by WAYNE ALLYN ROOT
Barack Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
Barack Obama is my college classmate ( Columbia University , class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University . They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.
-- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?
-- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."
-- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.
-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America . But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.
-- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America . The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.
-- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.
With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.
Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.asp
Note from Pete: You know that Snopes editors/researchers have a hard-left leaning don't you? Never think of Snopes as some final arbitor of truth. It is not...
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Disclose Act Attacks Freedom of Speech
ACRU Senior Legal Analyst Ken Klukowski wrote this column appearing on WashingtonExaminer.com on June 24, 2010.
Congress is considering a censorship law to muzzle conservative groups, one that exempts pro-Democrat groups from its requirements, called the DISCLOSE Act. This blatant assault on the First Amendment is worse in some respects than McCain-Feingold, and should be a major focus during Elena Kagan's Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
Modern campaign finance started with the 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo, where among other things the Court held that campaign contributions were protected by the First Amendment, but less protected than speech, and subject to disclosure requirements. Ever since then, campaign finance has been a complicated series of hits and misses.
The biggest miss was McConnell v. FEC in 2003, where the Court upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), better known as McCain-Feingold. By a 5-4 vote, the Court sustained BCRA's provision that if Americans spoke through a public-interest group within 60 days of an election, those involved could spend five years in prison for committing a federal felony.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court rectified this travesty in Citizens United v. FEC, declaring, "Speech is an essential mechanism for democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people.... The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it." The Court struck down BCRA's "blackout periods," restoring free speech to what it had been since 1791.
The reaction from the left was shameful, exemplified by Senator Chuck Schumer calling the decision "un-American." But President Obama took the cake, condemning the Supreme Court to its face on national television in the State of the Union.
The justices sat motionless as the president humiliated them, mischaracterizing the Citizens United opinion, as they were surrounded in the House chamber by cheering (jeering?) congressional Democrats behaving like a bunch of thugs. This deplorable action was unprecedented in American history.
Democrats promised to get around the Citizens United ruling. (That's a telling statement about the current Congress and administration, that they consider the Constitution something to "get around.")
Their answer is the DISCLOSE Act, which is every bit as much an attempt to silence free speech as BCRA. Among other things, it requires that every group seeking to run political ads must show pictures and carry audio approvals from the organization's head, the head of their largest contributor, and the names of the organization's five top donors, whether or not they contributed to the message in question.
The end result of these onerous requirements is that of a 30-second TV or radio spot, perhaps 15 seconds will be consumed with these tedious, eye-glazing disclosures.
And by the way, labor unions are exempt from this law. Team Obama says, "We need disclosure!" Yet Team Obama's storm troopers don't need to disclose their activities, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
At least BCRA applied to unions. It was unconstitutional, but at least it went after both sides. DISCLOSE, by contrast, mostly criminalizes speech from conservative groups, while leaving liberals unfettered.
Fortunately, that may be its undoing. Because free speech is a fundamental right, an equal-protection challenge to it will be subject to what is called strict scrutiny. This law will not survive such an exacting standard in court.
Like BCRA, the DISCLOSE Act is unconstitutional. It runs afoul of both the First Amendment and the equal-protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. It exploits an unguarded area of law, taking disclosure requirements to an unprecedented level to the point where they swallow up the speaker's message, and intimidate donors. It violates the spirit of the Supreme Court's recent decision, if not the letter. And Team Obama is trying to cram it into law to stem their losses in the upcoming election.
If DISCLOSE passes, our only hope is that the Supreme Court decides it before the 2012 election. (Unfortunately 2010 would be a lost cause unless a court orders a preliminary injunction.)
That being the case, Elena Kagan should have to answer a lot of questions. She took a radical view of government censorship when arguing the Citizens United case, arguing that government can outlaw political pamphlets. Senators (like voters) have every right to know how those arguments apply to this law.
Mission About the ACRU In the Courts ACLU Outrages In the Press Other Resources Contact Us Home
The American Civil Rights Union
3213 Duke St., #625
Alexandria, VA 22314 703-807-0242
(877) 730-ACRU (2278)
The American Civil Rights Union is a non-partisan 501c(3) tax-exempt organization
and receives no federal grants or funding.
Congress is considering a censorship law to muzzle conservative groups, one that exempts pro-Democrat groups from its requirements, called the DISCLOSE Act. This blatant assault on the First Amendment is worse in some respects than McCain-Feingold, and should be a major focus during Elena Kagan's Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
Modern campaign finance started with the 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo, where among other things the Court held that campaign contributions were protected by the First Amendment, but less protected than speech, and subject to disclosure requirements. Ever since then, campaign finance has been a complicated series of hits and misses.
The biggest miss was McConnell v. FEC in 2003, where the Court upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), better known as McCain-Feingold. By a 5-4 vote, the Court sustained BCRA's provision that if Americans spoke through a public-interest group within 60 days of an election, those involved could spend five years in prison for committing a federal felony.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court rectified this travesty in Citizens United v. FEC, declaring, "Speech is an essential mechanism for democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people.... The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it." The Court struck down BCRA's "blackout periods," restoring free speech to what it had been since 1791.
The reaction from the left was shameful, exemplified by Senator Chuck Schumer calling the decision "un-American." But President Obama took the cake, condemning the Supreme Court to its face on national television in the State of the Union.
The justices sat motionless as the president humiliated them, mischaracterizing the Citizens United opinion, as they were surrounded in the House chamber by cheering (jeering?) congressional Democrats behaving like a bunch of thugs. This deplorable action was unprecedented in American history.
Democrats promised to get around the Citizens United ruling. (That's a telling statement about the current Congress and administration, that they consider the Constitution something to "get around.")
Their answer is the DISCLOSE Act, which is every bit as much an attempt to silence free speech as BCRA. Among other things, it requires that every group seeking to run political ads must show pictures and carry audio approvals from the organization's head, the head of their largest contributor, and the names of the organization's five top donors, whether or not they contributed to the message in question.
The end result of these onerous requirements is that of a 30-second TV or radio spot, perhaps 15 seconds will be consumed with these tedious, eye-glazing disclosures.
And by the way, labor unions are exempt from this law. Team Obama says, "We need disclosure!" Yet Team Obama's storm troopers don't need to disclose their activities, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
At least BCRA applied to unions. It was unconstitutional, but at least it went after both sides. DISCLOSE, by contrast, mostly criminalizes speech from conservative groups, while leaving liberals unfettered.
Fortunately, that may be its undoing. Because free speech is a fundamental right, an equal-protection challenge to it will be subject to what is called strict scrutiny. This law will not survive such an exacting standard in court.
