Will Naplolitano Prove Arizona Doubters Correct? (THE ANTI-ENFORCER?)
By Roy Beck, Friday, February 27, 2009, 11:10 AM
PHOENIX -- A group of Arizona business and civic leaders told me last night that the strange behavior of our nation's chief security leader this week is just what they expected. They say that Janet Napolitano was a skilled master at getting media to make her look like a believer in the rule of law but that when it came to immigration she was almost always "The Anti-Enforcer."
This has been a most troubling week. Napolitano is sworn to ensure that our nation's immigration laws are followed and that those who violate them are punished. That is one of the big parts of her jobs as head of the federal Department of Homeland Security.
On the other hand, Pres. Obama had promised during the campaign last year that he would do his best to see that some laws are not enforced.
Earlier this week, we were heartened to see what appeared to be the first ICE raid on an outlaw corporation since Pres. Obama took office. We put up faxes for people to thank Obama and Napolitano.
But then Napolitano went before Congress and basically apologized for the fact that law enforcement had occurred under her watch and pledged an investigation.
This sounds like we are right back to the early Bush years.
I said all last year that an Obama Administration on immigration would probably amount to a third Bush term.
During the first 6.5 years of the Bush reign, NumbersUSA received regular reports from Border Patrol and immigration agents that Washington actually punished employees who aggressively enforced immigration laws. It was clear that the tacit agreement within the Bush Administration was to make sure a certain level of illegal labor was available to the outlaw corporate community.
But for the last 1.5 years of Bush's reign, the enforcement people were actually allowed to do their job, and we began to see outlaw employers and illegal workers begin to change their behavior because of fear of getting caught and punished.
Napolitano's behavior this week looks like we are going back to the bad old Bush days.
I asked my audience last night if I could possibly be wrong. Perhaps, Napolitano is just being cautious.
No way, said my audience of people who obviously have deep and long-term antipathy toward their until-recently governor here in Arizona.
They claim that throughout Napolitano's term in Arizona she approved immigration enforcement only when she absolutely was forced to do it, and did all she could to undermine the effectiveness when she did.
On the other hand, they said, perhaps the weight of being in charge of the security of all Americans may cause her to treat the law with more respect than she traditionally has done.
But Napolitano's behavior this week has encouraged a rising mob of people and institutions calling for an end to the rule of law in terms of immigration.
Congressman Gutierrez of Chicago is on a national tour, holding rallies in churches calling for the end of most immigration enforcement.
Congressman Dicks of Washington State has called on Napolitano to begin an investigation of what he considers too aggressive immigration enforcement in his state.
The ACLU is running ads on buses giving advice to illegal aliens to help them avoid being caught and detained.
Major religious leaders across the country are calling for forms of civil disobedience to challenge what they consider to be the immorality of enforcing immigration laws.
And this comes immediately after House Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid and the White House insisted on keeping Stimulus jobs available for illegal foreign workers and to protect the businesses that hire them.
I hope my Arizona audience last night is wrong about Napolitano.
I hope I am wrong in my deep sense of foreboding.
ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA
Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA. Subscribe to our Blog Feed
Related Searches:ICE raid beckr's blog
Add new comment
Delicious Digg Google Technorati More... Email this page Printer-friendly version
Comments
Although comments are moderated, they do not necessarily reflect the views of NumbersUSA or its staff. Post a new comment.
Linda4969 of AZ
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 11:28pm
New
Re: Will Naplolitano Prove Arizona Doubters Correct? (THE ANTI-E
Another SAD day for Americans when Napolitano was sent to Washington. She never did anything to support protecting our borders, only pushed (quietly) for illegal immigrants, and for the North American Union. She was very bad news for Arizonans and now for the whole country. Nappy and the govenor of CA both have met with the president of Mexico to "work" out illegal immigration and the NAU. Yeah work it out!!!!!! to benefit them... not those of us that PAY their wages and have to live with their decisions/consequences. Sad sad day for America.
reply
Matthew0011 of AZ
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 11:26pm
New
Re: Roy, Are there ANY
While I am in full agreement with Numbers' cause, as well as all of those that have posted, I'm personally starting to feel that it may already be too late to reverse our current course. Just a cursory look at the current situation:
Only a handful of what we consider to be "sane/common sense" members of Congress continue to push "sane/common sense" measures, nearly every instance is either denied a very appropriate vote or simply ignored altogether. The finest example of this was the quick, and almost nonchalant stripping of the overwhelmingly House-approved E-verify measure from the final Stimulus bill. I agree that contacting your representatives is imperative, as you have no right to complain without doing so. But unfortunately, it seems as though we are currently in a situation in which taking the faxes to the dumpster in lieu of reading and consideration the opinions and input of one's constituents are becoming more commonplace.
I don't know what the answer is. Organized protests to match those of individuals who flaunt the laws of our land sound obvious. But from what I have seen, the turnouts have been relatively limited to biker groups here in Arizona. no disrespect to those who have been involved at all, but it's going to take a lot more than the Freedom Riders to get the point across. I personally think that the biggest problem is that the "other side" has so loudly played the "racist" card against those who disagree with their agenda that the overwhelming majority who is sickened by the current situation are too scared of being seen by a co-worker, neighbor, or television cameras, and assume they will thereby by labeled a "racist" in such scenarios for being physically present to support sanity for our nation. Waiting and wondering how much longer it will take to see otherwise....
reply
Janice8826 of AZ
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 10:58pm
New
Re: Dear Secretary, Surely you
Leslie, we need to get them out of office. Need to clean house and put the folks in there that we can trust. There are good democrats and good republicans. We just have all the bad ones in there. They aren't working for the people, the long-standing citizens of this country. Too many loons in congress. We need good common sense. Not some philosophical wonderland that could never work. We can have prosperity in this country, but not with the ideology that is being touted by this administration. They are using us for test cases on a new form of government that we don't want.
reply
Janice8826 of AZ
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 10:46pm
New
Re: Will Naplolitano Prove Arizona Doubters Correct? (THE ANTI-E
For any of you that want to start a national effort, I'm in. We need to get organized or this administration will get out of control. Obama is right; we do have a lot to be worried about, but that worry is him and his new administration. I'm in Arizona. Let me know who is taking charge and what we need to do. During Napolitano's reign here as governor the overspending was out of control. Now we're suffering greatly in Arizona. We have a $3.5BB budget deficit for 2010. There aren't enough people in Arizona to make up the difference. Our state employees are losing jobs and many of them have to take unpaid furloughs. You can email me at franniedorchester@hotmail.com. We need freedom fighters.
reply
Thomas1508 of CA
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 10:37pm
New
Re: Will Naplolitano Prove Arizona Doubters Correct? (THE ANTI-E
The only thing the fat cats on the hill care about is being Re-Elected!! Oh of course they care about their wineries and other personal businesses they own, and the castles they live in, however, they are blind and clueless to the real world of how our standards of living, our neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, our police force and the social services we citizens pay through the nose for are being eroded.
reply
Marion K.7703 of LA
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 9:48pm
New
You can't expect too much
You can't expect too much from the woman, since she was the Governor of Arizona, 2nd most kidnapping area in the world. Mexico is First.
reply
Terry 2931 of TX
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 8:26pm
New
Re: Will Naplolitano Prove Arizona Doubters Correct? (THE ANTI-E
I wonder if you can recall or impeach elected and selected politicians? Most of the folks we are typing about took a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And in spite of all their hot air and weasel words, the Constitution is what it is until the Supreme Court rules otherwise or WE THE PEOPLE AMEND IT. So it seems that we could impeach them for lying under oath.
reply
Leslie2999 of GA
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 8:19pm
New
Dear Secretary, Surely you
Dear Secretary,
Surely you have a conscience in there somewhere for your own countrymen, women, and children. The Democrats are obviously expecting the illegal's to be their new constituency so therefore the needs, and desires of American citizens are ignored as if we no longer matter. So blatantly so, that you put us at risk as border guards, homeowners, job seekers ect... We really don't stand a ghost of a chance it seems, the Republicans allowed them here to raid our country for the cheap labor they provided, and the Democrats want them to stay, hoping that the parties, betrayal of us will net them a fat payoff of new Democrats after they finish destroying this great country as we've always known it to be, flaws and all. I love my HOMELAND and I beg of you to adhere to, and abide by the laws that were designed to protect your REAL constituents. We have always welcomed and helped immigrants to our country, but how long should we allow illegals and our own politicians to treat us like we're the problem??? Please be responsive to the people who have voted you guys into office to take care us, and our country, we need you!!!
reply
Terry 2931 of TX
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 8:17pm
New
I'm still chewing over the
I'm still chewing over the "How do we protest" post. It's true that calling, writing or emailing is not enough. We can gain some power by donations to organizations like Numbers (I have), Judicial Watch(I have) and the Humane Society. Start participating in local politics. I'm wondering how to get some statewide or national attention. But I've never publically protested anything (except the food in the Army)and don't know where to start. Do you need a permit to hold a rally? Can local political bosses stop you? Can you advertise in the papers? Maybe if Roy reads this, he can give us some hints. Personally, illegal aliens, 1st and 2nd amendments and crooked politicians at all levels never punished are my main gripes (but not the only). Maybe stage a public rally where citizens can vent their mains gripes and demand action and law enforcement. Wish this thing had a spell and grammar checker.
NumbersUSA Moderator: NumbersUSA does not organize marches or protests. FAIR is the immigration-reduction organization that has that as part of its mission. Don't sell your faxes and phone calls short -- they have done a lot of good (and stopped a lot of bad) over the years. If you want to do something more, visit a local office and talk to them in person. Most of you live within one hour of a local Congressional office.
reply
Doris 2419 of NJ
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 7:45pm
New
Obama knew exactly what he
Obama knew exactly what he was doing when he picked Napolitano. He wants only those who agree with his agenda. Unfortunatley the only part LEGAL US CITIZENS play in his agenda is the "picking of our pockets". O has every intention to grant a "blanket amnesty" to the ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINALS. Everyone of them who came to the US ILLEGALLY committed a crime, therefore they are all criminals.
* * * *
We're paying for their welfare, food stamps, the education of their ususally very large families. That along with O's "stimulus (spending) package". Calling and faxing your state reps. was a good place to start, however that is no longer enough. We need to make our voices heard loud and clear. The ILLEGALS had no problem protesting in our streets in OUR COUNTRY when they don't even belong in this country. It is time for the LEGAL US CITIZENS to do the same. The Constitution guarantees us the right to a peaceful protest.
* * * * * *
We must stop this huge miscarriage of justice! Let's make a very unjoyful noise!
reply
Terry 2931 of TX
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 7:44pm
New
Re: Will Naplolitano Prove Arizona Doubters Correct? (THE ANTI-E
We start protesting now for the elections in just another year and a half. Vote these tax evading criminals out of office. Stop making campaign contributions to the national parties and only directly to the Congresspersons you know are doing what you want. Do not believe anything that they say. Pay attention to only what they do. Write letters to the editors. Most of this country doesn't even know who is holding office. Most don't watch the news or read the papers. But we have to get more people raising the roof against these criminals.
reply
Michael1165 of LA
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 7:32pm
New
Re: Will Naplolitano Prove Arizona Doubters Correct? (THE ANTI-E
How do we protest... we need to start protesting and letting them know we mean business... we are giving our country away and all we do is talk about it...
reply
Baron4931 of AZ
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 7:22pm
New
I feel the President made a
I feel the President made a huge mistake picking Janet Napolitano as head of Homeland Security. I oppose any amnesty to those who break our federal law. With all the murders, drugs, gangs going on in Mexico and spreading over to our country. I fear for our childrens' safety and ours. This government needs to secure these borders and protect the American people. I am so outraged an illegal's stealing identity, smuggling drugs, gangs invading our streets due to the failure of our own government. These elected officials are not living near these borders and don't care about those who live an everyday struggling life in this country. I get frustrated when illegals steal American jobs from U.S. citizens. Janet Napolitano is a disgrace when it comes to law and order. I am not against legal immigrants only those who are illegal and have no concept to law and order in our country. Janet Napolitano was the worst governor in AZ I have ever seen, she could not even protect Arizona's citizens what makes her think she can protect the whole country? She can't!
reply
Andrea6320 of CA
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 6:51pm
New
Re: Re: Will Naplolitano Prove Arizona Doubters Correct? (THE AN
To Mike of PA. Pelosi, Reid, et al don't give a damn about the Hispanics, they just think they can get their vote.
reply
Kevin7713 of AZ
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 6:43pm
New
Re: Will Naplolitano Prove Arizona Doubters Correct? (THE ANTI-E
No, those folks were right. Napolitano is showing her colors. She worked hand in hand with Liberals as well as dishonest business people behind Wake Up Arizona!, a coalition of business groups headed by Mac Magruder, a McDonald's franchisee, and Jason LeVecke, who owns numerous Carl's Jr. and Pizza Patron restaurants.
America cannot expect Napolitano to stand up for Americans.
Many Arizonans call her by the nickname "Nappy" which is British slang for diaper, and we all know what those are usually full of!
Keep the good work up Roy!
reply
John2758 of UT
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 6:22pm
New
Re: Will Naplolitano Prove Arizona Doubters Correct? (THE ANTI-E
Does the constitution say that we only enforce laws that please us. If I was to go to Mexico and break the law I may never get out. Why do we have to apologize for enforcing laws that protect our borders from terrorists or illegals of any nationality . We chose not to put Obama's Cabinet choices in jail for failure to pay income taxes and other crimes. We are teaching our young that law enforcement is an option not the rule. Of course a country that is bound for socialism in on a course for destrucion of our constitution and a democracy that has served us for centries.
reply
Andrew8057 of WA
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 6:05pm
New
Re: I've been trying to call DHS
I would be willing to do that. I think personal appearances by constituants are the answer. I agree that letters and faxes are encouraging, they are not absolute. Remember, most Congressman and Senators have staffers (or I call them interceptors) that read the mail and faxes. Do you really think that Senators and Congressman hear and see all that mail??? Do you think they hear the words of the people??? We as Americans need to organize a day, one day and carpet bomb our legislatures with mail, faxes and in person. Maybe they will get the message and the media will give us the attention. I think April 19th, or the start of the Revolution would be appropriate. (The shot heard round the world).
Andrew Howard
reply
Vince0041 of PA
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 5:46pm
New
I've been trying to call DHS
I've been trying to call DHS all day, the voice mail box is full. Imagine that...
Look, we've been civil, we've called and faxed and it's getting us nowhere.
We need each and every one of us to show up at each of our reps and senator's offices and deliver the message in person and in no uncertain terms. If we could get coordinated and all show up on the same day it might get some media attention.
We have to do something new, faxes and phone calls aren't doing the trick.
NumbersUSA Moderator: Great idea. A one-day affair might get media attention, but would be difficult to organize (most NumbersUSA members have busy lives and jobs). However, a steady stream of constituents visiting their local Congressional offices would surely have an effect on Members of Congress.
reply
Andrew8057 of WA
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 5:33pm
New
Mr. Beck et al. I am sorry
Mr. Beck et al.
