka to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In it he says that the AFL-CIO believes that the coup government in Honduras to be totally illegitimate. The letter says the coup’s repression of the trade unions and democratic movements in Honduras make it impossible for there to be free and fair elections this November. And the letter strongly calls on the US State Department to stop all aid to Honduras until the coup is overturned and President Zelaya is returned to power. The letter also says that the position of the AFL-CIO was taken in consultation with the Honduran labor unions.
This is but one dramatic example of the new thinking in US labor on international questions. US labor also strongly opposes the wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. (And I should mention here that labor has unprecedented access to President Obama and can be a significant voice in helping to move him.) The convention also passed a resolution calling for an end to travel and monetary restrictions against Cuba and for better relations. These are examples of US labor breaking with the US State Department and US imperialism on international issues for the first time since the cold war began after World War II. We think this opens a whole new world of possibility for rebuilding and strengthening world labor and working class solidarity. And we think that Communist and Workers parties have a critical role to play in helping to take advantage of the new possibilities. It is really time for labor, on all sides of the old cold war political divide to reconsider and rethink labor unity.
Comrades, in our opinion the global economic crisis continues unabated. According to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund the world nation’s produce somewhere in the neighborhood of $65 trillion in goods and services each year. At the same time, according to the International Bank of Settlements, over $515 trillion is speculated in derivatives, credit default swaps and similar forms of exotic finance schemes. Think of it – such incredible imbalance. It’s staggering – think of the stolen surplus value represented in this deadest of all parasitic finance capital. Think of the problems of the world’s people that could be solved with that kind of money.
We think it is also important to look at the splits in capital in this period. In the US there is growing evidence of splits between manufacturing capital and banking capital. This is not just splits between big and small business and may open up serious lines of attack for regulating and reigning in some of the most predatory practices of speculative finance capital around the world.
We have much to discuss and think about. But I would like to end with a paraphrase of something Fredrick Engels once said, “an ounce of actions is worth a pound of theory,” something to that effect. We are most interested in how our parties can play a concrete role in helping to bring about real organized struggle along the lines of “workers of the world unite.” This needs to begin with what we can do to help unite and broaden the global labor movement. Marx and Engels did not say, “Workers of the World – unite to share information.” It was clear that they meant workers of the world unite for struggle. How can we make that a reality in today’s real world. What are our first concrete steps. We hope our meeting and deliberations can move us closer to making it happen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andy Stern, the head of SEIU (Service Employees International Union), one of the largest labor unions in the United States, was on the record in this video using the same "Worker's of the world Unite" mantra used by the Communist Party for decades. Andy Stern also has been the "TOP VISITOR" to the White House with 22 visits in just the first 6 months of this year. Is this who you want in charge of our healthcare? Is this who you want having the ear of the President of the United States? I see no difference between Andy Stern, SEIU, AFL-CIO, ACORN and all of the other associates of President Obama and the Communist Party. They are one in the same. They want to "Fundamentally Transform" The United States of America. Even though this article states that President Obama is not a Communist, it is apparent his agenda is fraught with a need to move this country to a Socialist, Marxist or Communist country. It is apparent he is against capitalism. It is apparent he is trying to "fundamentally transform" this great country into a socialist country.
Therefore, it is our duty to let him and all of the other Communists, Marxists and Socialists that have invaded Washington know that, we the people, will not stand by and see this wonderful country destroyed. We must show up at the voting booths in November 2010 and vote these thugs out of office. If they want to live in a socialist society, I suggest they go find a socialist country that better suits them and MOVE!!!! We will even buy them a ONE-WAY TICKET TO THEIR PARADISE!!!!
Michele
"I realize that on the sea of life, I can't control the weather, but I can adjust my sails." UNKNOWN
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Merry Christmas from the US Senate
Michele
"I realize on the sea of life I can't control the weather, but I can adjust my sails." UNKNOWN
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
CRADLE AND THE CROSS VIDEO
Cradle and the Cross tells the poignant connection of the wood of Jesus' cradle and His cross. This song helps to remind us as we celebrate Christmas, why Jesus came.
http://www.sermonspice.com/product/29896/cradle-and-the-cross
http://www.sermonspice.com/product/29896/cradle-and-the-cross
Monday, December 21, 2009
We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws. Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/12/21/we-are-no-longer-a-nation-of-laws-senate-sets-up-requirement-for-super-majority-to-ever-repeal-obamacare/The Senate Democrats declare a super-majority of senators will be needed to overrule any regulation imposed by the Death Panels
Posted by Erick Erickson
Monday, December 21st at 10:15PM EST
If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as "medical"] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”
It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read.