Like BCRA, the DISCLOSE Act is unconstitutional. It runs afoul of both the First Amendment and the equal-protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. It exploits an unguarded area of law, taking disclosure requirements to an unprecedented level to the point where they swallow up the speaker's message, and intimidate donors. It violates the spirit of the Supreme Court's recent decision, if not the letter. And Team Obama is trying to cram it into law to stem their losses in the upcoming election.
If DISCLOSE passes, our only hope is that the Supreme Court decides it before the 2012 election. (Unfortunately 2010 would be a lost cause unless a court orders a preliminary injunction.)
That being the case, Elena Kagan should have to answer a lot of questions. She took a radical view of government censorship when arguing the Citizens United case, arguing that government can outlaw political pamphlets. Senators (like voters) have every right to know how those arguments apply to this law.
Mission About the ACRU In the Courts ACLU Outrages In the Press Other Resources Contact Us Home
The American Civil Rights Union
3213 Duke St., #625
Alexandria, VA 22314 703-807-0242
(877) 730-ACRU (2278)
The American Civil Rights Union is a non-partisan 501c(3) tax-exempt organization
and receives no federal grants or funding.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Is Obama America's "Educator-In-Chief On Islam"?
From: Gary L. Bauer
The Weekly Standard is reporting today that Rashad Hussain, who is the U.S. special envoy to the Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC), told a crowd Wednesday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars that our president is America's "educator-in-chief on Islam." Hussain also announced that the U.S. will support the OIC's efforts in the United Nations to make "defamation of religion" a crime. This means that the Obama administration will be working with the OIC, which is deeply anti-Semitic and has links to terrorist groups, to supress any speech that criticizes Islam or Muslim practices.
Unfortunately, Obama has already taught us all the wrong things about Islam. Soon after becoming president, Obama told a Muslim TV network, "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy." And he once declared that America is one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. Worst of all, Obama has refused to acknowledge that Islam has anything to do with terrorism. If the president thinks he's supposed to be America's educator-in-chief on Islam, perhaps he needs to take a few remedial courses on the religion. And as a former Undersecretary of Education, I'd be happy to teach them to him!
AmValues.org
The Weekly Standard is reporting today that Rashad Hussain, who is the U.S. special envoy to the Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC), told a crowd Wednesday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars that our president is America's "educator-in-chief on Islam." Hussain also announced that the U.S. will support the OIC's efforts in the United Nations to make "defamation of religion" a crime. This means that the Obama administration will be working with the OIC, which is deeply anti-Semitic and has links to terrorist groups, to supress any speech that criticizes Islam or Muslim practices.
Unfortunately, Obama has already taught us all the wrong things about Islam. Soon after becoming president, Obama told a Muslim TV network, "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy." And he once declared that America is one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. Worst of all, Obama has refused to acknowledge that Islam has anything to do with terrorism. If the president thinks he's supposed to be America's educator-in-chief on Islam, perhaps he needs to take a few remedial courses on the religion. And as a former Undersecretary of Education, I'd be happy to teach them to him!
AmValues.org
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Call To Fall posted at frc.org
If My People, Who Are Called by My Name...
Faced with two wars, a devastating oil spill, and an administration bent on forcing sexual perversion on America, how can we possibly expect God to continue blessing this nation? The laundry list of problems keeps growing, but the most serious threat America faces is the silence of the Church. As Christians, we must take God's admonition seriously that the healing power to change a nation is vested in His people--if, and only if, they "will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways..." (2 Chronicles 7:14) God doesn't place the authority to change America in Washington's hands or Wall Street's powerful hands. He gives it exclusively to His church. And if there were ever a time that God's people should be praying, it's now. Join us in following God's prescription for healing our land by signing up for Call2Fall on Sunday, July 4. Toget! her with churches from across the nation, we recognize that the journey back to God, to His forgiveness and healing, begins on our knees in humility and repentant prayer. America needs a revival--and that revival starts with us. Are you "in?" Click here to sign up.
Faced with two wars, a devastating oil spill, and an administration bent on forcing sexual perversion on America, how can we possibly expect God to continue blessing this nation? The laundry list of problems keeps growing, but the most serious threat America faces is the silence of the Church. As Christians, we must take God's admonition seriously that the healing power to change a nation is vested in His people--if, and only if, they "will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways..." (2 Chronicles 7:14) God doesn't place the authority to change America in Washington's hands or Wall Street's powerful hands. He gives it exclusively to His church. And if there were ever a time that God's people should be praying, it's now. Join us in following God's prescription for healing our land by signing up for Call2Fall on Sunday, July 4. Toget! her with churches from across the nation, we recognize that the journey back to God, to His forgiveness and healing, begins on our knees in humility and repentant prayer. America needs a revival--and that revival starts with us. Are you "in?" Click here to sign up.
The Judge vs. Obama-Gary Bauer
There are 3 Branches of Government, Not One!
Yesterday, a federal court reminded the president that there are three independent branches of government. In striking down Obama’s six-month drilling ban, the court sided with those who argued that the ban amounted to an unconstitutional seizure of property without due process. The oil companies can’t afford to let these rigs sit idle – it’s costing them, according to one report, as much as a million dollars a day! If they can’t drill in the Gulf, the companies will tow these rigs to wherever they can drill and they will likely sign long-term contracts – meaning that those jobs in the Gulf won’t be coming back in six months.
Judge Martin Feldman was very critical of the ban, writing, “The blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”
Judge Feldman also called the administration’s justification for the ban “misleading.” Consider this excerpt: “Much to the government’s discomfort and this Court’s uneasiness, the summary also states that ‘the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.’ As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading.”
Two weeks ago I reported that seven experts referred by the National Academy of Engineering had been asked to review safety recommendations for the administration. But Interior Secretary Ken Salazar added the drilling ban to the report he sent to the White House AFTER these scientists had reviewed it. They have publicly opposed the drilling ban and objected to the use of their names to defend it.
The judge also noted the ban’s impact on the economy: “Some of the plaintiffs’ contracts have been affected; the court is persuaded that it is only a matter of time before more business and jobs and livelihoods will be lost. The effect on employment, jobs, loss of domestic energy supplies caused by the moratorium as the plaintiffs (and other suppliers, and the rigs themselves) lose business, and the movement of the rigs to other sites around the world will clearly ripple throughout the economy in this region.”
The White House said yesterday it would appeal the decision and seek an immediate stay of the judge’s order. In addition, Ken Salazar stated that he intends to issue a new drilling ban in a matter of days. There are thousands of rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico. If there are safety violations that justify a shut down, then shut down the violators. Otherwise, stop punishing the hard-working families of the Gulf!
Yesterday, a federal court reminded the president that there are three independent branches of government. In striking down Obama’s six-month drilling ban, the court sided with those who argued that the ban amounted to an unconstitutional seizure of property without due process. The oil companies can’t afford to let these rigs sit idle – it’s costing them, according to one report, as much as a million dollars a day! If they can’t drill in the Gulf, the companies will tow these rigs to wherever they can drill and they will likely sign long-term contracts – meaning that those jobs in the Gulf won’t be coming back in six months.