I am sorry to say that as a US Customs and Border Protection Officer (CBP), immigration enforcement under the Bush admin was a third priority. After 911, Terrorism came first, Narcotics second and Immigration Enforcement Third. Nobody wanted to here that if we just enforced the Immigration Laws, 911 WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENDED, that's right, "WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED. All of the hi-jackers broke immigration law at the Port of Entry and after. If ICE, Border Patrol and CBP was allowed to exercise their rightful statuatory authority this country would be safer. Granted, we haven't had a 911 2.0 since and that is because of our military and federal law enforcement agencies. However, if the INA was enforced, there would be less gang violence, crime and employer violations of the INA. If Napolitano and Obama show their true colors ie.. Amnesty we are going back to September 10, 2001. For me, I will always be a September 12th person. I hope you will be too.
Andrew Howard.
Son of Liberty
reply
James7427 of IA
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 5:24pm
New
NumbersUSA Moderator, I have
NumbersUSA Moderator,
I have tried several times yesterday and today to call the White House and the DHS comment line. The comment line, which is automated, is always full. And the White House line is always busy. A problem I have is that due to my job I have a very narrow window each day in which to make these calls, so I am unable to just keep trying until I do get through. Do you have any suggestions?
James Bowen
NumbersUSA Moderator: We have heard reports of your calls shutting down the lines at DHS and the White House. Keep calling!
reply
Elaine7431 of AZ
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 4:55pm
New
Re: Will Naplolitano Prove Arizona Doubters Correct? (THE ANTI-E
There is no hope of Napolitano changing her views until Obama changes his views and the liberals in Congress come down to Arizona and walk a mile in our shoes. Napolitano was rewarded for certain actions on her part in Arizona to stymy Maricopa Cty Sheriff Joe Arpaio in his endeavor to enforce laws that are on our books. She took away his budget money and gave it to a task force to seek down and arrest those worst criminals of all - fathers behind in child support. This is bordering on the need for an uprising of the people who want to take back their constitution based country. How can someone living in Iowa or Montana, etc. possibly know what its like to live in Arizona, Texas, California or New Mexico? With illegals consuming our resources and trying their best to take back land they lost in the Spanish/American War, life is not good for us stupid gringos willing to share our wealth. BUILD THE FENCE, MAN THE FENCE, ENFORCE LAWS TO PUNISH EMPLOYERS FOR EMPLOYING ILLEGALS AND MOST OF ALL ENFORCE ALL THE LAWS WE CITIZENS HAVE VOTED ON OVER THE YEARS TO PROTECT OURSELVES.
reply
Susan0846 of MD
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 4:49pm
New
COMMENT: THIS IS
COMMENT:
THIS IS DISGUSTING. TO TURN THIER BACKS ON ''AMERICAN CITIZENS'' WILL MOST OF US. THEIR IS NO RULES. THE LAWS OF THE LAND HAS BEEN REMOVED, LAW ON ILLEGALS IN THE TRASH.
THEIR MUST BE SOMETHING WE CAN DO! WE NEED HELP! BUT HOW.
reply
Peter9028 of IL
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 4:28pm
New
Re: Re: Will Naplolitano Prove Arizona Doubters Correct? (THE AN
I have mentioned a TAX strike against the feds. Those who receive paychecks with taxes taken out need to change to the 10-99 and work as a contractor. Many companies may not like it but I do think that one does have that option.
Strike and hit them where it hurts. They are stealing our money and giving it the illegals by the billions. This is of course all part of Soetoro's big plan for the so called redistribution of wealth. AKA socialism and the demise of the U.S.A.
reply
Thomas2924 of IN
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 4:33pm
New
During the Clinton
During the Clinton administration workplace enforcement was consistent and fairly heavy. The number of illegals grew during his administration, not surprising given the booming economy, but growth was restrained by enforcement. When Bush stopped all but token enforcement the word got out to both employers and potential illegal immigrants and the flood gates opened. The number of illegals grew very rapidly and they moved beyond the border and urban states to other states in large numbers. The same thing will happen now, since Obama has halted enforcement, and is talking about amnesty to the Spanish language media. He is not just delaying a proper solution, he is making the problem substantially worse.
There is no excuse for what Obama is doing, but there may be something the Republicans can do about it, if they are more serious about curbing illegal immigration than about scoring political points. Obama is a liberal, but I think he would like to govern from the center. When Republicans insist on voting as a block against his every proposal, they force him to the left to guarantee every Democratic vote. That means he must do whatever the Hispanic Caucus demands, and they play hardball. By showing a willingness to make public-spirited deals including things like bankruptcy, health care and energy, Republicans could make themselves a much more powerful force on immigration than the Hispanic Caucus, and they could make us all proud, Democrats and Republicans.
reply
Ray0279 of NY
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 4:24pm
New
Re: Will Naplolitano Prove Arizona Doubters Correct? (THE ANTI-E
I wonder what would happen if the American people decided that if our government is using our tax dollars to support the use of illegals in this country, to stop the use of the tax dollars, we'd just stop paying taxes.
Remember, it's not just the loss of jobs for Americans, it's also the cost of supporting them with housing, medical, cleaning up after the messes that they leave behind, and not to mention the cost of incarceration for the crime that has escalated through the fact that they're here.
Maybe its us....the American people that need to wake up and say "NO MORE". No jobs for Americans, no tax dollars to support illegals.
reply
Mike6659 of PA
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 3:47pm
New
Re: Will Naplolitano Prove Arizona Doubters Correct? (THE ANTI-E
These people don't give a damn about our American unemployed or our American way of life. All they want is cheap labor. They don't care if we the American taxpayer have to pick up the tab for medical care, cost of schooling or cost of jailing these illegals. They only care about themselves and how much money they can make and squirrel away. Its a sad day when we have to contend with such selfishness from leaders in both political parties.
reply
James9764 of TX
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 3:21pm
New
Re: Will Naplolitano Prove Arizona Doubters Correct? (THE ANTI-E
I have called the Comment line at DHS and its always full. i called the main operator number and talked to an operator who said it would be best to fax something to the DHS secretary.
I called the white house and got through and left my comments based on what was on the cork board on here and used the two talking points.
Now i am in the process of writing out a letter to Nappy and tell her to stop second guessing ICE officials. and to enforce work place enforcement, especially at a time when there are 15 million americans out of work. 30 arrested in washington state, over 100 americans applied for those jobs. so is there really a job americans wont do??????
hey Nappy, if you dont want to enforce the laws and have a problem with ICE, you have one solution in my eyes... RESIGN because the american people DEMAND more from you and the other elected morons in DC
reply
Don9868 of IN
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 3:11pm
New
Re: Will Naplolitano Prove Arizona Doubters Correct? (THE ANTI-E
I have tried several times to call Obama and Napolitano over the last two days.Obamas line is busy and Napolitano
mail box is full.I hope they are getting so many calls from
NumbersUSA members to cause this,and not just doing this so they won't have to listen to us.Anyone else having this problem?I will keep trying.
reply
David3782 of OR
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 2:02pm
New
I was never hopeful for any
I was never hopeful for any enforcement once President Obama won the election, nor did I believe Napolitano was anything but an anti-Law shill fake front, even though Roy bought into the misleading imagery there for a while.
The only real question is whether the state of the economy will simply terrify the Democrats (because they hold ALL power now, given two spineless Republicans and two independents in the Senate).
So the question is, will the fear and pain of an utterly failing economy "protect" Americans long enough for at least mid term elections such that the composition of the House or Senate has a chance to change and thus derail illegal amnesty, and perhaps later re-focus law enforcement?
That's the question, I dare say, given the extremes of severe collapsing trade across Asia and Europe and America, that the Democrats might be too scared to do this. It will certainly lead to the end of the Democrat party, because even if given Amnesty, there will be no jobs for all these Mexicans, who I have found are also pushy and rude, and will "get in the face" of real Americans, and then things will get ugly.
* * * * *
So I find it hard to believe that the Democrats alone will push this through, since they are not stupid. However they are still acting like it's the 1990's, which it most certainly no longer is.
Let's wait and see, and Roy, keep up the good work. Just maybe only send update emails in the morning, I don't need to get wound up before sleeping when I get home from work at night! LOL
reply
James Jeanna4649 of WA
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 1:44pm
New
I have to say that my
I have to say that my husband and I are not to shocked by Obama's reaction to this situation. People don't see the bigger picture here.
It was reported that his Aunt lives here illegally. You don't hear to much about that anymore, which I feel is wrong. In our opinion, Obama will do everything that he can do to stop ICE because if he doesn't, his aunt will have to leave America. God forbid he and his family would have to follow the same rules.
I ask, if this is not true then why has not immigrations picked this woman up. They know where she is, but I also know they know who she is related to. I also ask, is it just because she is related to the President of the United States? Humm? Guess you can get away with just about anything if you are a relative of the President.
* * * *
I can not stand that Naplolitano fells it is her job to protect these people that break our laws and that our own Congressman Dicks is by her side while she is doing it. We are from Washington State and now will not be there to vote this Congressman back into office.
This whole thing makes me sick and want to find out how we,(our family) can help with stopping our electives from trying to destroy our well Being and our laws.
reply
Lillie9829 of OK
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 1:39pm
New
Re: Roy, Are there ANY
I have gone on the Change web site and tried to get the administration to discuss this problem with the American people. No response. They put up topics to discuss but the two I put up never appeared. We need to find a way to have an open discussion with this administration. I would like to know why our News programs do not bring up questions to Obama directly on E-Verify and also enforcing our laws.
We the American citizens of this country want to be heard.
Its time to protect and stand up for us not the illegal aliens.
They break our laws and we want to reward them where is the justice?
reply
Richard6783 of MA
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 1:23pm
New
Read "The Other Side of
Read "The Other Side of Accion Directa" by Fredo Arias-King for insight into some of our options
http://www.cis.org/taxonomy/term/125
reply
Henry0558 of IL
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 1:12pm
New
Re: Will Naplolitano Prove Arizona Doubters Correct? (THE ANTI-E
I suppose like so many of you out there I am totally outraged by the lack of enforcement of our imigration laws.
I am sick to think that my tax dollars are spent on foreigners. I have been writing about this for many years to Bush and once Sen. Obama & Durbin. All of my efforts have met with total resistance from those leaders. They get elected and then just do their own agenda. This is a major part of the outrage. They just are not good stewards of our laws or our money. Obviously, they have another agenda.
I am hopeful that we will succeed on immigration and reform the anchor baby laws which are so outdated.
Henry
reply
Julia1183 of CA
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 12:54pm
New
Roy, Are there ANY
Roy,
Are there ANY Congress people who will speak-up for Citizens and directly ask (demand!) Napolitano to enforce the law and contiune the worksite raids?
I would like to see several Congressmen and Senators come out and publicly demand she enforce the laws to save American jobs for legal workers only.
Also, I have scoured the DHS web site and can’t locate a public “comment” email link tab anyplace, if you know how I can send an online complaint, let me know.
NumbersUSA Moderator: We definitely need more Members of Congress to hold Napolitano accountable. Call and write your Members today!
DHS appears to prefer phone calls to emails.
reply Action
Latest Action Alert!
DHS Sec. Napolitano has voiced her opposition to ICE raids
This new action has been posted in your Action Buffet.
Go straight to this action in your Action Buffet.
Your Action Needed
Urge President Obama to Support Workplace EnforcementBlast DHS Sec. Napolitano for Opposing ICE Raids!Blast President Obama for Opposing ICE RaidsCustomize Your Action Board!See All Actions
Tell Others
Introduce your friends & family to NumbersUSA
Friday, February 27, 2009
U.S. Senate Votes to Uphold
U.S. Senate Votes to Uphold
Second Amendment in Washington, D.C.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Fairfax, Va. - The United States Senate has voted, with overwhelming bipartisan support, to adopt an amendment offered by Senator John Ensign (R-NV) that seeks to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia. The amendment, attached to S.160, the D.C. Voting Rights Act, will repeal restrictive gun control laws passed by the District of Columbia's (D.C.) city council after the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision. The vote margin was 62-36.
"Today's vote brings us one step closer to restoring the Second Amendment freedom of law-abiding D.C. residents," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "It's ludicrous that good people in our nation's capital continue to be harassed as they try to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes. This vote reinforces the historic Heller ruling."
After the Heller ruling, the D.C. city council passed a law requiring would-be gun owners to pay a registration fee, pass a 20-question multiple choice test, take a five-hour training course, undergo an invasive background check every six years, re-register any firearm every three years, and finally, submit all handguns for ballistics testing. Current D.C. law also bans an overwhelming majority of firearms commonly used for self-defense. This Ensign Amendment would also remedy that unjust practice.
"NRA would like to thank the lead sponsor, Sen. John Ensign for his efforts to reform D.C.'s gun laws and enable folks to protect their property and their loved ones," concluded Cox. "It's time for leaders in Washington to wake up to the fact that the Supreme Court decision is now the law of the land."
-NRA-
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.
www.NRAILA.org
Write Your Representative
Write The Media
Get Involved Locally
Register To Vote
Contribute
Second Amendment in Washington, D.C.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Fairfax, Va. - The United States Senate has voted, with overwhelming bipartisan support, to adopt an amendment offered by Senator John Ensign (R-NV) that seeks to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia. The amendment, attached to S.160, the D.C. Voting Rights Act, will repeal restrictive gun control laws passed by the District of Columbia's (D.C.) city council after the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision. The vote margin was 62-36.
"Today's vote brings us one step closer to restoring the Second Amendment freedom of law-abiding D.C. residents," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "It's ludicrous that good people in our nation's capital continue to be harassed as they try to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes. This vote reinforces the historic Heller ruling."
After the Heller ruling, the D.C. city council passed a law requiring would-be gun owners to pay a registration fee, pass a 20-question multiple choice test, take a five-hour training course, undergo an invasive background check every six years, re-register any firearm every three years, and finally, submit all handguns for ballistics testing. Current D.C. law also bans an overwhelming majority of firearms commonly used for self-defense. This Ensign Amendment would also remedy that unjust practice.
"NRA would like to thank the lead sponsor, Sen. John Ensign for his efforts to reform D.C.'s gun laws and enable folks to protect their property and their loved ones," concluded Cox. "It's time for leaders in Washington to wake up to the fact that the Supreme Court decision is now the law of the land."
-NRA-
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.
www.NRAILA.org
Write Your Representative
Write The Media
Get Involved Locally
Register To Vote
Contribute
'Urine or You're Out'.
JOB - URINE TEST
(Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay
my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.
In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my
taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.
I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ASS, doing drugs, while I work. . . .
Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine
test to get a public assistance check?
Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though . . . Something has to change in this country -- and soon!!!!!
Guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'.
PS. YOU KNOW OF COURSE, ONE ON DRUGS, OR A DRUNK. CAN APPLY AND GET SOCIAL
SECURITY WITH VIRTUALLY NO AGE REQUIREMENT.
(Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay
my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.
In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my
taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.
I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ASS, doing drugs, while I work. . . .
Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine
test to get a public assistance check?
Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though . . . Something has to change in this country -- and soon!!!!!
Guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'.
PS. YOU KNOW OF COURSE, ONE ON DRUGS, OR A DRUNK. CAN APPLY AND GET SOCIAL
SECURITY WITH VIRTUALLY NO AGE REQUIREMENT.