It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote.
On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.
Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.
To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.
Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.
Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.
Senator Jim DeMint confronted the Democrats over Reid’s language. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent.
How is that constitutional? It is just like the filibuster. Only 51 votes are needed to pass the amendments, but internally, the Senate is deciding that it will not consider certain business. The Supreme Court is quite clear that it won’t meddle with the internal operations of the House and Senate. To get around the prohibition on considering amendments to that particular subsection of the health care legislation, the Senate must get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to waive the rule. In other words, it will take a super-majority of the people the citizens of our Republican elected to overrule a regulation imposed by a group of faceless bureaucrats and bean counters.
Here is the transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President:
DEMINT: But, Mr. President, as the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate. It is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the Reid substitute. . . . These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth.”
The Senate President disagreed and said it was a change in procedure, not a change in rules, therefore the Senate precedent that a two-thirds vote is required to change the rules of the Senate does not apply.
Senator DeMint responded:
DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.
DEMINT: then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.
That’s right. When confronted with the facts, the Senate Democrats ran for cover. The Senate Democrats are ignoring the constitution, the law, and their own rules to pass Obamacare.
To quote the Declaration of Indepedence:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is one of those causes. When the men and women who run this nation, which is supposedly a nation of laws not men, choose to ignore the laws and bribe the men, the people cannot be blamed for wanting to dissolve political bands connecting them to that government.
For your edification, the full transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President is presented, unedited, below the fold.
7:30 PM
PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR.
DEMINT: not. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. demint: mr. president?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senator from south carolina.
DEMINT:mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for ten minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: without objection.
DEMINT: parliamentary inquiry, mr. president. does rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate provide that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting?
7:31 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: it does.
DEMINT: further parliamentary inquiry. is it also the case that on numerous occasions, the senate has required a two-thirds cloture vote on bills that combine amendments to senate rules with other legislative provisions that do not amend the rules?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that would require a two-thirds vote.
DEMINT: i have numerous examples here. we did it twice this year on senate bill 2349 and i could read those but i’ll spare the chair all of these. i’m just trying to get at a concern we have here. am i correct that with respect to these bills, there was a combination of legislative provision and rules changes and the chair ruled that because they were — and i’m referring, mr. chairman, to the — earlier this year, those he
referred to where we required the two-thirds cloture. am i correct on these previous bills that with respect to the bills, there was a combination of legislative provisions and rules changes and the chair ruled that because there were rules changes, a two-thirds vote was required?
7:32 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: if there were changes to the standing rules of the senate, a two-thirds vote would have been required to invoke cloture.
DEMINT: i thank the chair. mr. president, am i also correct that the senate has required a two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills where the amendments combine legislative provisions and rules changes?
i have a number of references on bills that this was done if there’s any question, and i have given them to the parliamentarian for consideration. is there an answer? i mean, i know that there have been amendments to bills that we required two-thirds because they include rule changes. i just wanted to get a confirmation from our parliamentarian. is that, in fact, the case, where two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills have been required to have a two-thirds vote because there were rules changes included in them?
7:34 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the chair would like to check that for a future answer.