Judge Martin Feldman was very critical of the ban, writing, “The blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”
Judge Feldman also called the administration’s justification for the ban “misleading.” Consider this excerpt: “Much to the government’s discomfort and this Court’s uneasiness, the summary also states that ‘the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.’ As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading.”
Two weeks ago I reported that seven experts referred by the National Academy of Engineering had been asked to review safety recommendations for the administration. But Interior Secretary Ken Salazar added the drilling ban to the report he sent to the White House AFTER these scientists had reviewed it. They have publicly opposed the drilling ban and objected to the use of their names to defend it.
The judge also noted the ban’s impact on the economy: “Some of the plaintiffs’ contracts have been affected; the court is persuaded that it is only a matter of time before more business and jobs and livelihoods will be lost. The effect on employment, jobs, loss of domestic energy supplies caused by the moratorium as the plaintiffs (and other suppliers, and the rigs themselves) lose business, and the movement of the rigs to other sites around the world will clearly ripple throughout the economy in this region.”
The White House said yesterday it would appeal the decision and seek an immediate stay of the judge’s order. In addition, Ken Salazar stated that he intends to issue a new drilling ban in a matter of days. There are thousands of rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico. If there are safety violations that justify a shut down, then shut down the violators. Otherwise, stop punishing the hard-working families of the Gulf!
Monday, June 21, 2010
A New Twist on "Elder Abuse"
A New Twist to Elder Abuse
One of the most powerful arguments we as opponents of assisted suicide and euthanasia use is that these acts can be tantamount to elder abuse. Family members and/or medical professionals can abuse their power over vulnerable individuals by intimidating them into "choosing" assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Now, Compassion and Choices (C&C), the nation's leading proponent of assisted suicide and euthanasia, is trying to put a new twist on elder abuse. Recognizing the power of the elder abuse argument for opponents, C&C writes on its website that, in recognition of World Elder Abuse Prevention Day, we should focus on a "rarely recognized" and "never punished" form of elder abuse -- "the pain, torture and invasion of bodily integrity from 'heroic' and futile medical procedures associated with end-of-life care."
"Add to this scene severe and unnecessary suffering from inadequate treatment of pain," says C&C and they conclude that assisted suicide and euthanasia are the answer. Excuse me, but wouldn't it be simpler to just work to relieve pain as so many in the medical profession are now doing? And, to respect the right of patients to refuse treatment?
Then comes the real motivation behind the C&C onslaught: "When institutions withhold vital information about medical practices like terminal sedation or aid in dying [C&C euphemism for assisted suicide], which they deem immoral, and hold patients hostage to their own beliefs in the redemptive power of suffering, that is elder abuse....Catholic facilities that enforce gag rules and bar conversations about legal aid in dying, even when a patient inquires, are doing just that in Oregon and Washington."
It's those bad Catholics again, trying to invoke conscience protections for their medical professionals and facilities. And, that is C&C's goal -- first to legalize; then, to eliminate conscience protections so that assisted suicide and euthanasia can be mainstreamed and available anywhere.
-Wisconsin Right To Life
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most powerful arguments we as opponents of assisted suicide and euthanasia use is that these acts can be tantamount to elder abuse. Family members and/or medical professionals can abuse their power over vulnerable individuals by intimidating them into "choosing" assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Now, Compassion and Choices (C&C), the nation's leading proponent of assisted suicide and euthanasia, is trying to put a new twist on elder abuse. Recognizing the power of the elder abuse argument for opponents, C&C writes on its website that, in recognition of World Elder Abuse Prevention Day, we should focus on a "rarely recognized" and "never punished" form of elder abuse -- "the pain, torture and invasion of bodily integrity from 'heroic' and futile medical procedures associated with end-of-life care."
"Add to this scene severe and unnecessary suffering from inadequate treatment of pain," says C&C and they conclude that assisted suicide and euthanasia are the answer. Excuse me, but wouldn't it be simpler to just work to relieve pain as so many in the medical profession are now doing? And, to respect the right of patients to refuse treatment?
Then comes the real motivation behind the C&C onslaught: "When institutions withhold vital information about medical practices like terminal sedation or aid in dying [C&C euphemism for assisted suicide], which they deem immoral, and hold patients hostage to their own beliefs in the redemptive power of suffering, that is elder abuse....Catholic facilities that enforce gag rules and bar conversations about legal aid in dying, even when a patient inquires, are doing just that in Oregon and Washington."
It's those bad Catholics again, trying to invoke conscience protections for their medical professionals and facilities. And, that is C&C's goal -- first to legalize; then, to eliminate conscience protections so that assisted suicide and euthanasia can be mainstreamed and available anywhere.
-Wisconsin Right To Life
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, June 18, 2010
Pence: Social Issues Fit Conservatives to a 'Tea'
Pence: Social Issues Fit Conservatives to a 'Tea' -Tony Perkins frc.org
Fortunately, not all Republicans share Grover's opinion. In fact, one of the most well-respected conservatives in America , Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), was blunt about where the Tea Party movement would be without traditional values. In a speech yesterday, Pence said people are drawn to the Tea Party movement "because it embraces American morality, including the sanctity of life...and marriage..." At the end of his remarks, the Republican Conference Chair said, "[I]t needs to be said... that what's animating this authentic American movement is that our present crisis is not just economic and fiscal. It's moral in nature... [O] ur leaders need to recognize that public policy alone will not cure what ails this country. It's going to take public virtue and a return to the institutions that nourish the character of the nation... ! [like] life... marriage... and the importance of religion in every day life." Congressman, we couldn't have said it better ourselves.
Fortunately, not all Republicans share Grover's opinion. In fact, one of the most well-respected conservatives in America , Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), was blunt about where the Tea Party movement would be without traditional values. In a speech yesterday, Pence said people are drawn to the Tea Party movement "because it embraces American morality, including the sanctity of life...and marriage..." At the end of his remarks, the Republican Conference Chair said, "[I]t needs to be said... that what's animating this authentic American movement is that our present crisis is not just economic and fiscal. It's moral in nature... [O] ur leaders need to recognize that public policy alone will not cure what ails this country. It's going to take public virtue and a return to the institutions that nourish the character of the nation... ! [like] life... marriage... and the importance of religion in every day life." Congressman, we couldn't have said it better ourselves.
Government Report Confirms Nearly a Billion Tax Dollars Funding Abortion
6-17-10
by Catherine Snow, managing editor, Citizenlink.org
Most Americans object to tax dollars going to abortion groups
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a groundbreaking report Wednesday, quantifying the level of federal funds dispersed over a seven-year period (2002-2009) to six pro-abortion abortion organizations and their affiliates.