CORPORATE SPONSOR
THANKS SOL
BEST IDEA I'VE HEARD IN LONG, LONG TIME !!!
Members of Congress should be compelled to wear uniforms
like NASCAR drivers, so we can identify their corporate sponsor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. Check it out.
BEST IDEA I'VE HEARD IN LONG, LONG TIME !!!
Members of Congress should be compelled to wear uniforms
like NASCAR drivers, so we can identify their corporate sponsor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. Check it out.
READ THE LAW
We all have Mexican friends, but they live here legally!!! It is the illegal aliens we are all angry about here in America. But, now the State of Sonora,Mexico is Angry!!!!
The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from Sonora don't like it. Can you believe the nerve of these people? It's almost funny.
State of Sonora is angry at Influx of Mexicans into Mexico . Nine state legislators from the Mexican state of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona 's new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico . It seems that many Mexican illegals are now returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off about it. A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to say Arizona 's new employer sanctions law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state. At a news conference, the legislators said Sonora - Arizona 's southern neighbor, made up of mostly small towns - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers here return to their hometowns without jobs or money. The law, which took effect Jan.1, punishes employers who knowingly hire individuals who don't have valid legal documents to work in the United States Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license. The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on their state government. 'How can they pass a law like this?' asked Mexican Rep. Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales
.
'There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona,' she said, speaking only in Spanish. 'Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs,' she said. 'We are one family, socially and economically,' she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona Wrong! The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico, and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico 's citizens. It's time for the Mexican government, and its citizens, to stop parasitically feeding off of the United States and to start taking care of its/their own needs. Too bad all the US states don't pass a law just like Sonora . Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will not do anything!
New Immigration Laws: Read to the bottom or you will miss the message...
1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
* * * * * * * *
2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
* * * * * * * *
3.. All government business will be conducted in our language.
* * * * * * * *
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
* * * * * * * *
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
* * * * * * * *
6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.
* * * * * * * *
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
* * * * * * * *
8. If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
* * * * * * * *
9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
* * * * * * * *
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Too strict?...... The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO !!! These sound fine to me, NOW, how can we get these laws to be America's immigration laws??
WAKE UP, AMERICA -
we are losing our country........
The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from Sonora don't like it. Can you believe the nerve of these people? It's almost funny.
State of Sonora is angry at Influx of Mexicans into Mexico . Nine state legislators from the Mexican state of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona 's new employer crackdown on illegals from Mexico . It seems that many Mexican illegals are now returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off about it. A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to say Arizona 's new employer sanctions law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state. At a news conference, the legislators said Sonora - Arizona 's southern neighbor, made up of mostly small towns - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers here return to their hometowns without jobs or money. The law, which took effect Jan.1, punishes employers who knowingly hire individuals who don't have valid legal documents to work in the United States Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license. The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on their state government. 'How can they pass a law like this?' asked Mexican Rep. Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales
.
'There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona,' she said, speaking only in Spanish. 'Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs,' she said. 'We are one family, socially and economically,' she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona Wrong! The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico, and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico 's citizens. It's time for the Mexican government, and its citizens, to stop parasitically feeding off of the United States and to start taking care of its/their own needs. Too bad all the US states don't pass a law just like Sonora . Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will not do anything!
New Immigration Laws: Read to the bottom or you will miss the message...
1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
* * * * * * * *
2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
* * * * * * * *
3.. All government business will be conducted in our language.
* * * * * * * *
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
* * * * * * * *
5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
* * * * * * * *
6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported.
* * * * * * * *
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
* * * * * * * *
8. If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
* * * * * * * *
9.. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
* * * * * * * *
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Too strict?...... The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO !!! These sound fine to me, NOW, how can we get these laws to be America's immigration laws??
WAKE UP, AMERICA -
we are losing our country........
Thursday, February 26, 2009
THESE ARE VERY TRUE WORDS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: charlie@foodforlife.com
To: jaci@foodforlife.com; gary@foodforlife.com; davidrnf@hughes.net; DKKAIN@aol.com
CC: brick9@hotmail.com; minniebtorres@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: catching Wild Pigs
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:04:23 -0800
-----
From: Walter Barela
THESE ARE VERY TRUE WOEDS
Catching Wild Pigs
A chemistry professor in a large college had some
exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the
lab the professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept
rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.
The professor asked the young man what was the
matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He
had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who
were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new
communist government.
In the midst of his story he looked at the
professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to
catch wild pigs?'
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for
the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild
pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the
ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free
corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down
one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get
used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up
another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat
again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up
with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free
corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on
them and catch the whole herd.
Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom.
They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught.
Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it
that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves,
so they accept their captivity.
The young man then told the professor that is
exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps
pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in
the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for
unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to
plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we
continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.
One should always remember: There is no such
thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a
service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
Also, if you see that all of this wonderful
government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in
America , you might want to send this on to your friends. If you
think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will
probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams
shut!
Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians
who are about to slam the gate on America .
"A government big enough to give you everything
you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access your email online and on the go with Windows Live Hotmail. Sign up today.
From: charlie@foodforlife.com
To: jaci@foodforlife.com; gary@foodforlife.com; davidrnf@hughes.net; DKKAIN@aol.com
CC: brick9@hotmail.com; minniebtorres@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: catching Wild Pigs
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:04:23 -0800
-----
From: Walter Barela
THESE ARE VERY TRUE WOEDS
Catching Wild Pigs
A chemistry professor in a large college had some
exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the
lab the professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept
rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.
The professor asked the young man what was the
matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He
had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who
were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new
communist government.
In the midst of his story he looked at the
professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to
catch wild pigs?'
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for
the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild
pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the
ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free
corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down
one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get
used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up
another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat
again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up
with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free
corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on
them and catch the whole herd.
Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom.
They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught.
Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it
that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves,
so they accept their captivity.
The young man then told the professor that is
exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps
pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in
the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for
unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to
plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we
continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.
One should always remember: There is no such
thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a
service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
Also, if you see that all of this wonderful
government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in
America , you might want to send this on to your friends. If you
think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will
probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams
shut!
Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians
who are about to slam the gate on America .
"A government big enough to give you everything
you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access your email online and on the go with Windows Live Hotmail. Sign up today.
OBAMA AND NAPOLITANO QUESTION RAIDS
OBAMA AND NAPOLITANO QUESTION RAIDS
Please fax and phone President Obama and DHS Secretary Napolitano
Both Obama and Napolitano are questioning the necessity and effectiveness of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's work site enforcement raids
On February 24, 2009, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) executed a work site enforcement raid at the Yamato Engine Specialists plant in Bellingham, WA. This was the first ICE raid of the Obama Administration and resulted in the arrest of 28 illegal alien workers.
However, it seems that neither President Obama nor Department of Homeland Secretary (DHS) Napolitano are happy that the raid even occurred. White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said, "these raids are not a long-term solution.... The president believes we must respect due process and our best values as we enforce the law. The real answer to our broken immigration system is to fix it. The president has said that we will start the immigration reform debate this year, and this continues to be the plan." DHS Secretary Napolitano is so displeased with the ICE raid that she has ordered an internal investigation to determine why it was allowed to happen.
It is possible that President Obama and Secretary Napolitano's reluctance to support ICE's Bellingham raid stems from the vocal denunciations coming from pro-illegal worker and special interest groups. In fact, these groups are claiming that their members are overloading the White House switchboard with angry phone calls about the raid.
Please visit your Action Buffet and send faxes to President Obama and Secretary Napolitano. It is vital that the President and the Secretary hear from Americans who support ICE's work site raids. Please phone them using the phone notes on your Action Buf! fet.
Thank you for your continued support!
Please fax and phone President Obama and DHS Secretary Napolitano
Both Obama and Napolitano are questioning the necessity and effectiveness of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's work site enforcement raids
On February 24, 2009, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) executed a work site enforcement raid at the Yamato Engine Specialists plant in Bellingham, WA. This was the first ICE raid of the Obama Administration and resulted in the arrest of 28 illegal alien workers.
However, it seems that neither President Obama nor Department of Homeland Secretary (DHS) Napolitano are happy that the raid even occurred. White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said, "these raids are not a long-term solution.... The president believes we must respect due process and our best values as we enforce the law. The real answer to our broken immigration system is to fix it. The president has said that we will start the immigration reform debate this year, and this continues to be the plan." DHS Secretary Napolitano is so displeased with the ICE raid that she has ordered an internal investigation to determine why it was allowed to happen.
It is possible that President Obama and Secretary Napolitano's reluctance to support ICE's Bellingham raid stems from the vocal denunciations coming from pro-illegal worker and special interest groups. In fact, these groups are claiming that their members are overloading the White House switchboard with angry phone calls about the raid.
Please visit your Action Buffet and send faxes to President Obama and Secretary Napolitano. It is vital that the President and the Secretary hear from Americans who support ICE's work site raids. Please phone them using the phone notes on your Action Buf! fet.
Thank you for your continued support!
By GOV. BOBBY JINDAL |
GREAT ANSWER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ADDRESS TO THE NATION. THIS IS A SUPER GOVENOR
'Restrain Spending And Empower Individuals And Small Businesses'
By GOV. BOBBY JINDAL | Posted Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's nationally broadcast response to President Obama's speech to Congress Tuesday night was flawed by technical glitches and panned by commentators on both the left and right. For the record, here's what Jindal said.
Good evening. I'm Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana.
Tonight, we witnessed a great moment in the history of our Republic. In the very chamber where Congress once voted to abolish slavery, our first African-American president stepped forward to address the state of our union.
With his speech tonight, the president completed a redemptive journey that took our nation from Independence Hall . . . to Gettysburg . . . to the lunch counter . . . and now, finally, the Oval Office.
Regardless of party, all Americans are moved by the president's personal story — the son of an American mother and a Kenyan father, who grew up to become leader of the free world.
Like the president's father, my parents came to this country from a distant land. When they arrived in Baton Rouge, my mother was already 4 1/2 months pregnant. I was what folks in the insurance industry now call a "pre-existing condition."
To find work, my dad picked up the yellow pages and started calling local businesses. Even after landing a job, he could still not afford to pay for my delivery — so he worked out an installment plan with the doctor. Fortunately for me, he never missed a payment.
As I grew up, my mom and dad taught me the values that attracted them to this country — and they instilled in me an immigrant's wonder at the greatness of America.
As a child, I remember going to the grocery store with my dad. Growing up in India, he had seen extreme poverty. And as we walked through the aisles, looking at the endless variety on the shelves, he would tell me: "Bobby, Americans can do anything." I still believe that to this day. Americans can do anything. When we pull together, there is no challenge we cannot overcome.
As the president made clear this evening, we are now in a time of challenge. Many of you listening tonight have lost jobs. Others have seen your college and retirement savings dwindle. Many of you are worried about losing your health care and your homes. And you are looking to your elected leaders in Washington for solutions.
Republicans are ready to work with the new president to provide those solutions. Here in my state of Louisiana, we don't care what party you belong to if you have good ideas to make life better for our people. We need more of that attitude from both Democrats and Republicans in our nation's capital.
All of us want our economy to recover and our nation to prosper. So where we agree, Republicans must be the president's strongest partners. And where we disagree, Republicans have a responsibility to be candid and offer better ideas for a path forward.
Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us. Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina, we have our doubts. Let me tell you a story.
During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good friend of mine. When I walked into his makeshift office I'd never seen him so angry. He was yelling into the phone: "Well, I'm the sheriff and if you don't like it you can come and arrest me!" I asked him, "Sheriff, what's got you so mad?"
He told me that he had put out a call for volunteers to come with their boats to rescue people who were trapped on their rooftops by the floodwaters. The boats were all lined up, ready to go — when some bureaucrat showed up and told them they couldn't go out on the water unless they had proof of insurance and registration.
I told him, "Sheriff, that's ridiculous." And before I knew it, he was yelling into the phone: "Congressman Jindal is here, and he says you can come and arrest him, too!" Harry just told the boaters to ignore the bureaucrats and start rescuing people.
There is a lesson in this experience: The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens. We are grateful for the support we have received from across the nation for the ongoing recovery efforts. This spirit got Louisiana through the hurricanes — and this spirit will get our nation through the storms we face today.
To solve our current problems, Washington must lead. But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians. The way to lead is by empowering you — the American people. Because we believe that Americans can do anything.
That is why Republicans put forward plans to create jobs by lowering income-tax rates for working families . . . cutting taxes for small businesses . . . strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment and hire new workers . . . and stabilizing home values by creating a new tax credit for homebuyers. These plans would cost less and create more jobs.
But Democratic leaders in Congress rejected this approach. Instead of trusting us to make wise decisions with our own money, they passed the largest government spending bill in history — with a price tag of more than $1 trillion with interest.
While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a "magnetic levitation" line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called "volcano monitoring."
Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.
Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line and saddle future generations with debt. Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did. It's irresponsible. And it's no way to strengthen our economy, create jobs or build a prosperous future for our children.
In Louisiana, we took a different approach. Since I became governor, we cut more than 250 earmarks from our state budget. And to create jobs for our citizens, we cut taxes six times — including the largest income-tax cut in the history of our state.
We passed those tax cuts with bipartisan majorities. Republicans and Democrats put aside their differences, and worked together to make sure our people could keep more of what they earn. If it can be done in Baton Rouge, surely it can be done in Washington, D.C.
To strengthen our economy, we need urgent action to keep energy prices down. All of us remember what it felt like to pay $4 at the pump — and unless we act now, those prices will return. To stop that from happening, we need to increase conservation . . . increase energy efficiency . . . increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels . . . increase our use of nuclear power — and increase drilling for oil and gas here at home.
We believe that Americans can do anything — and if we unleash the innovative spirit of our citizens, we can achieve energy independence.
To strengthen our economy, we also need to address the crisis in health care. Republicans believe in a simple principle: No American should have to worry about losing their health coverage — period. We stand for universal access to affordable health care coverage. We oppose universal government-run health care. Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients — not by government bureaucrats.
We believe Americans can do anything — and if we put aside partisan politics and work together, we can make our system of private medicine affordable and accessible for every one of our citizens.
To strengthen our economy, we also need to make sure every child in America gets the best possible education. After Katrina, we reinvented the New Orleans school system — opening dozens of new charter schools, and creating a new scholarship program that is giving parents the chance to send their children to private or parochial schools of their choice.
We believe that, with the proper education, the children of America can do anything. And it should not take a devastating storm to bring this kind of innovation to education in our country.
To strengthen our economy, we must promote confidence in America by ensuring ours is the most ethical and transparent system in the world. In my home state, there used to be saying: At any given time, half of Louisiana is under water and the other half is under indictment. No one says that anymore. Last year, we passed some of the strongest ethics laws in the nation — and today, Louisiana has turned her back on the corruption of the past.
We need to bring transparency to Washington, D.C. — so we can rid our Capitol of corruption . . . and ensure we never see the passage of another trillion-dollar spending bill that Congress has not even read and the American people haven't even seen.