DEMINT: okay. i believe the parliamentarian does have some of the references of times this has been done. we’re quite certain it has. but, mr. president, as the chair has confirmed, rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of
the senate. it is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the reid substitute.
these provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth. again, i’ll skip over some examples but let me read a few of these provisions that amend the senate rules which are contained in section 3403 of the reid substitute. it’s section d, titled referral. the legislation introduced under this paragraph shall be referred to the presiding officers of the prospective houses, to the committee on finance in the senate, and to the committee on energy and commerce, and the committee on ways and means in the house of representatives.
the bill creates out of whole cloth a new rule that this specific bill must be referred to the senate finance committee. another example under section c, titled “committee jurisdiction.” and it references rule here. “notwithstanding rule 15 of the standing rules of the senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph a may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the committee on finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection c-3. clearly a rule change. so there’s no pretense that this bill is being referred under the rules of the committee of jurisdiction. and now it is allowing the finance committee to add whatever matter it wants to the bill, regardless of any rules regarding committee jurisdiction. and of good measure, the bill even specifically states that it is amending rule 15.
let me just skip over a number of other examples referring to rules just to try to get to the — the point here. because it goes on and on, and i’ve got pages here. but there’s one provision that i found particularly troubling and it’s under section c, titled “limitations on changes to this subsection.” and i quote — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” this is not legislation. it’s not law. this is a rule change. it’s a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. i’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses. mr. president, therefore, i would like to propound a parliamentary inquiry to the chair. does section 3403 of this
bill propose amendments to the standing rules of the standing rules of the senate? and further parliamentary inquiry. does the inclusion of these proposed amendments to the senate rules mean that the bill requires two-thirds present and voting to invoke cloture?
7:38 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the section of the proposed legislation addressed by the senator is not — does not amend the standing rules. the standing rules of the senate.
DEMINT: okay. mr. president –
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: and, therefore, its inclusion does not affect the number of votes required to invoke cloture.
DEMINT: mr. president, is the chair aware of any precedent where the senate created a new law and in doing so created a new rule — and i’m quoting from our bill — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change the law.” is the chair aware that we have ever put this type of binding legislation on future congresses in a bill?
7:39 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: it is quite common to do that.
DEMINT: i would ask the chair to get those references, if the parliamentarian would, to us. mr. president, another parliamentary inquiry. if this new law will operate as a senate rule, making it out of order for senators to propose amendments to repeal or amend it it — i’ve been in congress 11 years. i have not ever heard of an amendment being called out of order because it changes something that was done before. you know, how is that different from the types of senate rule making for which our predecessors in their wisdom provided a two-thirds cloture vote?
this seems to be a redefinition of words in my mind. mr. president, it’s clear that the parliamentarian is — is going to redefine words, as i’m afraid he has done as part of this process before, but this is truly historic, that we have included rules changes in legislation. we have included rules changes in this legislation yet we’re ignoring a rule that requires a two-thirds cloture vote to pass it. i believe that it’s unconstitutional. it subverts the principles that — i believe it subverts the principles that we’ve operated under and it’s very obvious to everyone that it does change a rule. mr. president, it’s clear that our rules mean nothing if we can redefine the words that we use in them. and i yield the floor.
7:40 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the chair will note that it is quite common to include provisions affecting senate procedure in legislation.
7:41 PM
DEMINT: is there a difference between senate procedures and rules?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: yes.
DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.
DEMINT: then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow
Posted by Erick Erickson
Monday, December 21st at 10:15PM EST
If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as "medical"] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”
It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read.
It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote.
On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.
Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.
To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.
Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.
Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.
Senator Jim DeMint confronted the Democrats over Reid’s language. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent.
How is that constitutional? It is just like the filibuster. Only 51 votes are needed to pass the amendments, but internally, the Senate is deciding that it will not consider certain business. The Supreme Court is quite clear that it won’t meddle with the internal operations of the House and Senate. To get around the prohibition on considering amendments to that particular subsection of the health care legislation, the Senate must get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to waive the rule. In other words, it will take a super-majority of the people the citizens of our Republican elected to overrule a regulation imposed by a group of faceless bureaucrats and bean counters.
Here is the transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President:
DEMINT: But, Mr. President, as the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate. It is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the Reid substitute. . . . These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth.”
The Senate President disagreed and said it was a change in procedure, not a change in rules, therefore the Senate precedent that a two-thirds vote is required to change the rules of the Senate does not apply.
Senator DeMint responded:
DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.
DEMINT: then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.
That’s right. When confronted with the facts, the Senate Democrats ran for cover. The Senate Democrats are ignoring the constitution, the law, and their own rules to pass Obamacare.