According to the audit, Advocates for Health, the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), Population Council and Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SEICUS) reported spending an estimated $967 million in federal taxpayer funds.
The GAO audit, requested by 31 Republican lawmakers, points out that the nearly $1 billion estimate "may understate the actual amount of federal funds the selected organizations and their affiliates spent."
In other words, the report may only scratch the surface, in terms of tracking federal funds used to perform abortion, as well as expand the presence and influence of abortion providers here and abroad.
This staggering estimate would likely be higher, were it not for pro-life legislation, such as the Hyde and Helms amendments, prohibiting HHS and USAID, respectively, from funding of abortion, as well as the Mexico City Policy, recently overturned by president Obama on his first day in office.
In spite of pro-life regulations, HHS and USAID are, by far, the largest purveyors of tax dollars allocated to the abortion industry, especially for domestic Title X "family planning" programs.
As such, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., introduced the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (HR 614) on Wednesday, which prohibits the distribution of Title X money to entities that use abortion as a method of family planning.
"Whether or not you accept that ending an unborn human life is morally wrong, said Pence," the overwhelming majority of Americans accept that taking the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and using it to subsidize the largest abortion provider in America is just wrong."
The bi-partisan bill has 93 co-sponsors.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
The complete audit is available on the GAO website.
(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family Action is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
by Catherine Snow, managing editor, Citizenlink.org
Most Americans object to tax dollars going to abortion groups
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a groundbreaking report Wednesday, quantifying the level of federal funds dispersed over a seven-year period (2002-2009) to six pro-abortion abortion organizations and their affiliates.
According to the audit, Advocates for Health, the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), Population Council and Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SEICUS) reported spending an estimated $967 million in federal taxpayer funds.
The GAO audit, requested by 31 Republican lawmakers, points out that the nearly $1 billion estimate "may understate the actual amount of federal funds the selected organizations and their affiliates spent."
In other words, the report may only scratch the surface, in terms of tracking federal funds used to perform abortion, as well as expand the presence and influence of abortion providers here and abroad.
This staggering estimate would likely be higher, were it not for pro-life legislation, such as the Hyde and Helms amendments, prohibiting HHS and USAID, respectively, from funding of abortion, as well as the Mexico City Policy, recently overturned by president Obama on his first day in office.
In spite of pro-life regulations, HHS and USAID are, by far, the largest purveyors of tax dollars allocated to the abortion industry, especially for domestic Title X "family planning" programs.
As such, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., introduced the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (HR 614) on Wednesday, which prohibits the distribution of Title X money to entities that use abortion as a method of family planning.
"Whether or not you accept that ending an unborn human life is morally wrong, said Pence," the overwhelming majority of Americans accept that taking the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and using it to subsidize the largest abortion provider in America is just wrong."
The bi-partisan bill has 93 co-sponsors.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
The complete audit is available on the GAO website.
(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family Action is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Action suggestions from American Cafe'
Gang,
I will be sending out Action suggestions as I have them come across my desk. Some days this may be several items and others maybe none. I’ll try not to overwhelm you.
Not every one of you will feel led to take action on every subject. We understand that. Please make your own decision as to what to do. These are what Adrienne and I are acting on.
If you would prefer to Not have action items come from us please send us a message and we will keep from sending them to you.
Peter and Adrienne Robberson
The American Café
719-573-2193
From: Tony Perkins [mailto:reply@frcaction.org]
Subject: Help Protect Our Troops
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Peter, Three weeks ago, Armed Services chiefs General Casey (Army), General Conway (Marines), Admiral Roughead (Navy) and General Schwartz (Air Force) sent letters to Congress asking Members to wait and not show disrespect for our troops by reversing the current policy of not allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. Two hundred thirty-four Representatives ignored that plea from our most senior military leaders and added language repealing the ban on homosexuals in the Armed Forces to the annual legislation that funds our troops. The U.S. Senate is now poised to do the same. Additionally, Democrats have attached language to that same Defense funding bill that effectively would turn our military medical facilities into abortion clinics and force American taxpayers to underwrite the use of military facilities, the procurement of additional equipment, and the use of needed military personnel to perform abortions. American Armed Forces leaders understand the reason our military exists: to protect our nation and to win wars. However, in the middle of two conflicts essential to our national security, President Obama and the Democratic leadership have decided to use our military as a laboratory for their liberal social policies, regardless how they affect our fighting strength, recruitment or readiness. Thanks to your help, we have gathered 90,000 signatures and need only 10,000 to reach our goal of 100,000 before we present them to Senate leaders live during a national FRC webcast this coming Tuesday, June 22. Thank you for your signature -- and now please send the petition to at least ten of your friends so that they may tell Congress to keep the law that says homosexuality is incompatible with military service, and oppose efforts to use our Armed Forces to advance the homosexual agenda. Sincerely, |
|
American Majority Grassroots Training-Pueblo
Guys, I want to invite you to our next American Majority Grassroots Training. This one is down in Pueblo but worth the drive. Invite all your favorite, conservative Pueblo Friends. I will be teaching a half day class on Citizen Activism with the goal of renewing the values and vision of our Founders. Visit www.americanmajority.org for more information. You must register online at http://tinyurl.com/29ojba9. There will be other Trainings in Colorado Springs, Canon City, Limon and in Southwestern Colorado as well. Attendence is $25 online. Hope you can come!
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Kirk Cameron Interviews World History Institute Scholar
You will love this video interview by Kirk Cameron of Marshall Foster, Author and scholar. http://www.worldhistoryinstitute.com/videos/video_detail.html?id=308
Friday, June 11, 2010
Warning: The Constitution is Still Relevant
June 11, 2010 | By Amanda J. Reinecker, Heritage Foundation
"The idea that the Constitution is somehow dated and less relevant today is outrageous," opines The Heritage Foundation's Brandon Stewart. "The simple, noble principles enshrined in the Constitution have never been more relevant than they are today." Unfortunately, many on the left have taken issue with this fact.
Consider Wilder Publications, publisher of a recent anthology of Founding texts, including the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. This "book" comes with a printed disclaimer stating that these self-evident truths may not be so true any longer. Reader beware!
This is utterly ridiculous. These ideas are not dangerous; they're liberating. These values don't expire; they're eternal. These truths are not exclusive; they're universal.
Based on reader reviews, Amazon.com customers appear to agree. What do you think?
As Heritage's Matthew Spalding explains in his new book, We Still Hold These Truths:
To this day, so many years after the American Revolution, these principles—proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and promulgated by the United States Constitution—still define us as a nation and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous and just nation unlike any in the world…
A warning to readers is not necessary, explains Spalding, because the documents themselves are "a warning to tyrants and despots everywhere." To say they are no longer relevant is to undermine the fact that "it is because of these principles, not despite them, that America has achieved its greatness."