As we take these steps, we must remember for all our troubles at home, dangerous enemies still seek our destruction. Now is no time to dismantle the defenses that have protected this country for hundreds of years, or make deep cuts in funding for our troops. America's fighting men and women can do anything. And if we give them the resources they need, they will stay on the offensive . . . defeat our enemies . . . and protect us from harm.
In all these areas, Republicans want to work with President Obama. We appreciate his message of hope — but sometimes it seems we look for hope in different places. Democratic leaders in Washington place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you, the American people.
In the end, it comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government. We oppose the national Democrats' view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, and empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and create jobs.
In recent years, these distinctions in philosophy became less clear, because our party got away from its principles. You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington. Republicans lost your trust — and rightly so.
Tonight, on behalf of our leaders in Congress and my fellow Republican governors, I say: Our party is determined to regain your trust. We will do so by standing up for the principles that we share . . . the principles you elected us to fight for . . . the principles that built this into the greatest, most prosperous country on earth.
A few weeks ago, the president warned that our nation is facing a crisis that he said "we may not be able to reverse." Our troubles are real, to be sure. But don't let anyone tell you that we cannot recover — or that America's best days are behind her.
This is the nation that cast off the scourge of slavery . . . overcame the Great Depression . . . prevailed in two World Wars . . . won the struggle for civil rights . . . defeated the Soviet menace . . . and responded with determined courage to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The American spirit has triumphed over almost every form of adversity known to man — and the American spirit will triumph again.
We can have confidence in our future — because, amid today's challenges, we also count many blessings: We have the most innovative citizens . . . the most abundant resources . . . the most resilient economy . . . the most powerful military . . . and the freest political system in the history of the world. My fellow citizens, never forget: We are Americans. And like my dad said years ago, Americans can do anything.
Thank you for listening. God bless you. And God bless America.
'Restrain Spending And Empower Individuals And Small Businesses'
By GOV. BOBBY JINDAL | Posted Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's nationally broadcast response to President Obama's speech to Congress Tuesday night was flawed by technical glitches and panned by commentators on both the left and right. For the record, here's what Jindal said.
Good evening. I'm Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana.
Tonight, we witnessed a great moment in the history of our Republic. In the very chamber where Congress once voted to abolish slavery, our first African-American president stepped forward to address the state of our union.
With his speech tonight, the president completed a redemptive journey that took our nation from Independence Hall . . . to Gettysburg . . . to the lunch counter . . . and now, finally, the Oval Office.
Regardless of party, all Americans are moved by the president's personal story — the son of an American mother and a Kenyan father, who grew up to become leader of the free world.
Like the president's father, my parents came to this country from a distant land. When they arrived in Baton Rouge, my mother was already 4 1/2 months pregnant. I was what folks in the insurance industry now call a "pre-existing condition."
To find work, my dad picked up the yellow pages and started calling local businesses. Even after landing a job, he could still not afford to pay for my delivery — so he worked out an installment plan with the doctor. Fortunately for me, he never missed a payment.
As I grew up, my mom and dad taught me the values that attracted them to this country — and they instilled in me an immigrant's wonder at the greatness of America.
As a child, I remember going to the grocery store with my dad. Growing up in India, he had seen extreme poverty. And as we walked through the aisles, looking at the endless variety on the shelves, he would tell me: "Bobby, Americans can do anything." I still believe that to this day. Americans can do anything. When we pull together, there is no challenge we cannot overcome.
As the president made clear this evening, we are now in a time of challenge. Many of you listening tonight have lost jobs. Others have seen your college and retirement savings dwindle. Many of you are worried about losing your health care and your homes. And you are looking to your elected leaders in Washington for solutions.
Republicans are ready to work with the new president to provide those solutions. Here in my state of Louisiana, we don't care what party you belong to if you have good ideas to make life better for our people. We need more of that attitude from both Democrats and Republicans in our nation's capital.
All of us want our economy to recover and our nation to prosper. So where we agree, Republicans must be the president's strongest partners. And where we disagree, Republicans have a responsibility to be candid and offer better ideas for a path forward.
Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us. Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina, we have our doubts. Let me tell you a story.
During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good friend of mine. When I walked into his makeshift office I'd never seen him so angry. He was yelling into the phone: "Well, I'm the sheriff and if you don't like it you can come and arrest me!" I asked him, "Sheriff, what's got you so mad?"
He told me that he had put out a call for volunteers to come with their boats to rescue people who were trapped on their rooftops by the floodwaters. The boats were all lined up, ready to go — when some bureaucrat showed up and told them they couldn't go out on the water unless they had proof of insurance and registration.
I told him, "Sheriff, that's ridiculous." And before I knew it, he was yelling into the phone: "Congressman Jindal is here, and he says you can come and arrest him, too!" Harry just told the boaters to ignore the bureaucrats and start rescuing people.
There is a lesson in this experience: The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens. We are grateful for the support we have received from across the nation for the ongoing recovery efforts. This spirit got Louisiana through the hurricanes — and this spirit will get our nation through the storms we face today.
To solve our current problems, Washington must lead. But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians. The way to lead is by empowering you — the American people. Because we believe that Americans can do anything.
That is why Republicans put forward plans to create jobs by lowering income-tax rates for working families . . . cutting taxes for small businesses . . . strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment and hire new workers . . . and stabilizing home values by creating a new tax credit for homebuyers. These plans would cost less and create more jobs.
But Democratic leaders in Congress rejected this approach. Instead of trusting us to make wise decisions with our own money, they passed the largest government spending bill in history — with a price tag of more than $1 trillion with interest.
While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a "magnetic levitation" line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called "volcano monitoring."
Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.
Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line and saddle future generations with debt. Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did. It's irresponsible. And it's no way to strengthen our economy, create jobs or build a prosperous future for our children.
In Louisiana, we took a different approach. Since I became governor, we cut more than 250 earmarks from our state budget. And to create jobs for our citizens, we cut taxes six times — including the largest income-tax cut in the history of our state.
We passed those tax cuts with bipartisan majorities. Republicans and Democrats put aside their differences, and worked together to make sure our people could keep more of what they earn. If it can be done in Baton Rouge, surely it can be done in Washington, D.C.
To strengthen our economy, we need urgent action to keep energy prices down. All of us remember what it felt like to pay $4 at the pump — and unless we act now, those prices will return. To stop that from happening, we need to increase conservation . . . increase energy efficiency . . . increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels . . . increase our use of nuclear power — and increase drilling for oil and gas here at home.
We believe that Americans can do anything — and if we unleash the innovative spirit of our citizens, we can achieve energy independence.
To strengthen our economy, we also need to address the crisis in health care. Republicans believe in a simple principle: No American should have to worry about losing their health coverage — period. We stand for universal access to affordable health care coverage. We oppose universal government-run health care. Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients — not by government bureaucrats.
We believe Americans can do anything — and if we put aside partisan politics and work together, we can make our system of private medicine affordable and accessible for every one of our citizens.
To strengthen our economy, we also need to make sure every child in America gets the best possible education. After Katrina, we reinvented the New Orleans school system — opening dozens of new charter schools, and creating a new scholarship program that is giving parents the chance to send their children to private or parochial schools of their choice.
We believe that, with the proper education, the children of America can do anything. And it should not take a devastating storm to bring this kind of innovation to education in our country.
To strengthen our economy, we must promote confidence in America by ensuring ours is the most ethical and transparent system in the world. In my home state, there used to be saying: At any given time, half of Louisiana is under water and the other half is under indictment. No one says that anymore. Last year, we passed some of the strongest ethics laws in the nation — and today, Louisiana has turned her back on the corruption of the past.
We need to bring transparency to Washington, D.C. — so we can rid our Capitol of corruption . . . and ensure we never see the passage of another trillion-dollar spending bill that Congress has not even read and the American people haven't even seen.
As we take these steps, we must remember for all our troubles at home, dangerous enemies still seek our destruction. Now is no time to dismantle the defenses that have protected this country for hundreds of years, or make deep cuts in funding for our troops. America's fighting men and women can do anything. And if we give them the resources they need, they will stay on the offensive . . . defeat our enemies . . . and protect us from harm.
In all these areas, Republicans want to work with President Obama. We appreciate his message of hope — but sometimes it seems we look for hope in different places. Democratic leaders in Washington place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you, the American people.
In the end, it comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government. We oppose the national Democrats' view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, and empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and create jobs.
In recent years, these distinctions in philosophy became less clear, because our party got away from its principles. You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington. Republicans lost your trust — and rightly so.
Tonight, on behalf of our leaders in Congress and my fellow Republican governors, I say: Our party is determined to regain your trust. We will do so by standing up for the principles that we share . . . the principles you elected us to fight for . . . the principles that built this into the greatest, most prosperous country on earth.
A few weeks ago, the president warned that our nation is facing a crisis that he said "we may not be able to reverse." Our troubles are real, to be sure. But don't let anyone tell you that we cannot recover — or that America's best days are behind her.
This is the nation that cast off the scourge of slavery . . . overcame the Great Depression . . . prevailed in two World Wars . . . won the struggle for civil rights . . . defeated the Soviet menace . . . and responded with determined courage to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The American spirit has triumphed over almost every form of adversity known to man — and the American spirit will triumph again.
We can have confidence in our future — because, amid today's challenges, we also count many blessings: We have the most innovative citizens . . . the most abundant resources . . . the most resilient economy . . . the most powerful military . . . and the freest political system in the history of the world. My fellow citizens, never forget: We are Americans. And like my dad said years ago, Americans can do anything.
Thank you for listening. God bless you. And God bless America.
New Era, Old Story
New Era, Old Story
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Budget: "The time has come to usher in a new era," the president said in unveiling his budget. If he means burdening the economy with huge new taxes, he's succeeded. If he means ending budget gimmicks, he has failed.
In describing his spending plan, President Obama claimed he's making "the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal discipline" and will "cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office and put our nation on sound fiscal footing."
The only tough thing about this budget is what it has in store for the most productive parts of the economy. Over the next 10 years, Obama seeks to impose tax hikes totaling a stunning $1.66 trillion on businesses and successful families.
The "rich" — those families earning $250,000 or more — would have to pay $954 billion more, thanks to Obama's plan to reimpose pre-Bush era tax rates, set a 20% rate on capital gains and add a limit on itemized deductions.
Businesses, meanwhile, would have to kick in an additional $645.7 billion through a cap-and-trade carbon tax the president hopes to get enacted allegedly to fight global warming.
Then there's the $353.5 billion raised through unspecified "other revenue changes and loophole closers." Given Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on the bottom 95% of taxpayers, that can only mean still more taxes for the "rich" and business owners.
Of course, Obama boasts that his plan also includes $940 billion in tax cuts. But much of this is actually in the form of checks written to people who don't pay income taxes to begin with — which is technically new spending, not a tax cut.
Meanwhile, the Obama budget clearly fails to live up to his goal of "honesty and accountability" in federal budgeting. Indeed, it's full of gimmicks designed to make it look much better than it is.
Examples:
• Phony baseline spending forecasts. Obama's budget assumes that the government will continue to spend $170 billion a year on the Iraq War until the end of time. By cutting that number back, he magically credits himself a huge $1.49 trillion in savings over 10 years.
• Unreasonable assumptions: The budget counts on $316 billion in savings from Medicare, not through benefit cuts, but through efforts to promote "efficiency and accountability." History has shown that such promises are easy to make, but almost impossible to keep.
• Rosy economic scenarios: Budget forecasts are hugely dependent on underlying economic assumptions. And Obama's predictions assume that the economy will perform better over the next 10 years than the Congressional Budget Office or the Blue Chip Consensus predicts.
By 2013, for example, Obama says the GDP will be $700 billion bigger than the Blue Chip forecast, with unemployment, interest rates and inflation lower over the next four years. In the past, Democrats and the mainstream press routinely blasted GOP presidents for such sunny forecasts. Don't expect the same from them now.
• Spend now, save later: A subtler trick used by the administration is to front-load spending hikes while promising fiscal discipline later. In this case, Obama asks for an increase in discretionary spending of 6.5% this year, but then expects us to believe that he will hold spending hikes to 2% in the following years.
The president is right. This is certainly a new era. But somehow we doubt this is what voters had in mind when they voted for change last November.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Budget: "The time has come to usher in a new era," the president said in unveiling his budget. If he means burdening the economy with huge new taxes, he's succeeded. If he means ending budget gimmicks, he has failed.
In describing his spending plan, President Obama claimed he's making "the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal discipline" and will "cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office and put our nation on sound fiscal footing."
The only tough thing about this budget is what it has in store for the most productive parts of the economy. Over the next 10 years, Obama seeks to impose tax hikes totaling a stunning $1.66 trillion on businesses and successful families.
The "rich" — those families earning $250,000 or more — would have to pay $954 billion more, thanks to Obama's plan to reimpose pre-Bush era tax rates, set a 20% rate on capital gains and add a limit on itemized deductions.
Businesses, meanwhile, would have to kick in an additional $645.7 billion through a cap-and-trade carbon tax the president hopes to get enacted allegedly to fight global warming.
Then there's the $353.5 billion raised through unspecified "other revenue changes and loophole closers." Given Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on the bottom 95% of taxpayers, that can only mean still more taxes for the "rich" and business owners.
Of course, Obama boasts that his plan also includes $940 billion in tax cuts. But much of this is actually in the form of checks written to people who don't pay income taxes to begin with — which is technically new spending, not a tax cut.
Meanwhile, the Obama budget clearly fails to live up to his goal of "honesty and accountability" in federal budgeting. Indeed, it's full of gimmicks designed to make it look much better than it is.
Examples:
• Phony baseline spending forecasts. Obama's budget assumes that the government will continue to spend $170 billion a year on the Iraq War until the end of time. By cutting that number back, he magically credits himself a huge $1.49 trillion in savings over 10 years.
• Unreasonable assumptions: The budget counts on $316 billion in savings from Medicare, not through benefit cuts, but through efforts to promote "efficiency and accountability." History has shown that such promises are easy to make, but almost impossible to keep.
• Rosy economic scenarios: Budget forecasts are hugely dependent on underlying economic assumptions. And Obama's predictions assume that the economy will perform better over the next 10 years than the Congressional Budget Office or the Blue Chip Consensus predicts.
By 2013, for example, Obama says the GDP will be $700 billion bigger than the Blue Chip forecast, with unemployment, interest rates and inflation lower over the next four years. In the past, Democrats and the mainstream press routinely blasted GOP presidents for such sunny forecasts. Don't expect the same from them now.
• Spend now, save later: A subtler trick used by the administration is to front-load spending hikes while promising fiscal discipline later. In this case, Obama asks for an increase in discretionary spending of 6.5% this year, but then expects us to believe that he will hold spending hikes to 2% in the following years.
The president is right. This is certainly a new era. But somehow we doubt this is what voters had in mind when they voted for change last November.
Congressmen Aim to Stop Fairness Doctrine
Breaking from Newsmax.com
Radio Insiders, Congressmen Aim to Stop Fairness Doctrine
Moves are afoot to head off any Democratic efforts to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine and stifle conservative talk radio.
A group of radio insiders has formed the Free Radio Coalition to fight the reinstatement, Radio America President James Roberts said on Tuesday.
Radio America talk show host and former San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock will chair the coalition.