To quote the Declaration of Indepedence:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is one of those causes. When the men and women who run this nation, which is supposedly a nation of laws not men, choose to ignore the laws and bribe the men, the people cannot be blamed for wanting to dissolve political bands connecting them to that government.
For your edification, the full transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President is presented, unedited, below the fold.
7:30 PM
PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR.
DEMINT: not. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. demint: mr. president?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senator from south carolina.
DEMINT:mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for ten minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: without objection.
DEMINT: parliamentary inquiry, mr. president. does rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate provide that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting?
7:31 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: it does.
DEMINT: further parliamentary inquiry. is it also the case that on numerous occasions, the senate has required a two-thirds cloture vote on bills that combine amendments to senate rules with other legislative provisions that do not amend the rules?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that would require a two-thirds vote.
DEMINT: i have numerous examples here. we did it twice this year on senate bill 2349 and i could read those but i’ll spare the chair all of these. i’m just trying to get at a concern we have here. am i correct that with respect to these bills, there was a combination of legislative provision and rules changes and the chair ruled that because they were — and i’m referring, mr. chairman, to the — earlier this year, those he
referred to where we required the two-thirds cloture. am i correct on these previous bills that with respect to the bills, there was a combination of legislative provisions and rules changes and the chair ruled that because there were rules changes, a two-thirds vote was required?
7:32 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: if there were changes to the standing rules of the senate, a two-thirds vote would have been required to invoke cloture.
DEMINT: i thank the chair. mr. president, am i also correct that the senate has required a two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills where the amendments combine legislative provisions and rules changes?
i have a number of references on bills that this was done if there’s any question, and i have given them to the parliamentarian for consideration. is there an answer? i mean, i know that there have been amendments to bills that we required two-thirds because they include rule changes. i just wanted to get a confirmation from our parliamentarian. is that, in fact, the case, where two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills have been required to have a two-thirds vote because there were rules changes included in them?
7:34 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the chair would like to check that for a future answer.
DEMINT: okay. i believe the parliamentarian does have some of the references of times this has been done. we’re quite certain it has. but, mr. president, as the chair has confirmed, rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of
the senate. it is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the reid substitute.
these provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth. again, i’ll skip over some examples but let me read a few of these provisions that amend the senate rules which are contained in section 3403 of the reid substitute. it’s section d, titled referral. the legislation introduced under this paragraph shall be referred to the presiding officers of the prospective houses, to the committee on finance in the senate, and to the committee on energy and commerce, and the committee on ways and means in the house of representatives.
the bill creates out of whole cloth a new rule that this specific bill must be referred to the senate finance committee. another example under section c, titled “committee jurisdiction.” and it references rule here. “notwithstanding rule 15 of the standing rules of the senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph a may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the committee on finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection c-3. clearly a rule change. so there’s no pretense that this bill is being referred under the rules of the committee of jurisdiction. and now it is allowing the finance committee to add whatever matter it wants to the bill, regardless of any rules regarding committee jurisdiction. and of good measure, the bill even specifically states that it is amending rule 15.
let me just skip over a number of other examples referring to rules just to try to get to the — the point here. because it goes on and on, and i’ve got pages here. but there’s one provision that i found particularly troubling and it’s under section c, titled “limitations on changes to this subsection.” and i quote — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” this is not legislation. it’s not law. this is a rule change. it’s a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. i’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses. mr. president, therefore, i would like to propound a parliamentary inquiry to the chair. does section 3403 of this
bill propose amendments to the standing rules of the standing rules of the senate? and further parliamentary inquiry. does the inclusion of these proposed amendments to the senate rules mean that the bill requires two-thirds present and voting to invoke cloture?
7:38 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the section of the proposed legislation addressed by the senator is not — does not amend the standing rules. the standing rules of the senate.
DEMINT: okay. mr. president –
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: and, therefore, its inclusion does not affect the number of votes required to invoke cloture.
DEMINT: mr. president, is the chair aware of any precedent where the senate created a new law and in doing so created a new rule — and i’m quoting from our bill — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change the law.” is the chair aware that we have ever put this type of binding legislation on future congresses in a bill?