In its disclaimer, Wilder Publications warns, "No part of this book may be used or reproduced…" The values enshrined in these works ought to be reproduced time and time again.
If you are interested in being exposed to the "dangerous ideas" in our Constitution -- ideas about free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense -- you can order your own pocket copy of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution (sans warning label) from Heritage.
"The idea that the Constitution is somehow dated and less relevant today is outrageous," opines The Heritage Foundation's Brandon Stewart. "The simple, noble principles enshrined in the Constitution have never been more relevant than they are today." Unfortunately, many on the left have taken issue with this fact.
Consider Wilder Publications, publisher of a recent anthology of Founding texts, including the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. This "book" comes with a printed disclaimer stating that these self-evident truths may not be so true any longer. Reader beware!
This is utterly ridiculous. These ideas are not dangerous; they're liberating. These values don't expire; they're eternal. These truths are not exclusive; they're universal.
Based on reader reviews, Amazon.com customers appear to agree. What do you think?
As Heritage's Matthew Spalding explains in his new book, We Still Hold These Truths:
To this day, so many years after the American Revolution, these principles—proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and promulgated by the United States Constitution—still define us as a nation and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous and just nation unlike any in the world…
A warning to readers is not necessary, explains Spalding, because the documents themselves are "a warning to tyrants and despots everywhere." To say they are no longer relevant is to undermine the fact that "it is because of these principles, not despite them, that America has achieved its greatness."
In its disclaimer, Wilder Publications warns, "No part of this book may be used or reproduced…" The values enshrined in these works ought to be reproduced time and time again.
If you are interested in being exposed to the "dangerous ideas" in our Constitution -- ideas about free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense -- you can order your own pocket copy of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution (sans warning label) from Heritage.
Washington Still Isn't Listening
Exerpt from article by Tom Minnery
Senior Vice President, Government & Public Policy, Focus on the Family
"Even as the evidence of election after election shows that Americans are rejecting social change agenda in Washington, our leaders still seem set on pursuing that course. While Americans can--and, based on these primary results, probably will--hold Washington accountable, the fact is that we still have a long way to November. Consider what is going on in Congress today:
- ON SPENDING The U.S. treasury reports that our government is now borrowing $4.9 billion every day; almost three times the daily average of $1.7 billion under the previous administration. Estimates show that if you pay taxes, your share of the national debt is over $118,000. How much more will our children owe if we continue down this path?
- ON SOCIAL POLICY As I write this, the Senate is still considering a vote to repeal the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, which has allowed our military to remain focused on protecting our nation instead of being used as a vehicle of social change.
- RESHAPING THE SUPREME COURT Soon the Senate will commence hearings on Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court vacancy. We know Ms. Kagan has no judicial experience and has spent her entire career in liberal academia and politics."
Senior Vice President, Government & Public Policy, Focus on the Family
"Even as the evidence of election after election shows that Americans are rejecting social change agenda in Washington, our leaders still seem set on pursuing that course. While Americans can--and, based on these primary results, probably will--hold Washington accountable, the fact is that we still have a long way to November. Consider what is going on in Congress today:
- ON SPENDING The U.S. treasury reports that our government is now borrowing $4.9 billion every day; almost three times the daily average of $1.7 billion under the previous administration. Estimates show that if you pay taxes, your share of the national debt is over $118,000. How much more will our children owe if we continue down this path?
- ON SOCIAL POLICY As I write this, the Senate is still considering a vote to repeal the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, which has allowed our military to remain focused on protecting our nation instead of being used as a vehicle of social change.
- RESHAPING THE SUPREME COURT Soon the Senate will commence hearings on Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court vacancy. We know Ms. Kagan has no judicial experience and has spent her entire career in liberal academia and politics."
Our US Constitution is a "Constitution of No"
Jim Demint writes a great article demonstrating that the very essence of our Constitution is to create but LIMIT our Federal Government. Enjoy this very insightful piece from Jim DeMint! 'Constitution of No'
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Publisher Puts Warning Labels on Constitution
Need to Know
June 10, 2010
Posted by Staff
A small publishing company is under fire after putting warning labels on copies of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical documents.
Wilder Publications warns readers of its reprints of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, among others, that "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today."
The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they "might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."
06/10/10 9:34 AM
June 10, 2010
Posted by Staff
A small publishing company is under fire after putting warning labels on copies of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical documents.
Wilder Publications warns readers of its reprints of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, among others, that "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today."
The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they "might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."
06/10/10 9:34 AM
Colorado Springs Emergency! May I rest in peace
American Café,
Please read this article by Michelle. This is extraordinary and should make you think about your plan. Please think about your plan and make one in advance. We have a plan in our family if disaster strikes.
Pete and Adrienne
Subject: May I rest in peace
I arrived at 6:30 to check in at 7:00. From there I got to choose a costume or a card. Both indicated what kind of injury I had and how responsive I was. I just looked for something that fit, and didn’t notice the injuries until I put it on the pants that came ready-made with injuries. Others were looking for the “right” injury to insure them one of the Flight-for-Life trips. As it turned out, I had two injuries. A puncture wound in my left leg (a writing pen was embedded in my leg) and my right leg had the life-threatening injury, a laceration to my femoral artery. Both looked pretty bad. The woman who creates these costumes is gifted in making the injuries look very real. I got a bracelet with a number that matched my “victim” costume and that is the number they used to track me all day, everywhere I went. This is how they will eventually determine if the emergency teams processed my injuries correctly. From there they took my picture for my certificate suitable for framing, so that everybody could see that I helped with this exercise. We had a hot breakfast that was hot. That’s all I’ll say about that.
We went outside and were sprayed with blood to match the wound on our costume, or the card we picked up. Some were bruised and burned, others had clothes like mine with the injuries already on them (impaled glass, or other foreign objects). Some were “pregnant” or some a missing limb or a nearly missing limb. The sheriff came and wished us well on the exercise and told us that we were a pretty rough looking group. And we were.
There were 138 of us who boarded buses that took us to
The school was ready for us. There were some slabs of broken concrete and something that they had blown up. There were three cars placed on their roofs. Indeed, it looked like a disaster zone.