“The reinstatement of the misnamed Fairness Doctrine would constitute a massive assault on our cherished First Amendment rights and should be of concern to all Americans, regardless of their political or religious persuasion,” Hedgecock said.
Group members want to hold a conference of talk show hosts and religious broadcasters in Washington to plan strategy, the Washington Times reported.
They also plan to prepare expert testimony in case the Federal Communications Commission or congressional committees hold hearings on the Doctrine.
A Barack Obama spokesman recently said the president opposes reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. But a number of Democratic senators, including Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois have expressed support for such a move.
Originally instituted in 1949 by the FCC, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters using the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views. The FCC repealed the measure in 1987.
Since talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by conservative hosts, and liberal talk radio draws few listeners, the “equal time” provision would likely force many radio stations to pull popular conservative hosts from the air rather than air low-rated liberal hosts.
Rep. Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican who has guest-hosted on Laura Ingraham’s conservative radio talk show, is seeking to bar the FCC from using taxpayer funds to enforce the Doctrine.
He has drafted an amendment to the $410 billion omnibus spending bill that would block the FCC from resuming the policy, The Hill newspaper reported.
“Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine today would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves,” said Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference.
“The American people cherish freedom, especially freedom of speech and of the press.”
In 2007, the House voted overwhelmingly to prevent the FCC from enforcing the Doctrine with taxpayer funds.
But Pence is concerned that on March 6, when the stopgap measure funding the government expires, Democrats could seek to put the policy back in place.
“While a permanent ban is ideal, in the short term the Pence amendment would reassure freedom-loving Americans that the national asset of talk radio would remain free from censorship for the next year,” Pence said in a statement.
Last week Newsmax reported that Sen. Jim DeMint announced that he would force a vote on a bill preventing the FCC from reinstating the Doctrine.
The South Carolina Republican said the bill, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, would be offered as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Radio Insiders, Congressmen Aim to Stop Fairness Doctrine
Moves are afoot to head off any Democratic efforts to reinstate the so-called Fairness Doctrine and stifle conservative talk radio.
A group of radio insiders has formed the Free Radio Coalition to fight the reinstatement, Radio America President James Roberts said on Tuesday.
Radio America talk show host and former San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock will chair the coalition.
“The reinstatement of the misnamed Fairness Doctrine would constitute a massive assault on our cherished First Amendment rights and should be of concern to all Americans, regardless of their political or religious persuasion,” Hedgecock said.
Group members want to hold a conference of talk show hosts and religious broadcasters in Washington to plan strategy, the Washington Times reported.
They also plan to prepare expert testimony in case the Federal Communications Commission or congressional committees hold hearings on the Doctrine.
A Barack Obama spokesman recently said the president opposes reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. But a number of Democratic senators, including Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois have expressed support for such a move.
Originally instituted in 1949 by the FCC, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters using the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views. The FCC repealed the measure in 1987.
Since talk radio is overwhelmingly dominated by conservative hosts, and liberal talk radio draws few listeners, the “equal time” provision would likely force many radio stations to pull popular conservative hosts from the air rather than air low-rated liberal hosts.
Rep. Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican who has guest-hosted on Laura Ingraham’s conservative radio talk show, is seeking to bar the FCC from using taxpayer funds to enforce the Doctrine.
He has drafted an amendment to the $410 billion omnibus spending bill that would block the FCC from resuming the policy, The Hill newspaper reported.
“Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine today would amount to government control over political views expressed on the public airwaves,” said Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference.
“The American people cherish freedom, especially freedom of speech and of the press.”
In 2007, the House voted overwhelmingly to prevent the FCC from enforcing the Doctrine with taxpayer funds.
But Pence is concerned that on March 6, when the stopgap measure funding the government expires, Democrats could seek to put the policy back in place.
“While a permanent ban is ideal, in the short term the Pence amendment would reassure freedom-loving Americans that the national asset of talk radio would remain free from censorship for the next year,” Pence said in a statement.
Last week Newsmax reported that Sen. Jim DeMint announced that he would force a vote on a bill preventing the FCC from reinstating the Doctrine.
The South Carolina Republican said the bill, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, would be offered as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Democrat Blue Dogs Fewer in Number, But Stronger in Bite
YOU MAY WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF THE SIX DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMEN LISTED AS THEY MAY BE MORE TO OUR LIKING THAN AT FIRST NOTICE.
Democrat Blue Dogs Fewer in Number, But Stronger in Bite
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:21 PM
By: John Mercurio
Who are the real Blue Dogs?
The question irks leaders of the fiscally conservative coalition of House Democrats, which made solid gains in 2008 and now includes 49 members. Every one of them is sincerely committed to reducing the federal deficit, they say. Of the 49, however, only six of them voted against President Obama’s $789 billion economic stimulus package despite their stated, laser-like focus on balancing the budget. Obama’s plan, by his own acknowledgement, will increase the deficit in the short term by roughly $200 billion. (Another five Blue Dogs who had opposed Obama’s original plan switched to “yes” votes on the final version).
Obama is working to court Blue Dogs. The president invited them to the White House on Feb. 10 and focused their hour-long meeting on curbing federal spending rather than boosting the deficit. “We feel like he is committed to fiscal responsibility,” Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), one of the Blue Dogs who switched to ultimately support the president’s plan, told reporters after the meeting.
Blue Dogs claim Obama’s recent promise to cut the deficit in half by 2012 is a result of their efforts. “This week alone, President Obama is doing more to address the serious long-term fiscal problems facing our country than former President Bush and his congressional allies did during his entire 8-year tenure in office,” said Blue Dog Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.).
Still, some Blue Dogs say their relations with House Democratic leaders frayed during the stimulus negotiations, mostly because many Blue Dog demands were ignored. “I got in terrible trouble with our leadership because they don't care what's in the bill; they just want it to pass and they want it to be unanimous,” Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), a Blue Dog with particularly tense ties to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, told a Nashville radio station in early February. “We're just told how to vote. We're treated like mushrooms most of the time.”
So, will the Blue Dogs cling to their traditional colors, or will they be swallowed up by red ink? The answer to that question could depend largely on how aggressively these six “real” Blue Dogs push back against their party’s leaders.
Here’s a look at the “real” Blue Dogs of Capitol Hill:
Bobby Bright (Ala.): Bright, a farmer and former mayor of Montgomery, Ala., voted against both versions of the bill, saying there was too much spending and not enough stimulus in the bill. He complained that his party’s congressional leaders “rushed” the bill through Congress “with little debate or opportunity to offer meaningful changes.” And as a result, he said, his constituents overwhelmingly oppose it. Bright said his constituents “have little faith” that the bill “will be worth its tremendous” price tag. “I share their concerns,” he added. John McCain carried Bright’s district by 27 points last November, roughly the same margin as George W. Bush scored in 2000 and 2004, according to vote totals compiled by Swing State Project.
Parker Griffith (Ala.): Griffith, a former state senator from northern Alabama, said his vote was a “difficult but very thoughtful decision.” He said he had been willing to support a bill that included tax cuts, job creation and infrastructure projects. “But as the package went through the legislative process, it soon became apparent that this would be a spending bill without the necessary provisions to jump start our economy,” he said. McCain carried Griffith’s district by 23 points, roughly the same as Bush’s performance in 2000 and 2004, according to Swing State Project.
Walter Minnick (Idaho): Minnick, a local businessman from western Idaho, voted against the plan because, he said, it can’t work until the country’s banking and financial industries are back on their feet. As an example, he cited funds in the plan devoted to infrastructure projects. Without access to loans from cash-strapped banks, he said, contractors can’t obtain lines of credit to buy equipment they need to begin work on projects. Minnick, who offered a scaled-down $200 billion stimulus as an alternative, said he didn’t mind being one of only 11 Democrats to vote against the plan. “My job is to represent Idaho and to do what's best for this country, and that's more important than party lines,” he told local reporters. McCain carried Minnick’s district by 22 points, but that marks a sharp decline for the GOP ticket over the past eight years. In 2000, Bush carried the district by 40 points.
Collin Peterson (Minn.): Peterson, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, said he could support spending for infrastructure improvements, but not for tax cuts that only add to the federal deficit. “I just could not get there -- I could not borrow money to give people tax cuts," he told local supporters in Bemidji, Minn., a few days after the vote. “We have a $2.2 trillion backlog in infrastructure. If they had put that $800 billion into infrastructure, into unemployment insurance, gave people health care who lost their jobs, and into food stamps, I would have borrowed the money and done that.” McCain carried Peterson’s district by just 3 points. Bush carried the district by double digits in both 2000 and 2004.
Heath Shuler (N.C.): Shuler, a former Washington Redskins quarterback, who’s eyeing a possible challenge to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) in 2010, criticized his party’s leaders for failing to work across the aisle on the stimulus bill. "In order for us to get the confidence of America, it has to be done in a bipartisan way," he told Salon. "We have to have everyone -- Democrats and Republicans standing on the stage with the administration – saying, ‘We got something done that was efficient, stimulating and timely.'” (To this, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s spokesman had a ready response: “Let me get this straight - this is coming from a guy who threw more than twice as many interceptions than touchdowns?” quipped Reid spokesman Jim Manley). McCain won Shuler’s district by 5 points, a sharp decline for Republicans since 2000. At that time, Bush beat Gore there by 18 points.
Gene Taylor (Miss.): Taylor, dean of the Blue Dog caucus and arguably the most conservative member of the House Democratic caucus, said he simply couldn’t support a stimulus bill that spiked the deficit. “We will have to borrow every penny of the $789 billion,” he fumed after the House vote. “Our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay it all back with interest.” As Taylor noted, “$789 billion is an enormous amount – As much debt as the nation borrowed in our first 203 years, from the revolutionary war to the beginning of Jimmy Carter’s Presidency in 1978.” McCain trounced Obama in Taylor’s district, winning by 36 points. That margin is roughly unchanged from the past two presidential elections
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Democrat Blue Dogs Fewer in Number, But Stronger in Bite
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:21 PM
By: John Mercurio
Who are the real Blue Dogs?
The question irks leaders of the fiscally conservative coalition of House Democrats, which made solid gains in 2008 and now includes 49 members. Every one of them is sincerely committed to reducing the federal deficit, they say. Of the 49, however, only six of them voted against President Obama’s $789 billion economic stimulus package despite their stated, laser-like focus on balancing the budget. Obama’s plan, by his own acknowledgement, will increase the deficit in the short term by roughly $200 billion. (Another five Blue Dogs who had opposed Obama’s original plan switched to “yes” votes on the final version).
Obama is working to court Blue Dogs. The president invited them to the White House on Feb. 10 and focused their hour-long meeting on curbing federal spending rather than boosting the deficit. “We feel like he is committed to fiscal responsibility,” Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), one of the Blue Dogs who switched to ultimately support the president’s plan, told reporters after the meeting.
Blue Dogs claim Obama’s recent promise to cut the deficit in half by 2012 is a result of their efforts. “This week alone, President Obama is doing more to address the serious long-term fiscal problems facing our country than former President Bush and his congressional allies did during his entire 8-year tenure in office,” said Blue Dog Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.).
Still, some Blue Dogs say their relations with House Democratic leaders frayed during the stimulus negotiations, mostly because many Blue Dog demands were ignored. “I got in terrible trouble with our leadership because they don't care what's in the bill; they just want it to pass and they want it to be unanimous,” Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), a Blue Dog with particularly tense ties to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, told a Nashville radio station in early February. “We're just told how to vote. We're treated like mushrooms most of the time.”
So, will the Blue Dogs cling to their traditional colors, or will they be swallowed up by red ink? The answer to that question could depend largely on how aggressively these six “real” Blue Dogs push back against their party’s leaders.
Here’s a look at the “real” Blue Dogs of Capitol Hill:
Bobby Bright (Ala.): Bright, a farmer and former mayor of Montgomery, Ala., voted against both versions of the bill, saying there was too much spending and not enough stimulus in the bill. He complained that his party’s congressional leaders “rushed” the bill through Congress “with little debate or opportunity to offer meaningful changes.” And as a result, he said, his constituents overwhelmingly oppose it. Bright said his constituents “have little faith” that the bill “will be worth its tremendous” price tag. “I share their concerns,” he added. John McCain carried Bright’s district by 27 points last November, roughly the same margin as George W. Bush scored in 2000 and 2004, according to vote totals compiled by Swing State Project.
Parker Griffith (Ala.): Griffith, a former state senator from northern Alabama, said his vote was a “difficult but very thoughtful decision.” He said he had been willing to support a bill that included tax cuts, job creation and infrastructure projects. “But as the package went through the legislative process, it soon became apparent that this would be a spending bill without the necessary provisions to jump start our economy,” he said. McCain carried Griffith’s district by 23 points, roughly the same as Bush’s performance in 2000 and 2004, according to Swing State Project.
Walter Minnick (Idaho): Minnick, a local businessman from western Idaho, voted against the plan because, he said, it can’t work until the country’s banking and financial industries are back on their feet. As an example, he cited funds in the plan devoted to infrastructure projects. Without access to loans from cash-strapped banks, he said, contractors can’t obtain lines of credit to buy equipment they need to begin work on projects. Minnick, who offered a scaled-down $200 billion stimulus as an alternative, said he didn’t mind being one of only 11 Democrats to vote against the plan. “My job is to represent Idaho and to do what's best for this country, and that's more important than party lines,” he told local reporters. McCain carried Minnick’s district by 22 points, but that marks a sharp decline for the GOP ticket over the past eight years. In 2000, Bush carried the district by 40 points.
Collin Peterson (Minn.): Peterson, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, said he could support spending for infrastructure improvements, but not for tax cuts that only add to the federal deficit. “I just could not get there -- I could not borrow money to give people tax cuts," he told local supporters in Bemidji, Minn., a few days after the vote. “We have a $2.2 trillion backlog in infrastructure. If they had put that $800 billion into infrastructure, into unemployment insurance, gave people health care who lost their jobs, and into food stamps, I would have borrowed the money and done that.” McCain carried Peterson’s district by just 3 points. Bush carried the district by double digits in both 2000 and 2004.
Heath Shuler (N.C.): Shuler, a former Washington Redskins quarterback, who’s eyeing a possible challenge to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) in 2010, criticized his party’s leaders for failing to work across the aisle on the stimulus bill. "In order for us to get the confidence of America, it has to be done in a bipartisan way," he told Salon. "We have to have everyone -- Democrats and Republicans standing on the stage with the administration – saying, ‘We got something done that was efficient, stimulating and timely.'” (To this, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s spokesman had a ready response: “Let me get this straight - this is coming from a guy who threw more than twice as many interceptions than touchdowns?” quipped Reid spokesman Jim Manley). McCain won Shuler’s district by 5 points, a sharp decline for Republicans since 2000. At that time, Bush beat Gore there by 18 points.