7:39 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: it is quite common to do that.
DEMINT: i would ask the chair to get those references, if the parliamentarian would, to us. mr. president, another parliamentary inquiry. if this new law will operate as a senate rule, making it out of order for senators to propose amendments to repeal or amend it it — i’ve been in congress 11 years. i have not ever heard of an amendment being called out of order because it changes something that was done before. you know, how is that different from the types of senate rule making for which our predecessors in their wisdom provided a two-thirds cloture vote?
this seems to be a redefinition of words in my mind. mr. president, it’s clear that the parliamentarian is — is going to redefine words, as i’m afraid he has done as part of this process before, but this is truly historic, that we have included rules changes in legislation. we have included rules changes in this legislation yet we’re ignoring a rule that requires a two-thirds cloture vote to pass it. i believe that it’s unconstitutional. it subverts the principles that — i believe it subverts the principles that we’ve operated under and it’s very obvious to everyone that it does change a rule. mr. president, it’s clear that our rules mean nothing if we can redefine the words that we use in them. and i yield the floor.
7:40 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the chair will note that it is quite common to include provisions affecting senate procedure in legislation.
7:41 PM
DEMINT: is there a difference between senate procedures and rules?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: yes.
DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.
DEMINT: then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow
Saturday, December 19, 2009
British Government Official Daniel Hannan on Socialized Medicine
A Video from the U.S. Citizens Association website: http://www.uscitizensassociation.com/ .
I would encourage you to go to the website and join the cause to help stop the socialist takeover of our country. This is a great video to give you an honest account of what it's like living in a country that has socialized medicine. WE DO NOT WANT TO BE LIKE ENGLAND!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE DESERVE BETTER THAN WHAT OBAMA WANTS TO STICK US WITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Michele
"I realize that on the sea of life, I can't control the weather, but I can adjust my sails." Unknown
I would encourage you to go to the website and join the cause to help stop the socialist takeover of our country. This is a great video to give you an honest account of what it's like living in a country that has socialized medicine. WE DO NOT WANT TO BE LIKE ENGLAND!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE DESERVE BETTER THAN WHAT OBAMA WANTS TO STICK US WITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Michele
"I realize that on the sea of life, I can't control the weather, but I can adjust my sails." Unknown
Inspirational Video-The Playground Earth
A Wonderful video from Spirit Monk Media. I do not own any of the footage or music used to create this video.
Some of the footage used in this video is property of BBC and some of ESA. The track "My name is Lincoln" composed by Steve Jablonsky, from the original soundtrack of the motion picture "The Island", is the property of Steve Jablonsky, Warner Bros. Pictures and Dreamworks Pictures. No copyright violation intended.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Pentagon: Islam Expert Fired for Telling the Truth
Steven Emerson is considered one of the leading authorities on Islamic extremist networks, financing and operations. He serves as the Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, one of the world's largest storehouses of archival data and intelligence on Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorist groups. Emerson and his staff frequently provide briefings to U.S. government and law enforcement agencies, members of Congress and congressional committees, and print and electronic media, both national and international. Since 9-11, Emerson has testified before and briefed Congress dozens of times on terrorist financing and operational networks of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the rest of the worldwide Islamic militant spectrum.
Investors.com - Penetration Even At The Pentagon: Muslim Spies Setting Muslim Policy
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=515712
Investors.com - Penetration Even At The Pentagon: Muslim Spies Setting Muslim Policy
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=515712
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
HARKIN SUGGESTS HE MAY REINTRODUCE CLOTURE REFORM!!!
I found this article on an SEIU BLOG website. Looks like the DEMS are going to try to get healthcare by changing the "rules of engagement!" We need to call Harkin and let him know we will not stand for him or anyone else changing the rules!