On the buses we were already trying to figure out who had the worst injuries. Outside the school we were placed into three groups. We didn’t know it officially, but they separated us based on the seriousness of our injury, then sprinkled us throughout the building. Those in dark rooms were given glow sticks. I was placed in a semi-dark science room with a lot of seriously injured victims who couldn’t walk. I immediately placed myself under overturned desks and chairs. Others wandered around the room for a bit until we heard from someone in the hallway that the exercise was underway. We immediately started calling for help. The First Responders were from the school. God help the students if there is ever a disaster at
Apparently our tornado left trees in the roadway and they had to be moved before the fire trucks could get to
After 2.5 hours, they still hadn’t found us or rescued us. I guess they were understaffed for the emergency, so they changed their plan. We were instructed to go to the lobby of the school, even though we weren’t supposed to walk. From there, we were directed to the triage tent, and again, we walked there, when we weren’t supposed to walk anywhere. That was part of the exercise and our assignment. At the triage tent it throws them for a curve when you walk in, because that tells them you’re not that badly injured. They process the walking wounded differently than the immobile wounded. So we had to explain that we walked in, but they should pretend we were carried in.
The pen in my leg was certainly a “main attraction.” Nobody had ever seen anything like that. Sadly, this would be the cause of my second death. My wounds were bandaged, but incorrectly. I never got the pressure bandage for my artery, so if I hadn’t bled out waiting for rescue, I would bleed out on my way to the hospital. They put me on a backboard, then a gurney. Sadly, they didn’t securely strap me onto the backboard and all I could think of was the guy that had fallen off the gurney when one had malfunctioned. (Yes, and the victims in my room watched from the window while it happened.) I was feeling very slippery on that backboard, but they assured me the guy that fell off was on a faulty gurney and they knew what they were doing, because they do it every day. That’s only moderately comforting after a guy was just dropped on the ground. The triage guy misdirected me to a hospital that didn’t have Flight for Life. The ambulance attendant caught the mistake, said something twice, but was apparently outranked by the guy who decided where I should go. So I missed my helicopter ride, but I got a ride in the ambulance and a nice tour of its contents. The attendant was supposed to start an IV, but he either forgot or didn’t have enough IVs, either way it wasn’t good news for me or their score for treating me correctly.
The ambulances didn’t take us back to
What I didn’t know is that the same Channel 11 News crew filmed me being loaded onto the ambulance, then followed me out to the staging area. So when I arrived, the NOAA staff said that the press was requesting an interview with me and would I grant one. So they interviewed me and then left. No pressure there. I just hoped I didn’t say something stupid.
The backboard became my responsibility and they assigned a nice young man to tote it for me and load it onto my bus. I was now on my way to Memorial North hospital in
The bus driver drove by St. Francis hospital taking all of those critical patients to Memorial North to drop seven of us off, then drive back to St. Francis, adding one more goof to this exercise.
When we arrived at the ER entrance of Memorial North, there was nobody to greet us. Here is where the wheels came off the wagon. I was supposed to be re-strapped to my backboard and then placed on a gurney to be processed through the ER. There I was, an immobile patient, carrying my own backboard! (Picture below, compliments of a hospital volunteer.) The NOAA Exercise staff greeted us at the door, but gave us no direction. We asked what we should do and they shrugged. We seven went in and stood in the hallway. Nobody came to greet us. There were “real world” ER people waiting and three priests in the ER and we weren’t sure if we should go in or not. We didn’t want to upset people with our bloody injuries and clothes. Finally, we went into the ER waiting room. Nobody reacted. Nobody acted like they knew what we were doing there. It was weird. They began processing us, without even looking at our triage tags! The yellow victims offered to let the red victims go first (because we’re more seriously injured), but we explained that wasn’t our job to fix, it was the hospital staff’s job to notice and fix. After several more minutes, and after more yellow-triage-tagged people were checked in, one of the guys behind the triage desk brought our red triage tags to their attention. They acted like they had never seen them before. I began to wonder if the triage tags were just for the NOAA exercise or if they are used in real-world situations too. Guess what? They are commonly used, yet totally ignored on us. I was still carrying my backboard. When they approached me, I told them I should be on the backboard and a gurney. They got the gurney, had me hop onto the backboard, but never attached me to the backboard at all and never put up any railings on the gurney. I felt like I was going to fall off! Again. I didn’t feel like they were even willing to pretend to be part of the exercise.
They wheeled me down the hall and ordered my treatment. Again, the pen was the fascinating point of discussion. Nobody every looked under my bandage at the mortal wound. The discussion was all about x-rays for my “compound fracture” (and I’m not sure where that came from because I didn’t have one when I entered) and my femoral artery bleed went unnoticed and undetected. So I told them about it and they said I would see an arterial surgeon, but after the x-rays! Wouldn’t I have bled to death by then? For the third time??
The interesting thing I noticed while laying there on the gurney looking at the ceiling tiles, was the conversation going on around me. A woman was clearly annoyed that “somebody” knew about this exercise and didn’t create charts for it. Would somebody have created plentiful charts in advance had this been a real emergency? It was amazing. Only seven patients were routed to this hospital and you would have thought it was 107.
I guess we arrived later than expected and they were done playing “tornado exercise” so they came and got me off the gurney. They were done. We were supposed to be taken to x-ray, the OR, etc. The whole process was to be acted out so that they could see how each group handled the overload to the system and would they have had the appropriate supplies on-hand had it been a real disaster. If seven exercise victims overloaded this hospital, God help us in a real emergency. They knew we were coming and still couldn’t handle it. They just didn’t seem to want to participate or take it seriously.
Memorial North is the closest hospital to us, but we’ll not take our real-life emergencies there. I could see why the emergency medical teams in
The hospital served us lunch and there was no lime Jell-o. It was actually very good ~ the only redeeming part of this hospital.
The shuttle bus had circled the parking lot of Memorial North hospital for two hour waiting for us. Now that we were there, the driver went MIA and didn’t show up for another hour. We were transported back to
The whole day was an experience I will never forget! And I would do it again in a heartbeat.
There were 13 agencies involved and it took two years to plan. They learned a lot I’m sure. We learned, God help
I know we’re human and we all make mistakes, but it was sobering to think that I probably died three times Saturday (once from waiting 2.5 hours and still not being found or rescued, once from being misdirected at the field triage point, and once from the hospital’s ER lackadaisical approach). Now my wound was life-threatening, but as they explained, some people’s wounds weren’t life-threatening in the beginning, but became life-threatening by the length of time it took and by some of the mistakes that were made.
We watched Channel 11 News and they had my “crying death scene” on the science room floor, me being loaded into the ambulance, and my edited interview.
I’m hoping to get more pictures from the crews, but for now all I have is the one from the hospital volunteer. Oh, and notice the “Exercise in Progress” banners on the bus, so we didn’t freak out the drivers we met on the highway. Those signs were attached in such a way that if there had been a bus accident, we had no way to use the emergency exits.
May I rest in peace.
Michele
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
I Need Your Christian Patriotic Book Suggestions
Guys I need your help. Our church bookstore is doing a display of Christian Patriotic Books for July. They asked me for recommendations and I want your input. Please suggest one or more for me. She said they 'must have Christian content' and of course be non-partisan, ie not advocating for a Party or Candidate. Speak up quick. I need your help!