Gene Taylor (Miss.): Taylor, dean of the Blue Dog caucus and arguably the most conservative member of the House Democratic caucus, said he simply couldn’t support a stimulus bill that spiked the deficit. “We will have to borrow every penny of the $789 billion,” he fumed after the House vote. “Our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay it all back with interest.” As Taylor noted, “$789 billion is an enormous amount – As much debt as the nation borrowed in our first 203 years, from the revolutionary war to the beginning of Jimmy Carter’s Presidency in 1978.” McCain trounced Obama in Taylor’s district, winning by 36 points. That margin is roughly unchanged from the past two presidential elections
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Day Of Reaganing
Day Of Reaganing
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Politics: The White House promised Reaganesque rhetoric in President Obama's speech to Congress. We got it all right: a vow that America's greatest days are yet to come — courtesy of policies Reagan strongly opposed.
As Barack Obama spoke Tuesday night, he sounded like the fictional, post-apocalyptic president Morgan Freeman played in the movie "Deep Impact." After an asteroid impact triggers a mega-tsunami destroying the East Coast, Freeman stands before the half-collapsed Capitol dome and declares: "Cities fall, but they are rebuilt . . . So now, let us begin."
According to President Obama, the financial crisis is an "extinction-level event," an impending doomsday. The "day of reckoning has arrived," he told the nation. And like Freeman's science fiction president, he promised, "We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before."
Evoking Ronald Reagan, the president assured us the solutions can be found "in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth. Those qualities that have made America the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history we still possess in ample measure."
But that's where the similarity to Reagan ends.
A calamity rooted in the federal government for years insisting that banks make bad loans in the name of social justice is diagnosed by the president as being the fault of, among others, the oil and drug industries.
"We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy," Obama said. "Yet we import more oil today than ever before. The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform."
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel sure wasn't kidding when he said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." This administration would use the financial crisis to enact the radical green agenda for which liberal Democrats have so long pined — and to pass socialized medicine, so roundly rejected by Americans when then-First Lady Hillary Clinton tried it in the early '90s.
"People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway," Obama contended in his address — neglecting to mention the fact that it was his ideological soul mates in Congress who wanted those loans made. In 1995, Obama himself even took part in suing Citibank on the charge of racially-based mortgage discrimination.
The president falsely blames the financial crisis on "an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity." He claimed "a surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future."
But his determination to reverse the Bush tax cuts (while doling out an insulting 65 bucks a month) will not promote any long-term prosperity. Neither will a trillion dollars of taxpayer wealth commandeered by the federal government "to invest in our future" with "wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit."
The "imaginations of our entrepreneurs" can only continue to make America "the greatest force of progress and prosperity" if the government lets them keep the wealth that powers those imaginations into productivity.
Ronald Reagan knew that; President Obama is using a crisis to undo the Reagan legacy.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Politics: The White House promised Reaganesque rhetoric in President Obama's speech to Congress. We got it all right: a vow that America's greatest days are yet to come — courtesy of policies Reagan strongly opposed.
As Barack Obama spoke Tuesday night, he sounded like the fictional, post-apocalyptic president Morgan Freeman played in the movie "Deep Impact." After an asteroid impact triggers a mega-tsunami destroying the East Coast, Freeman stands before the half-collapsed Capitol dome and declares: "Cities fall, but they are rebuilt . . . So now, let us begin."
According to President Obama, the financial crisis is an "extinction-level event," an impending doomsday. The "day of reckoning has arrived," he told the nation. And like Freeman's science fiction president, he promised, "We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before."
Evoking Ronald Reagan, the president assured us the solutions can be found "in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth. Those qualities that have made America the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history we still possess in ample measure."
But that's where the similarity to Reagan ends.
A calamity rooted in the federal government for years insisting that banks make bad loans in the name of social justice is diagnosed by the president as being the fault of, among others, the oil and drug industries.
"We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy," Obama said. "Yet we import more oil today than ever before. The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform."
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel sure wasn't kidding when he said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." This administration would use the financial crisis to enact the radical green agenda for which liberal Democrats have so long pined — and to pass socialized medicine, so roundly rejected by Americans when then-First Lady Hillary Clinton tried it in the early '90s.
"People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway," Obama contended in his address — neglecting to mention the fact that it was his ideological soul mates in Congress who wanted those loans made. In 1995, Obama himself even took part in suing Citibank on the charge of racially-based mortgage discrimination.
The president falsely blames the financial crisis on "an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity." He claimed "a surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future."
But his determination to reverse the Bush tax cuts (while doling out an insulting 65 bucks a month) will not promote any long-term prosperity. Neither will a trillion dollars of taxpayer wealth commandeered by the federal government "to invest in our future" with "wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit."
The "imaginations of our entrepreneurs" can only continue to make America "the greatest force of progress and prosperity" if the government lets them keep the wealth that powers those imaginations into productivity.
Ronald Reagan knew that; President Obama is using a crisis to undo the Reagan legacy.
THE OLD PATHS
SENT TO US BY A READER THANKS GBG.
> THE OLD PATHS
>
> I liked the old paths, when
> Moms were at home.
> Dads were at work.
> Brothers went into the army.
> And sisters got married BEFORE having children!
>
> Crime did not pay;
> Hard work did;
> And people knew the difference.
>
> Moms could cook;
> Dads would work;
> Children would behave.
>
> Husbands were loving;
> Wives were supportive;
> And children were polite.
>
> Women wore the jewelry;
> And Men wore the pants.
> Women looked like ladies;
> Men looked like gentlemen;
> And children looked decent.
>
> People loved the truth,
> And hated a lie;
> They came to church to get IN,
> Not to get OUT!
>
> Hymns sounded Godly;
> Sermons sounded helpful;
> Rejoicing sounded normal;
> And crying sounded sincere.
>
> Cursing was wicked;
> Drugs were for illness;
> And divorce was unthinkable.
>
> The flag was honored;
> America was beautiful;
> And God was welcome!
>
> We read the Bible in public;
> Prayed in school;
> And preached from house to house
> To be called an American was worth dying for;
> To be called a Christian was worth living for;
> To be called a traitor was a shame!
>
> Preachers preached because they had a message;
> And Christians rejoiced because they had the VICTORY!
> Preachers preached from the Bible;
> Singers sang from the heart;
> And sinners turned to the Lord to be SAVED!
>
> A new birth meant a new life;
> Salvation meant a changed life;
> Following Christ led to eternal life.
>
> Being a preacher meant you proclaimed the word of God;
> Being a deacon meant you would serve the Lord;
> Being a Christian meant you would live for Jesus;
> And being a sinner meant someone was praying for you!
>
> Laws were based on the Bible;
> Homes read the Bible;
> And churches taught the Bible.
>
> God was worshiped;
> Christ was exalted;
> And the Holy Spirit was respected..
>
> Church was where you found Christians
> On the Lord's day, rather than in the garden,
> On the creek bank, on the golf course,
> Or being entertained somewhere else.
>
> I still like the old paths the best!
>
>
>
> 'The Old Paths' was written by a retired minister who lives
> In Tennessee.
>
>
> THE OLD PATHS
>
> I liked the old paths, when
> Moms were at home.
> Dads were at work.
> Brothers went into the army.
> And sisters got married BEFORE having children!
>
> Crime did not pay;
> Hard work did;
> And people knew the difference.
>
> Moms could cook;
> Dads would work;
> Children would behave.
>
> Husbands were loving;
> Wives were supportive;
> And children were polite.
>
> Women wore the jewelry;
> And Men wore the pants.
> Women looked like ladies;
> Men looked like gentlemen;
> And children looked decent.
>
> People loved the truth,
> And hated a lie;
> They came to church to get IN,
> Not to get OUT!
>
> Hymns sounded Godly;
> Sermons sounded helpful;
> Rejoicing sounded normal;
> And crying sounded sincere.
>
> Cursing was wicked;
> Drugs were for illness;
> And divorce was unthinkable.
>
> The flag was honored;
> America was beautiful;
> And God was welcome!
>
> We read the Bible in public;
> Prayed in school;
> And preached from house to house
> To be called an American was worth dying for;
> To be called a Christian was worth living for;
> To be called a traitor was a shame!
>
> Preachers preached because they had a message;
> And Christians rejoiced because they had the VICTORY!
> Preachers preached from the Bible;
> Singers sang from the heart;
> And sinners turned to the Lord to be SAVED!
>
> A new birth meant a new life;
> Salvation meant a changed life;
> Following Christ led to eternal life.
>
> Being a preacher meant you proclaimed the word of God;
> Being a deacon meant you would serve the Lord;
> Being a Christian meant you would live for Jesus;
> And being a sinner meant someone was praying for you!
>
> Laws were based on the Bible;
> Homes read the Bible;
> And churches taught the Bible.
>
> God was worshiped;
> Christ was exalted;
> And the Holy Spirit was respected..
>
> Church was where you found Christians
> On the Lord's day, rather than in the garden,
> On the creek bank, on the golf course,
> Or being entertained somewhere else.
>
> I still like the old paths the best!
>
>
>
> 'The Old Paths' was written by a retired minister who lives
> In Tennessee.
>
>
Cut Military Spending, Says Democrat Barney Frank
Congress Should Cut Military Spending, Says Democrat Barney Frank
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) (AP Photo) (CNSNews.com) – Congress should cut U.S. military spending by $160 billion, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, proposed at a press conference Tuesday.
That same day, however, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who controls the House floor schedule, distanced himself and the majority leadership from Frank’s proposal -- and both the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services declined to endorse Frank’s plan.
“It’s absurd to talk about reducing the deficit while giving a pass to the military budget,” Frank told reporters. “We can reduce military spending without in any way undercutting our national security.”
Frank’s plan, according to a document released by his office, would reduce military spending by a total of $160 billion, with $100 billion of the savings coming from money currently being spent on the Iraq War. Other cuts would include a reduction of about 75 percent in the funding requested by the Bush administration for “nuclear forces,” as well as deep funding cuts for the development of controversial weapon systems, including a tilt-rotor aircraft (V-22 Osprey) and stealth fighter jet (F/A-22 Raptor.)
For fiscal year 2008, President Bush requested $481.4 billion for Defense Department spending and an additional $145.2 billion to fund the “global war on terror,” which he requested as emergency supplemental spending.
“No one is denying that America should be by far the strongest country in the world,” said Frank. “But we are talking about by how many multiples we have to be the strongest nation in the world, and whether or not there is some money to be saved in doing that.”
When asked whether the House leadership supported Frank’s plan, Hoyer said, “No,”
“That’s Mr. Frank’s opinion,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com. “Mr. Frank is one of our most able members. He has had similar proposals over the years. It’s not a new proposal of his.”
“I believe there are major threats that continue to be opposed to the safety and security of our country and our citizens,” said Hoyer. “Chairman Frank’s views are his views and do not reflect any leadership position on this issue.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also told CNSNews.com that he does not support Frank’s proposal.
“Of course not,” McCain told CNSNews.com in reference to Frank’s plan. “We need acquisition reform, but we cannot afford to cut the budget. We have two wars going on.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNSNews.com that he was unfamiliar with Frank’s proposal but said he would consider some cuts in the military budget as well as some additions.
“I have not seen the plan but it depends where the cuts will be made,” Levin said. “I am sure there are some places where I will support cuts in the budget. There always are, but I cant tell you before I see the plan. There also will probably be some places where I support increases.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-4 of 4 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...
Peted at 11:00 AM - February 25, 2009
Here we go again. Frank, who has no military experience, wants to cut the military budget and assures the American people that this cut can be done without endangering the country. This person is dangerous! If his plan is adopted and we find ourselves in shooting war unable to defend the country, Frank will do what he has done in the past: I had nothing to do with it; tell me how this situation of being unprepared came about. Look what he is doing in the House Financial Services Committee when querying Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke: How did the mortgage crisis come about with banks loaning to unworthy borrowers? Huh? this from the fool that precipitated the crisis in the first place. Bernanke to his credit did not roll his eyes or start laughing.
radical1a at 08:51 AM - February 25, 2009
Barney has gone Brazilian
niufan99 at 08:23 AM - February 25, 2009
This guy is truly a idiot!
Sky Pilot at 09:14 PM - February 24, 2009
If Frank can say Fannie May & Freddie Mack is solvent, then three months later they belly up, He is to stupid to know any thing about the Military requirement, it does not take a rocket scientist to over see two low income loan institutions, such as Freddie Mack & Fannie May, I don't belive he could find his way to the Office he is supposed to occupy without a guide dog to lead him, bless the guide dog. But Barney (the Clown ) Frank won't take responsibility for any thing, he has a halio on his when it comes to accepting any blame
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) (AP Photo) (CNSNews.com) – Congress should cut U.S. military spending by $160 billion, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, proposed at a press conference Tuesday.
That same day, however, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who controls the House floor schedule, distanced himself and the majority leadership from Frank’s proposal -- and both the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services declined to endorse Frank’s plan.
“It’s absurd to talk about reducing the deficit while giving a pass to the military budget,” Frank told reporters. “We can reduce military spending without in any way undercutting our national security.”
Frank’s plan, according to a document released by his office, would reduce military spending by a total of $160 billion, with $100 billion of the savings coming from money currently being spent on the Iraq War. Other cuts would include a reduction of about 75 percent in the funding requested by the Bush administration for “nuclear forces,” as well as deep funding cuts for the development of controversial weapon systems, including a tilt-rotor aircraft (V-22 Osprey) and stealth fighter jet (F/A-22 Raptor.)
For fiscal year 2008, President Bush requested $481.4 billion for Defense Department spending and an additional $145.2 billion to fund the “global war on terror,” which he requested as emergency supplemental spending.
“No one is denying that America should be by far the strongest country in the world,” said Frank. “But we are talking about by how many multiples we have to be the strongest nation in the world, and whether or not there is some money to be saved in doing that.”
When asked whether the House leadership supported Frank’s plan, Hoyer said, “No,”
“That’s Mr. Frank’s opinion,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com. “Mr. Frank is one of our most able members. He has had similar proposals over the years. It’s not a new proposal of his.”
“I believe there are major threats that continue to be opposed to the safety and security of our country and our citizens,” said Hoyer. “Chairman Frank’s views are his views and do not reflect any leadership position on this issue.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also told CNSNews.com that he does not support Frank’s proposal.
“Of course not,” McCain told CNSNews.com in reference to Frank’s plan. “We need acquisition reform, but we cannot afford to cut the budget. We have two wars going on.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNSNews.com that he was unfamiliar with Frank’s proposal but said he would consider some cuts in the military budget as well as some additions.
“I have not seen the plan but it depends where the cuts will be made,” Levin said. “I am sure there are some places where I will support cuts in the budget. There always are, but I cant tell you before I see the plan. There also will probably be some places where I support increases.”
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-4 of 4 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer Loading...
Peted at 11:00 AM - February 25, 2009
Here we go again. Frank, who has no military experience, wants to cut the military budget and assures the American people that this cut can be done without endangering the country. This person is dangerous! If his plan is adopted and we find ourselves in shooting war unable to defend the country, Frank will do what he has done in the past: I had nothing to do with it; tell me how this situation of being unprepared came about. Look what he is doing in the House Financial Services Committee when querying Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke: How did the mortgage crisis come about with banks loaning to unworthy borrowers? Huh? this from the fool that precipitated the crisis in the first place. Bernanke to his credit did not roll his eyes or start laughing.
radical1a at 08:51 AM - February 25, 2009
Barney has gone Brazilian
niufan99 at 08:23 AM - February 25, 2009
This guy is truly a idiot!