His contact information is as follows: website: http://harkin.senate.gov/
email: https://harkin.senate.gov/c/index.cfm
Address and phone: WASHINGTON DC OFFICE
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3254 Phone
(202) 224-9369 Fax
(202) 224-4633 TDD
His offices in Iowa: https://harkin.senate.gov/c/office.cfm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SEIU Blog
5:18 PM Eastern - December 14, 2009
Update: Harkin Suggests He May Reintroduce Cloture Reform
Last week, SEIU launched a petition to Sen. Joe Lieberman pushing back on his plans to filibuster health insurance reform. The petition points to the year 1995, when Sen. Joe Lieberman co-sponsored legislation with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) to abolish the filibuster. In January of 1995, Lieberman spent weeks making a case to the American people that the filibuster was being abused - that it was nothing more than a tool for obstructing democracy. So far, nearly 10,000 people have signed on to urge Sen. Lieberman to heed the words of his former Senate self, and quit threatening to filibuster health insurance reform.
Well, people are taking notice. Sen. Tom Harkin told reporters this weekend that he's considering re-introducing the same legislation he co-sponsored with Lieberman in 1995. The bill would reform the cloture vote, making it impossible for Joe to get away with precisely what he's doing right now - holding health insurance reform hostage for his own political gain.
Sen. Harkin told the Hawk Eye:
I think, if anything, this health care debate is showing the dangers of unlimited filibuster," Harkin said Thursday during a conference call with reporters. "I think there's a reason for slowing things down ... and getting the public aware of what's happening and maybe even to change public sentiment, but not to just absolutely stop something."
As the Huffington Post notes, under Harkin's measure, a debate could be prolonged by the minority, but not forever.
"You could hold something up for maybe a month, but then, finally you'd come down to 51 votes and a majority would be able to pass," Harkin said. "I may revive that. I pushed it very hard at one time and then things kind of got a little better."
Sen. Harkin confirmed what others have suggested - that the modern-day filibuster is not used as it was originally intended.
"Today, in the age of instant news and Internet and rapid travel -- you can get from anywhere to here within a day or a few hours -- the initial reasons for the filibuster kind of fall by the wayside, and now it's got into an abusive situation," Harkin said.
He and the constitutional scholars agree that the intention was never to hold up legislation entirely.
His contact information is as follows: website: http://harkin.senate.gov/
email: https://harkin.senate.gov/c/index.cfm
Address and phone: WASHINGTON DC OFFICE
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3254 Phone
(202) 224-9369 Fax
(202) 224-4633 TDD
His offices in Iowa: https://harkin.senate.gov/c/office.cfm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SEIU Blog
5:18 PM Eastern - December 14, 2009
Update: Harkin Suggests He May Reintroduce Cloture Reform
Last week, SEIU launched a petition to Sen. Joe Lieberman pushing back on his plans to filibuster health insurance reform. The petition points to the year 1995, when Sen. Joe Lieberman co-sponsored legislation with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) to abolish the filibuster. In January of 1995, Lieberman spent weeks making a case to the American people that the filibuster was being abused - that it was nothing more than a tool for obstructing democracy. So far, nearly 10,000 people have signed on to urge Sen. Lieberman to heed the words of his former Senate self, and quit threatening to filibuster health insurance reform.
Well, people are taking notice. Sen. Tom Harkin told reporters this weekend that he's considering re-introducing the same legislation he co-sponsored with Lieberman in 1995. The bill would reform the cloture vote, making it impossible for Joe to get away with precisely what he's doing right now - holding health insurance reform hostage for his own political gain.
Sen. Harkin told the Hawk Eye:
I think, if anything, this health care debate is showing the dangers of unlimited filibuster," Harkin said Thursday during a conference call with reporters. "I think there's a reason for slowing things down ... and getting the public aware of what's happening and maybe even to change public sentiment, but not to just absolutely stop something."
As the Huffington Post notes, under Harkin's measure, a debate could be prolonged by the minority, but not forever.
"You could hold something up for maybe a month, but then, finally you'd come down to 51 votes and a majority would be able to pass," Harkin said. "I may revive that. I pushed it very hard at one time and then things kind of got a little better."
Sen. Harkin confirmed what others have suggested - that the modern-day filibuster is not used as it was originally intended.
"Today, in the age of instant news and Internet and rapid travel -- you can get from anywhere to here within a day or a few hours -- the initial reasons for the filibuster kind of fall by the wayside, and now it's got into an abusive situation," Harkin said.
He and the constitutional scholars agree that the intention was never to hold up legislation entirely.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