Monday, June 7, 2010
American Majority Grassroots Training
American Café,
American Majority http://americanmajority.org/ is pleased to announce an Activist Training will be conducted on Saturday, July 10th in
This training will take place at the Community Room in Re/Max Properties-Tenderfoot Hill located at
The System (an in-depth look at the system we’re in, how we got there, and what we can do about it).
Grassroots Action (ideas and practical steps to engage our communities and organize a coalition of volunteers)
Precinct Power (changing your community one precinct at a time with specific micro-targeting and focused action)
Patriots 2.0 (effectively utilizing social networking tools, blogs, wiki projects and other technologically-driven platforms)
Full training materials, samples and supplements will be provided to help you apply what you learn to your organization, candidate, cause or community.
American Majority is a non-profit and NON-PARTISAN organization whose mission is to train and equip a national network of leaders committed to individual freedom through limited government and the free market.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, contact Peter Robberson at Peter@AMMechanics.org or call 719-622-8808 and leave a message.
U.S. Citizens Side With Israel
From: Gary L. Bauer-American Values
U.S. Public Sides With Israel
In spite of a constant barrage of press criticism presenting Israel as the aggressor against innocent “peace activists” on the Turkish flotilla headed to Gaza, the American public is not buying the “official” line. According to Rasmussen Reports, nearly 50% of the U.S. public blames the people in the flotilla for the deaths that occurred, while only 19% blame Israel. A third of the country doesn’t know enough to claim an opinion.
These polling results suggest that Barack Obama’s hostility toward Israel puts the president at odds with the great majority of the American public. Fifty-eight percent of the public sees Israel as our ally, while only 2% sees it as our enemy. In contrast, only 30% see the United Nations as an ally, and 16% see the U.N. as our enemy.
By the way, conservatives were most supportive of Israel, while liberals were the most hostile.
U.S. Public Sides With Israel
In spite of a constant barrage of press criticism presenting Israel as the aggressor against innocent “peace activists” on the Turkish flotilla headed to Gaza, the American public is not buying the “official” line. According to Rasmussen Reports, nearly 50% of the U.S. public blames the people in the flotilla for the deaths that occurred, while only 19% blame Israel. A third of the country doesn’t know enough to claim an opinion.
These polling results suggest that Barack Obama’s hostility toward Israel puts the president at odds with the great majority of the American public. Fifty-eight percent of the public sees Israel as our ally, while only 2% sees it as our enemy. In contrast, only 30% see the United Nations as an ally, and 16% see the U.N. as our enemy.
By the way, conservatives were most supportive of Israel, while liberals were the most hostile.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Death by a Thousand Cuts for Small Business
|
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Who Are These Tea Party People Anyway?
Rasmussen Poll 46% Say Tea Party Good for America, 31% Disagree.
Posted by Asst. National Dir Mellie on June 2, 2010 at 4:26pm in Admin Alerts
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Forty-six percent (46%) of U.S. voters say the Tea Party movement is good for the country, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Thirty-one percent (31%)disagree and say it’s bad for the country. Another 13% say it’s neither.
But just 16% of voters say they are actually members of the so-called Tea Party, a loose knit group of Americans nationwide protesting big government and high taxes. This is down eight points from a month ago and but little changed from two months ago. The spike in identification with the Tea Party followed passage of the health care law. Most voters continue to favor repeal of that law.
Nine percent (9%) now say that they are not members of the Tea Party but have close friends or family members who are. Sixty-nine percent (69%) say they have no ties whatsoever to the movement.
The Tea Party is definitely not a Political Class phenomenon, though. Not a single Political Class respondent in the survey said they’re a member of the Tea Party, but five percent (5%) confessed that they have close friends or relatives who are.
Sixty-one percent (61%) of the Political Class say the Tea Party is bad for America. Two-thirds (66%) of Mainstream Americans see it as a good thing for the country. However, it’s important to note that only a little more than half of all Mainstream voters consider themselves to be part of the Tea Party movement.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on May 28-29, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by http://www.pulseopinionresearch.com/" target="_blank">Pulse
Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Forty-one percent (41%) of all voters have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party movement, while 35% view it unfavorably. Twenty-three percent (23%) are undecided. These numbers are little changed from March.
In April of last year, however, after the first “tea parties” were held on Tax Day, 51% of Americans had a favorable view of those gatherings, including 32% who said their view of the events was Very Favorable.
Male voters are more likely than female voters to have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party movement. Forty-eight percent (48%) of white voters view the movement favorably, while 69% of African-Americans have an unfavorable opinion.
While the Tea Party efforts generally claim no partisan affiliation, there is clearly a partisan edge to the movement. Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans look on the Tea Party movement favorably while 66% of Democrats hold an unfavorable opinion of it. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 45% offer a positive view while 28% voice a negative opinion of the Tea Party.
Twenty-seven percent (27%) of voters nationwide say they are at least somewhat likely to attend a Tea Party rally. That includes eight percent (8%) who say they are Very Likely to do so. Sixty-nine percent (69%) say their attendance at such a rally is unlikely, including 37% who say it is Not At All Likely.
But the Tea Party movement defies easy description. Rasmussen Reports surveying, however, provides some glimpses into the movement, including the overwhelming beliefs among its members that the federal government is a special interest group and that government and big business work together in
ways that hurt consumers and investors.
When it comes to major issues confronting the nation, 48% of voters say ttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_pol..." target="_blank">the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Obama is. Forty-four percent (44%) hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.
Fifty-two percent (52%) believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress.
Thirty-five percent (35%) of voters now think Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_pol..." target="_blank">an entirely new political party is needed to represent the American people. Nearly half (47%) of voters disagree and say a new party is not needed.
If the Tea Party was organized as a political party, 34% of voters would prefer a Democrat in a three-way
congressional race. In that hypothetical match-up, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_pol..." target="_blank">the
Republican gets 27% of the vote with the Tea Party hopeful in t.... But if only the Democrat or Republican had a real chance to win, most of the Tea Party supporters would vote for the Republican.
Posted by Asst. National Dir Mellie on June 2, 2010 at 4:26pm in Admin Alerts
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Forty-six percent (46%) of U.S. voters say the Tea Party movement is good for the country, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Thirty-one percent (31%)disagree and say it’s bad for the country. Another 13% say it’s neither.
But just 16% of voters say they are actually members of the so-called Tea Party, a loose knit group of Americans nationwide protesting big government and high taxes. This is down eight points from a month ago and but little changed from two months ago. The spike in identification with the Tea Party followed passage of the health care law. Most voters continue to favor repeal of that law.
Nine percent (9%) now say that they are not members of the Tea Party but have close friends or family members who are. Sixty-nine percent (69%) say they have no ties whatsoever to the movement.