Sky Pilot at 09:14 PM - February 24, 2009
If Frank can say Fannie May & Freddie Mack is solvent, then three months later they belly up, He is to stupid to know any thing about the Military requirement, it does not take a rocket scientist to over see two low income loan institutions, such as Freddie Mack & Fannie May, I don't belive he could find his way to the Office he is supposed to occupy without a guide dog to lead him, bless the guide dog. But Barney (the Clown ) Frank won't take responsibility for any thing, he has a halio on his when it comes to accepting any blame
“Congress To Convene Hearings
“Congress To Convene Hearings On
Jamaat ul-Fuqra Terrorist Camps!”
A Headline We Would Be Elated To See!
By Brigitte Gabriel
Dear Dave,
Imagine how excited we would all be if the headline above were true!
It isn’t – YET. But it could be. Perhaps sooner than we think.
Yesterday I emailed you about the just-released, must-see documentary entitled “Homegrown Jihad: The Terrorist Camps Around U.S.”
You and I know Congress needs to convene hearings to look into these camps. But to make such hearings a reality, we must understand and take action in three key areas.
We must have allies in Congress we can work with.
We must raise enough awareness at the grassroots so that there is sufficient grassroots demand for the hearings.
We must have a lobbyist on Capitol Hill who can be informing and persuading members of Congress every day, and letting us know when, where and how we need to provide additional grassroots “persuasion.”
With respect to the first point above, I’m delighted to tell you that we do have allies in Congress on this and other issues related to radical Islam.
For instance, in a letter we recently received from Congresswoman Sue Myrick, Co-Chairperson of the House Anti-Terrorism Caucus, Rep. Myrick wrote:
“ACT! for America is just the kind of ally we need in Congress – not only to raise public awareness and concern about the threat of radical Islamists, but also to organize and mobilize concerned citizens to action…
Thanks to Brigitte Gabriel and ACT! for America, our country has a greater chance of winning the battle against the rising tide of radical Islamists. My staff and I are honored to work with ACT! for America to achieve our mutual goals, and it is my hope that more citizens will join them in protecting the values and traditions of our country.”
As we are earning respect and support from Members of Congress, our citizen action network continues to grow. In fact, in January alone we added 20 new chapters and increased our number of members by nearly 7%. If we were to sustain that growth through December of this year we would increase our number of members from just under 50,000 to nearly 108,000! And we would double our number of chapters, from 230 to 470!
As a result, we are now the largest grassroots organization in America committed to combating the threat of radical Islam.
This growth is essential to the second point I made above. There has to be enough demand at the grassroots that the pertinent committee chairpersons in Congress will decide to take action.
That’s why I’m asking you to respond TODAY to get your copy of “Homegrown Jihad: The Terrorist Camps Around U.S.” You absolutely MUST see this shocking documentary – and then pass it on to everyone you know. The more people see it, the more the demand for action will grow!
To get your copy all you have to do is click here, sign up to be a monthly Patriot Partner contributor, and make a monthly gift of $15 or more. When you do I will rush you out your copy of “Homegrown Jihad.” Our online form is safe, simple and secure, and takes only a couple minutes to fill out.
If you’ve already responded, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Please email this message to others you know who share your concerns.
As I will explain in a moment, becoming a monthly Patriot Partner supporter is the most powerful way you can help us be most effective in getting things done in Congress, like getting hearings convened to investigate these terrorist camps.
However, we know that some people prefer making a one-time contribution. If that’s you, simply click here and make a one-time contribution of $40 or more. When you do I will also send you a copy of “Homegrown Jihad.”
Remember I noted above that there are three key elements to our winning victories in Congress, and that the third is having a full-time, experienced lobbyist fighting for our interests on Capitol Hill.
That’s where your monthly or one-time contribution comes in. We have identified the right person for this position, and we have raised about 65% of what we need to fund the costs for this for one full year.
Your becoming a Patriot Partner and making a monthly contribution of $15 or more will help us reach our goal so we can put our full-time lobbyist to work for us on Capitol Hill. When that happens, we will have all three elements in place.
We have allies in Congress we can work with. We have the largest, and growing, grassroots network in America dedicated to combating radical Islam. And as you and our many other members get and watch “Homegrown Jihad,” the awareness of this serious threat will spread like wildfire.
Then, once we have our lobbyist in place, we can begin a coordinated grassroots and “inside Congress” effort to educate members of Congress about this threat.
If you’re already a monthly contributing Patriot Partner, you can get your copy of “Homegrown Jihad” by making a one-time gift of $40 or more. Or, you can increase your monthly gift by $15 or more. All you have to do is click here and check the box at the top that says “I would like to update an existing recurring gift.” Then, simply add $15 or more to your current gift and put that in the amount box.
If you are someone who prefers making your contributions with a check, you can click here to print out a short reply form. Make a one-time contribution of $40 or more, and as soon as we receive your form, we’ll rush you your copy of “Homegrown Jihad.”
As you can see, we’re putting all the pieces together this year to make it possible for us to have a measurable impact in Congress.
Whether you can afford to be a Patriot Partner who gives $5 each month or $500, or whether you can afford a one-time gift of $10 or $1,000, please rest assured that your support is vital to our achieving our objective of making America safer for you, your families and your friends.
So please don’t delay. Select one of the options above to become either a new Patriot Partner or make a one-time contribution. Or, if you’re already a Patriot Partner, add $15 or more to your current monthly gift. All you have to do is click here, fill out the safe and secure online form, and we’ll mail you the shocking expose of terrorist camps in the U.S.
Or, if you prefer to make your contribution via a check, please click here to print out a reply form to mail with your check.
Words just can’t express how much I appreciate and value your support and commitment to our mutual goal of protecting America and our families. Thank you so much for everything you do to help make America safe and keep America free.
As we work together, we will see more and more headlines like the one at the top of this email. Every action you take as an ACT! for America member, combined with the actions of our other 54,000 members, brings us that much closer to rolling back the rising tide of Islamofascism.
Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you very soon.
Always devoted,
Brigitte Gabriel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
Jamaat ul-Fuqra Terrorist Camps!”
A Headline We Would Be Elated To See!
By Brigitte Gabriel
Dear Dave,
Imagine how excited we would all be if the headline above were true!
It isn’t – YET. But it could be. Perhaps sooner than we think.
Yesterday I emailed you about the just-released, must-see documentary entitled “Homegrown Jihad: The Terrorist Camps Around U.S.”
You and I know Congress needs to convene hearings to look into these camps. But to make such hearings a reality, we must understand and take action in three key areas.
We must have allies in Congress we can work with.
We must raise enough awareness at the grassroots so that there is sufficient grassroots demand for the hearings.
We must have a lobbyist on Capitol Hill who can be informing and persuading members of Congress every day, and letting us know when, where and how we need to provide additional grassroots “persuasion.”
With respect to the first point above, I’m delighted to tell you that we do have allies in Congress on this and other issues related to radical Islam.
For instance, in a letter we recently received from Congresswoman Sue Myrick, Co-Chairperson of the House Anti-Terrorism Caucus, Rep. Myrick wrote:
“ACT! for America is just the kind of ally we need in Congress – not only to raise public awareness and concern about the threat of radical Islamists, but also to organize and mobilize concerned citizens to action…
Thanks to Brigitte Gabriel and ACT! for America, our country has a greater chance of winning the battle against the rising tide of radical Islamists. My staff and I are honored to work with ACT! for America to achieve our mutual goals, and it is my hope that more citizens will join them in protecting the values and traditions of our country.”
As we are earning respect and support from Members of Congress, our citizen action network continues to grow. In fact, in January alone we added 20 new chapters and increased our number of members by nearly 7%. If we were to sustain that growth through December of this year we would increase our number of members from just under 50,000 to nearly 108,000! And we would double our number of chapters, from 230 to 470!
As a result, we are now the largest grassroots organization in America committed to combating the threat of radical Islam.
This growth is essential to the second point I made above. There has to be enough demand at the grassroots that the pertinent committee chairpersons in Congress will decide to take action.
That’s why I’m asking you to respond TODAY to get your copy of “Homegrown Jihad: The Terrorist Camps Around U.S.” You absolutely MUST see this shocking documentary – and then pass it on to everyone you know. The more people see it, the more the demand for action will grow!
To get your copy all you have to do is click here, sign up to be a monthly Patriot Partner contributor, and make a monthly gift of $15 or more. When you do I will rush you out your copy of “Homegrown Jihad.” Our online form is safe, simple and secure, and takes only a couple minutes to fill out.
If you’ve already responded, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Please email this message to others you know who share your concerns.
As I will explain in a moment, becoming a monthly Patriot Partner supporter is the most powerful way you can help us be most effective in getting things done in Congress, like getting hearings convened to investigate these terrorist camps.
However, we know that some people prefer making a one-time contribution. If that’s you, simply click here and make a one-time contribution of $40 or more. When you do I will also send you a copy of “Homegrown Jihad.”
Remember I noted above that there are three key elements to our winning victories in Congress, and that the third is having a full-time, experienced lobbyist fighting for our interests on Capitol Hill.
That’s where your monthly or one-time contribution comes in. We have identified the right person for this position, and we have raised about 65% of what we need to fund the costs for this for one full year.
Your becoming a Patriot Partner and making a monthly contribution of $15 or more will help us reach our goal so we can put our full-time lobbyist to work for us on Capitol Hill. When that happens, we will have all three elements in place.
We have allies in Congress we can work with. We have the largest, and growing, grassroots network in America dedicated to combating radical Islam. And as you and our many other members get and watch “Homegrown Jihad,” the awareness of this serious threat will spread like wildfire.
Then, once we have our lobbyist in place, we can begin a coordinated grassroots and “inside Congress” effort to educate members of Congress about this threat.
If you’re already a monthly contributing Patriot Partner, you can get your copy of “Homegrown Jihad” by making a one-time gift of $40 or more. Or, you can increase your monthly gift by $15 or more. All you have to do is click here and check the box at the top that says “I would like to update an existing recurring gift.” Then, simply add $15 or more to your current gift and put that in the amount box.
If you are someone who prefers making your contributions with a check, you can click here to print out a short reply form. Make a one-time contribution of $40 or more, and as soon as we receive your form, we’ll rush you your copy of “Homegrown Jihad.”
As you can see, we’re putting all the pieces together this year to make it possible for us to have a measurable impact in Congress.
Whether you can afford to be a Patriot Partner who gives $5 each month or $500, or whether you can afford a one-time gift of $10 or $1,000, please rest assured that your support is vital to our achieving our objective of making America safer for you, your families and your friends.
So please don’t delay. Select one of the options above to become either a new Patriot Partner or make a one-time contribution. Or, if you’re already a Patriot Partner, add $15 or more to your current monthly gift. All you have to do is click here, fill out the safe and secure online form, and we’ll mail you the shocking expose of terrorist camps in the U.S.
Or, if you prefer to make your contribution via a check, please click here to print out a reply form to mail with your check.
Words just can’t express how much I appreciate and value your support and commitment to our mutual goal of protecting America and our families. Thank you so much for everything you do to help make America safe and keep America free.
As we work together, we will see more and more headlines like the one at the top of this email. Every action you take as an ACT! for America member, combined with the actions of our other 54,000 members, brings us that much closer to rolling back the rising tide of Islamofascism.
Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you very soon.
Always devoted,
Brigitte Gabriel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Obama Emphasizes Reform, Offers Hope Amid Economic Crisis
Obama Emphasizes Reform, Offers Hope Amid Economic Crisis
By Ben Pershing
Washington Post Staff Writer
Five weeks into an administration already marked by dramatic highs and lows, President Obama sounded a note of hope at a time of crisis tonight, delivering an address to a joint session of Congress heavily focused on the ailing economy and how to fix it.
Offering the prospect of a brighter future after weeks of grim rhetoric, Obama sought to put a human face on complex policy proposals. He linked his banking rescue plan to the ability of a "young family" to "finally buy a home." And he acknowledged populist anger at the prospect of more Wall Street bailouts, vowing to crack down on CEO bonuses and conduct tough oversight of the hundreds of billions of dollars already pledged to address the economic crisis.
Though he began by recognizing that "the impact of this recession is real, and it is everywhere," Obama said he sees light at the end of the tunnel, despite rising unemployment, a cratering stock market, teetering banks and an auto industry gasping for breath.
"But while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken; though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before," Obama said.
Though he was optimistic, Obama mostly avoided flights of lofty rhetoric. He offered specific, sometimes wonkish explanations of how credit markets work, how the budget should be reformed and how the country can renew its commitment to renewable energy.
Obama demanded quick action on several fronts. On finance, he asked Congress to move with dispatch to "reform our outdated regulatory system." On health care, he said "reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year." And on education, Obama said his budget would speed the pace of reform and "expand our commitment to charter schools."
He pledged more honesty and transparency in the budget process, saying that "No longer will we hide" the full cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama vowed to "be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend" and said of detainees, "I can stand here and say without exception or equivocation that the United States does not torture."
Obama's speech, with all the trappings of a State of the Union address, comes a day after a bipartisan "fiscal responsibility summit" at the White House and two days before the presentation of his first budget.
Obama fleshed out the details of an economic strategy that some critics -- and the markets -- have tarred as too short on specifics to inspire confidence. A week after the president signed a $787 billion economic stimulus package, his administration is moving on separate fronts to shore up the housing market by stemming foreclosures and bolster the banking industry, possibly by purchasing shares in the banking industry.
After days of mostly negative news, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke offered a glimmer of optimism today by testifying that 2010 could be a "year of recovery." The stock markets rallied on delivery of that prognosis, and Obama sought tonight to strike a similarly upbeat tone.
"The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation. The answers to our problems don't lie beyond our reach," Obama said.
"What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more."
But Obama also distributed some blame for the economic crisis.
"We have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election," he said. "A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway."
Obama hailed the enactment of the stimulus measure, prompting a partisan split in the applause -- Democrats in the chamber clapped loudly while most Republicans remained silent. The president said he had pushed for the bill "not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't. Not because I'm not mindful of the massive debt we've inherited -- I am." Rather, Obama said he pushed for the stimulus, which he said would create 3.5 million jobs, because otherwise the economic situation would be even worse.
Obama added that he had asked Vice President Biden "to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort -- because nobody messes with Joe."
And Obama drew a strong reaction from both sides of the aisle by vowing to strictly monitor financial institutions that receive government aid. "I intend to hold these banks fully accountable for the assistance they receive, and this time, they will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer," he said. "This time, CEO's won't be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over."
Obama reiterated his desire to cut the federal budget deficit in half by the end of his first term in office, calling for sacrifices by all stakeholders and saying his team has "begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs." At one point, Obama drew Democratic applause by referencing "the deficit we inherited."
Obama drew a more bipartisan demonstration when he invoked Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who has been undergoing treatment for brain cancer. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is battling pancreatic cancer, also got a big round of applause upon entering the chamber, as did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who recently returned from an official tour of Asia.
Obama delivered his address from a position of strong political advantage. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released Monday showed that 68 percent of respondents approved of how Obama is handling his job, and 60 percent approved of his handling of the economy.