The Tea Party is definitely not a Political Class phenomenon, though. Not a single Political Class respondent in the survey said they’re a member of the Tea Party, but five percent (5%) confessed that they have close friends or relatives who are.
Sixty-one percent (61%) of the Political Class say the Tea Party is bad for America. Two-thirds (66%) of Mainstream Americans see it as a good thing for the country. However, it’s important to note that only a little more than half of all Mainstream voters consider themselves to be part of the Tea Party movement.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on May 28-29, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by http://www.pulseopinionresearch.com/" target="_blank">Pulse
Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Forty-one percent (41%) of all voters have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party movement, while 35% view it unfavorably. Twenty-three percent (23%) are undecided. These numbers are little changed from March.
In April of last year, however, after the first “tea parties” were held on Tax Day, 51% of Americans had a favorable view of those gatherings, including 32% who said their view of the events was Very Favorable.
Male voters are more likely than female voters to have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party movement. Forty-eight percent (48%) of white voters view the movement favorably, while 69% of African-Americans have an unfavorable opinion.
While the Tea Party efforts generally claim no partisan affiliation, there is clearly a partisan edge to the movement. Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans look on the Tea Party movement favorably while 66% of Democrats hold an unfavorable opinion of it. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 45% offer a positive view while 28% voice a negative opinion of the Tea Party.
Twenty-seven percent (27%) of voters nationwide say they are at least somewhat likely to attend a Tea Party rally. That includes eight percent (8%) who say they are Very Likely to do so. Sixty-nine percent (69%) say their attendance at such a rally is unlikely, including 37% who say it is Not At All Likely.
But the Tea Party movement defies easy description. Rasmussen Reports surveying, however, provides some glimpses into the movement, including the overwhelming beliefs among its members that the federal government is a special interest group and that government and big business work together in
ways that hurt consumers and investors.
When it comes to major issues confronting the nation, 48% of voters say ttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_pol..." target="_blank">the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Obama is. Forty-four percent (44%) hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.
Fifty-two percent (52%) believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress.
Thirty-five percent (35%) of voters now think Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_pol..." target="_blank">an entirely new political party is needed to represent the American people. Nearly half (47%) of voters disagree and say a new party is not needed.
If the Tea Party was organized as a political party, 34% of voters would prefer a Democrat in a three-way
congressional race. In that hypothetical match-up, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_pol..." target="_blank">the
Republican gets 27% of the vote with the Tea Party hopeful in t.... But if only the Democrat or Republican had a real chance to win, most of the Tea Party supporters would vote for the Republican.
FW: CitizenLink: Connecticut Schools Can't Hold Graduation at Church
This is a big deal guys. Take it to heart forwarded you this article from Focus on the Family:
CitizenLink: Connecticut Schools Can't Hold Graduation at Church
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000012763.cfm?utm_id=emailafriend&utm_campaign=1
A Note About Privacy: E-mail addresses entered into our system through the "E-Mail This Article" feature are used only for the purpose of sending this e-mail. Focus on the Family will not sell, lease, or rent your e-mail address to any outside entity. Use of this feature will not result in unsolicited e-mail from Focus on the Family.
CitizenLink: Connecticut Schools Can't Hold Graduation at Church
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000012763.cfm?utm_id=emailafriend&utm_campaign=1
A Note About Privacy: E-mail addresses entered into our system through the "E-Mail This Article" feature are used only for the purpose of sending this e-mail. Focus on the Family will not sell, lease, or rent your e-mail address to any outside entity. Use of this feature will not result in unsolicited e-mail from Focus on the Family.
Military Abortions May Tank Troop Bill!-Tony Perkins
The President didn't end up speaking to the military yesterday, but he made his voice loud and clear in Congress the week before. Hours after the House and Senate voted to tack the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) repeal onto the Defense Authorization bill, questions started flying about how the decision would affect our troops -- questions that the Pentagon's formal review was meant to answer. Now that Congress has torpedoed the process, even liberal reporters are wondering what changes await our soldiers. In a piece on Friday, the New York Times tried to chip away at issue after thorny issue. "Will openly gay service members be placed in separate housing, as the commandant of the Marine Corps has advocated? What benefits, if any, will par! tners or spouses of homosexual service members be accorded? Will all military units be required to treat homosexuals the same? And what re-education will heterosexual officers and enlisted troops receive to prepare them to serve with openly gay soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines?"
To 250 members of the House and Senate who presume to know better than our military, those concerns are secondary to ensuring that U.S. forces are equipped to handle the threats -- to political correctness. Now that the DADT repeal is part of the overall bill, you'd think that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would be racing to pass it. But according to our sources on the Hill, he seems reluctant to even bring it up. Last Thursday, Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) complicated matters for Democrats by offering language that would draft the military into the war on the unborn. By a 15-12 vote, the Senate Armed Forces Committee agreed to an amendment that would lift the ban on abortions in all military facilities. As it stands, the Department of Defense is forbidden from performing abortions -- with exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the mother. If the Burris! language survives, some of military's biggest civilian casualties will be the unborn. Medical facilities would turn into abortion clinics funded entirely by U.S. taxpayers. When President Clinton allowed military abortions back in 1993, doctors refused to perform them. Ultimately, the administration had to hire civilians to do the job.
With Americans more pro-life than ever, it will be difficult to find men and women willing to destroy the next generation of U.S. soldiers. The military was meant to combat terrorism -- not perpetrate it against the unborn. Contact your Senators at 202-224-3121 and tell them to stop passing the President's liberal social agenda on the backs of American troops.-Family Research Council's Tony Perkins
To 250 members of the House and Senate who presume to know better than our military, those concerns are secondary to ensuring that U.S. forces are equipped to handle the threats -- to political correctness. Now that the DADT repeal is part of the overall bill, you'd think that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would be racing to pass it. But according to our sources on the Hill, he seems reluctant to even bring it up. Last Thursday, Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) complicated matters for Democrats by offering language that would draft the military into the war on the unborn. By a 15-12 vote, the Senate Armed Forces Committee agreed to an amendment that would lift the ban on abortions in all military facilities. As it stands, the Department of Defense is forbidden from performing abortions -- with exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the mother. If the Burris! language survives, some of military's biggest civilian casualties will be the unborn. Medical facilities would turn into abortion clinics funded entirely by U.S. taxpayers. When President Clinton allowed military abortions back in 1993, doctors refused to perform them. Ultimately, the administration had to hire civilians to do the job.
With Americans more pro-life than ever, it will be difficult to find men and women willing to destroy the next generation of U.S. soldiers. The military was meant to combat terrorism -- not perpetrate it against the unborn. Contact your Senators at 202-224-3121 and tell them to stop passing the President's liberal social agenda on the backs of American troops.-Family Research Council's Tony Perkins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