That survey and others released this week did show an increased partisan split in opinions of Obama, with rising numbers of GOP voters unhappy with his performance and opposed to the economic stimulus bill that nearly every congressional Republican voted against. Despite that divide, Obama is far more popular in the public's eye than the members of Congress he will be addressing tonight, as Capitol Hill Democrats earned a 50 percent approval rating in the Post poll and Hill Republicans stood at 38 percent.
The official GOP response to Obama's address was delivered tonight by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, widely viewed as a rising star in the party and a potential candidate for president in 2012. Jindal and a handful of his fellow conservative governors have drawn attention in recent days by saying they would refuse to accept some of the state aid contained in the stimulus package.
In his response, Jindal expressed his party's willingness to work with Obama but will denounce the stimulus measure as "irresponsible," according to excerpts released by the Republican National Committee.
"All of us want our economy to recover and our nation to prosper," Jindal said. "So where we agree, Republicans must be the president's strongest partners. And where we disagree, Republicans have a responsibility to be candid and offer better ideas for a path forward."
Jindal said "Washington must lead" in solving the nation's problems. "But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians. The way to lead is by empowering you -- the American people. Because we believe that Americans can do anything."
Jindal - the son of Indian immigrants -- also sought to link his unusual background to that of Obama. "Like the president's father, my parents came to this country from a distant land," he said.
In addition to members of Congress, Cabinet officials, members of the diplomatic corps and Supreme Court justices, Obama spoke tonight before several other notable invitees.
Along with several regular citizens with symbolically resonant backgrounds, First Lady Michelle Obama's guests included Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a prominent Republican supporter of the stimulus bill; Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D); Earl Devaney, who has been named to lead oversight of the stimulus measure; and Lilly Ledbetter, whose pay discrimination lawsuit inspired the pay equity bill that was named after her and signed into law by Obama in January.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) guests included key labor leaders as well as Chesley Sullenberger and his fellow crew members from US Airways flight 1549, which landed dramatically on the Hudson River last month with no loss of life.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was not present for tonight's speech, following a tradition in which one member of the Cabinet does not attend and goes to a secure location in case a disaster occurs in the Capitol.
*
February 24, 2009; 10:35 PM ET | Category: politics
Previous: To Keep Up with the Latest Economic News.... |
CommentsPlease email us to report offensive comments.
Couching intent and hinting at reality without committing does no good. It only worsens the situation as it only placates the market furthering the investment of more good money after bad. Simply B of A and the other bloated monetary institutions need to go fail because of their short-sighted greed so that the market can adjust as it jettisons the dead weight to stay afloat.
To the point the issue that I, and many, many that I know, have is that the institutions that are being bailed out with our tax dollars would make any of us jobless, homeless and destitute for a nickel of profit. Further whatever more money the banks receive, if it's not horded again, will be loaned back to us at obscene interest rates (i.e., 31.99% credit card interest). So in order to borrow the money we've paid in taxes that is given the banks we'll pay usuary rates. Worse is that despite what the banks have received and will receive they already say they need more making for an open money pit with no bottom.
That remaining $350B earmarked for banks would equate to $15,000 for 232M taxpayers on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. If they were to get that money they would pay their mortgages, credit cards and other obligations as well as to begin to consume again saving jobs and creating tax revenues for local and state governments. A tax rebate of $15,000 would alleviate suffering and the money would still work its way up to the banks. Unfortunately no-one on the hill has even whispered this idea as it makes sense, stops economic suffering for average Americans and doesn't reward those responsible for the economic implosion that deserve government help the least.
There is logical reason to throw money to the top where it has and will stick if there is no guarantee that it will benefit the recently unemployed, the new working poor and struggling small businesses. Government when telling us that these institutions are "too big to fail" is telling us that we are "too small to succeed".
Posted by: bfjackjernigan | February 24, 2009 7:56 PM
Ben, it should "an auto industry GASPING for breath" not "grasping". I mean, they do seem to be grabbing at the air and not clutching anything, but I'm pretty sure you mean "gasping".
Posted by: Christian_in_NYC | February 24, 2009 8:03 PM
This chimp has no idea what he's doing. Looking cool may impress the ignorant, but it isn't going to improve our economy, neither is spending billions on entitlement programs for those that have no desire to work.
Posted by: cschotta1 | February 24, 2009 8:04 PM
If Obama said "Recovery" it's time for his lapdogs in the press to start peddling the news. No matter whether it has happened, or not.
Posted by: georgegarrett | February 24, 2009 8:05 PM
President Obama's constant presence on television is starting to "creep" me out. After two years of being inundated with Obama gushing, I am tired of his image.
Now, our President wishes to extend words of "hope" after he used words such as catastrophic to shove his Stimulus Bill down Congress throats. I promised myself I would demand politicans to STEP UP and do their jobs, i.e. read bills before voting, discuss bills and compromise. Democrats make me sick, they signed a TRILLION DOLLAR STIMULUS BILL without reading it. How many people sign without reading? Only MORONS. I plan on putting on a movie and skip another PERFORMANCE of President Obama's. Kudos to Senator McCain for outing President Obama and his new helicopter.....
Posted by: virgosiempre | February 24, 2009 8:22 PM
The puppet has been advised to speak upbeat like Reagan. Too little, too late. Now me's trying to save his approval rating because people are tired of the gloom and doom bringing the stock market down. This crisis has been manufactured by government from the beginning. They need to just stop interfering. Every time he (or one of his team) talks, the stocks go down. If they would all take a month vacation without pay, I bet things would perk up.
Posted by: freecitizen1 | February 24, 2009 8:31 PM
As a US Senator, McCain could have stopped the high-priced Marine One helicopter EIGHT YEARS AGO when it was first approved, rather than wait until after losing by a landslide to try and pin it on Obama.
After thirty six years in the Senate, the only thing John McCain has changed is his tune... but now he's changed it again.
By Ben Pershing
Washington Post Staff Writer
Five weeks into an administration already marked by dramatic highs and lows, President Obama sounded a note of hope at a time of crisis tonight, delivering an address to a joint session of Congress heavily focused on the ailing economy and how to fix it.
Offering the prospect of a brighter future after weeks of grim rhetoric, Obama sought to put a human face on complex policy proposals. He linked his banking rescue plan to the ability of a "young family" to "finally buy a home." And he acknowledged populist anger at the prospect of more Wall Street bailouts, vowing to crack down on CEO bonuses and conduct tough oversight of the hundreds of billions of dollars already pledged to address the economic crisis.
Though he began by recognizing that "the impact of this recession is real, and it is everywhere," Obama said he sees light at the end of the tunnel, despite rising unemployment, a cratering stock market, teetering banks and an auto industry gasping for breath.
"But while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken; though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before," Obama said.
Though he was optimistic, Obama mostly avoided flights of lofty rhetoric. He offered specific, sometimes wonkish explanations of how credit markets work, how the budget should be reformed and how the country can renew its commitment to renewable energy.
Obama demanded quick action on several fronts. On finance, he asked Congress to move with dispatch to "reform our outdated regulatory system." On health care, he said "reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year." And on education, Obama said his budget would speed the pace of reform and "expand our commitment to charter schools."
He pledged more honesty and transparency in the budget process, saying that "No longer will we hide" the full cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama vowed to "be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend" and said of detainees, "I can stand here and say without exception or equivocation that the United States does not torture."
Obama's speech, with all the trappings of a State of the Union address, comes a day after a bipartisan "fiscal responsibility summit" at the White House and two days before the presentation of his first budget.
Obama fleshed out the details of an economic strategy that some critics -- and the markets -- have tarred as too short on specifics to inspire confidence. A week after the president signed a $787 billion economic stimulus package, his administration is moving on separate fronts to shore up the housing market by stemming foreclosures and bolster the banking industry, possibly by purchasing shares in the banking industry.
After days of mostly negative news, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke offered a glimmer of optimism today by testifying that 2010 could be a "year of recovery." The stock markets rallied on delivery of that prognosis, and Obama sought tonight to strike a similarly upbeat tone.
"The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation. The answers to our problems don't lie beyond our reach," Obama said.
"What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more."
But Obama also distributed some blame for the economic crisis.
"We have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election," he said. "A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway."
Obama hailed the enactment of the stimulus measure, prompting a partisan split in the applause -- Democrats in the chamber clapped loudly while most Republicans remained silent. The president said he had pushed for the bill "not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't. Not because I'm not mindful of the massive debt we've inherited -- I am." Rather, Obama said he pushed for the stimulus, which he said would create 3.5 million jobs, because otherwise the economic situation would be even worse.
Obama added that he had asked Vice President Biden "to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort -- because nobody messes with Joe."
And Obama drew a strong reaction from both sides of the aisle by vowing to strictly monitor financial institutions that receive government aid. "I intend to hold these banks fully accountable for the assistance they receive, and this time, they will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer," he said. "This time, CEO's won't be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over."
Obama reiterated his desire to cut the federal budget deficit in half by the end of his first term in office, calling for sacrifices by all stakeholders and saying his team has "begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs." At one point, Obama drew Democratic applause by referencing "the deficit we inherited."
Obama drew a more bipartisan demonstration when he invoked Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who has been undergoing treatment for brain cancer. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is battling pancreatic cancer, also got a big round of applause upon entering the chamber, as did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who recently returned from an official tour of Asia.
Obama delivered his address from a position of strong political advantage. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released Monday showed that 68 percent of respondents approved of how Obama is handling his job, and 60 percent approved of his handling of the economy.
That survey and others released this week did show an increased partisan split in opinions of Obama, with rising numbers of GOP voters unhappy with his performance and opposed to the economic stimulus bill that nearly every congressional Republican voted against. Despite that divide, Obama is far more popular in the public's eye than the members of Congress he will be addressing tonight, as Capitol Hill Democrats earned a 50 percent approval rating in the Post poll and Hill Republicans stood at 38 percent.
The official GOP response to Obama's address was delivered tonight by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, widely viewed as a rising star in the party and a potential candidate for president in 2012. Jindal and a handful of his fellow conservative governors have drawn attention in recent days by saying they would refuse to accept some of the state aid contained in the stimulus package.
In his response, Jindal expressed his party's willingness to work with Obama but will denounce the stimulus measure as "irresponsible," according to excerpts released by the Republican National Committee.
"All of us want our economy to recover and our nation to prosper," Jindal said. "So where we agree, Republicans must be the president's strongest partners. And where we disagree, Republicans have a responsibility to be candid and offer better ideas for a path forward."
Jindal said "Washington must lead" in solving the nation's problems. "But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians. The way to lead is by empowering you -- the American people. Because we believe that Americans can do anything."
Jindal - the son of Indian immigrants -- also sought to link his unusual background to that of Obama. "Like the president's father, my parents came to this country from a distant land," he said.
In addition to members of Congress, Cabinet officials, members of the diplomatic corps and Supreme Court justices, Obama spoke tonight before several other notable invitees.
Along with several regular citizens with symbolically resonant backgrounds, First Lady Michelle Obama's guests included Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a prominent Republican supporter of the stimulus bill; Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D); Earl Devaney, who has been named to lead oversight of the stimulus measure; and Lilly Ledbetter, whose pay discrimination lawsuit inspired the pay equity bill that was named after her and signed into law by Obama in January.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) guests included key labor leaders as well as Chesley Sullenberger and his fellow crew members from US Airways flight 1549, which landed dramatically on the Hudson River last month with no loss of life.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was not present for tonight's speech, following a tradition in which one member of the Cabinet does not attend and goes to a secure location in case a disaster occurs in the Capitol.
*
February 24, 2009; 10:35 PM ET | Category: politics
Previous: To Keep Up with the Latest Economic News.... |
CommentsPlease email us to report offensive comments.
Couching intent and hinting at reality without committing does no good. It only worsens the situation as it only placates the market furthering the investment of more good money after bad. Simply B of A and the other bloated monetary institutions need to go fail because of their short-sighted greed so that the market can adjust as it jettisons the dead weight to stay afloat.
To the point the issue that I, and many, many that I know, have is that the institutions that are being bailed out with our tax dollars would make any of us jobless, homeless and destitute for a nickel of profit. Further whatever more money the banks receive, if it's not horded again, will be loaned back to us at obscene interest rates (i.e., 31.99% credit card interest). So in order to borrow the money we've paid in taxes that is given the banks we'll pay usuary rates. Worse is that despite what the banks have received and will receive they already say they need more making for an open money pit with no bottom.
That remaining $350B earmarked for banks would equate to $15,000 for 232M taxpayers on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. If they were to get that money they would pay their mortgages, credit cards and other obligations as well as to begin to consume again saving jobs and creating tax revenues for local and state governments. A tax rebate of $15,000 would alleviate suffering and the money would still work its way up to the banks. Unfortunately no-one on the hill has even whispered this idea as it makes sense, stops economic suffering for average Americans and doesn't reward those responsible for the economic implosion that deserve government help the least.
There is logical reason to throw money to the top where it has and will stick if there is no guarantee that it will benefit the recently unemployed, the new working poor and struggling small businesses. Government when telling us that these institutions are "too big to fail" is telling us that we are "too small to succeed".
Posted by: bfjackjernigan | February 24, 2009 7:56 PM
Ben, it should "an auto industry GASPING for breath" not "grasping". I mean, they do seem to be grabbing at the air and not clutching anything, but I'm pretty sure you mean "gasping".
Posted by: Christian_in_NYC | February 24, 2009 8:03 PM
This chimp has no idea what he's doing. Looking cool may impress the ignorant, but it isn't going to improve our economy, neither is spending billions on entitlement programs for those that have no desire to work.
Posted by: cschotta1 | February 24, 2009 8:04 PM
If Obama said "Recovery" it's time for his lapdogs in the press to start peddling the news. No matter whether it has happened, or not.
Posted by: georgegarrett | February 24, 2009 8:05 PM
President Obama's constant presence on television is starting to "creep" me out. After two years of being inundated with Obama gushing, I am tired of his image.
Now, our President wishes to extend words of "hope" after he used words such as catastrophic to shove his Stimulus Bill down Congress throats. I promised myself I would demand politicans to STEP UP and do their jobs, i.e. read bills before voting, discuss bills and compromise. Democrats make me sick, they signed a TRILLION DOLLAR STIMULUS BILL without reading it. How many people sign without reading? Only MORONS. I plan on putting on a movie and skip another PERFORMANCE of President Obama's. Kudos to Senator McCain for outing President Obama and his new helicopter.....
Posted by: virgosiempre | February 24, 2009 8:22 PM
The puppet has been advised to speak upbeat like Reagan. Too little, too late. Now me's trying to save his approval rating because people are tired of the gloom and doom bringing the stock market down. This crisis has been manufactured by government from the beginning. They need to just stop interfering. Every time he (or one of his team) talks, the stocks go down. If they would all take a month vacation without pay, I bet things would perk up.
Posted by: freecitizen1 | February 24, 2009 8:31 PM
As a US Senator, McCain could have stopped the high-priced Marine One helicopter EIGHT YEARS AGO when it was first approved, rather than wait until after losing by a landslide to try and pin it on Obama.
After thirty six years in the Senate, the only thing John McCain has changed is his tune... but now he's changed it again.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)