Thanks to IR reader Denise Hendrickson for the following photos:
Thanks to IR reader Denise Hendrickson for the following photos:
In an effort to protect Muslims in uniform who are loyal Americans, The Secretary of the Army and other federal officials in and outside the Pentagon a few days ago cautioned the public against jumping to premature conclusions that the mass murder at Fort Hood was an act of terror directly tied to Islamic radicals. But as more is learned about the shooter, the only real debate becomes what is "premature" and how "directly?" The fact of so many people being killed at one time and in one place is ispo facto an example of terror.
While no one can read the mind of the shooter, it is hardly unfair to consider his other words and deeds in the last few years as being relevant and a strong, but not conclusive, indicator of motive. Sure it is possible that Hasan could have had some other motive, but the terror motive should be examined too. The court of public opinion does not have the same rules of evidence as a court of law. It is right to avoid accusing people only because of their religion, but at least some evidence is now mounting that political correctness and a fear of being accused of identifying suspects only because of religion, may have helped to contribute to the loss of 13 lives at Fort Hood.
NPR reports today that the FBI knew that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had communicated with a radical imam and attended a radical mosque in Falls Church, Virginia nearly a year before the attack but the FBI determined the Army psychiatrist was no threat, officials said. How they made that determination should be explained.
The report comes as Fort Hood prepared to hold a memorial service today honoring the 13 people who died and the 29 wounded during Thursday's shooting rampage at the Texas base. The larger question is are security officials being prevented from doing their jobs because they have been told not to follow up on evidence of radical Muslim ties for fear their superiors would criticize them for an anti-Muslim bias?
No one wants to see an anti-Mulsim bias become pervasive because there are many Muslims who live in Detroit and other areas who are very loyal to America. But we do want ANY evidence of ties to Islamic terror cells to be fully checked out. That job does not mean there is an anti-Muslim bias, but security officials are paid to have an anti-terrorist bias and they must be allowed to follow all leads. Within hours of the news of the shooting at Fort Hood, several cable news channels were pushing a story line about the stress of deployment as an explanation for what might have happened. They interviewed experts on stress before they even knew who the shooter was and many reporters were careful to dismiss out of hand event the possibility of Islamic terror. Why? For the same reason that security officials were hampered. It is not easy to follow a story if several obvious avenues of investigation are arbitrarily shut off because the "angle" is not PC. Investigators in journalism or law enforcement must be allowed to follow all their leads whereever they go. Until that approach is set and investigators can overcome the fear of PC, Fort Hood could happen again. President Obama will attend the memorial today as he should. He could not travel to Berlin this week for the 20th anniversary of the fall of the wall but did appear by TV message and that also was the right thing to do.
from Pro-Life Illinois
Champaign, IL — www.WhyProLife.com is a new website to educate pro-lifers and help them to be active at spreading the pro-life message. “We want pro-lifers to have the basic facts and reasons for the pro-life position at their fingertips,” said John-Paul Deddens, Director of Students for Life of Illinois (SFLI), a collegiate pro-life organization that built this site. “I believe that equipping pro-lifers with well organized facts and arguments will hasten the end of abortion.” He said.
The opening of this website also coincides with the “I’m Pro-Life, Ask Me Why!” Day of Action on November 11th. On this day, participants will use the knowledge gained from the website to tell others why they are pro-life. They will wear buttons and t-shirts with the phrase “I’m Pro-Life, Ask Me Why!” to provoke the dialogue.
When the Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama offers condolences today to those grieving families at Ft. Hood, will he reinterate General Casey's comments to George Stepahanopolous when asked how the Army is handling a possible backlash against Muslims within its ranks?
CASEY: Again, I think that's something else we need to be very careful about, and I think the speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here. And it's not just about Muslims. We have a very diverse army. We have a very diverse society.
from the Danklesfen for Congress campaign
Rep. Bill Foster campaigned as an independent and friend of the taxpayer. Healthcare legislation will increase our tax burden, limit the freedom to choose our own coverage, and result in greater job loss. Foster has voted with Nancy Pelosi’s failed agenda over 90% of the time.
Just because healthcare is a problem doesn’t mean Government is the answer. The recent Edmunds.com study estimating each car sold under the Cash for clunkers program costs taxpayers $24,000 and the recent rationing of flu vaccines epitomizes the Federal Government’s inability to manage programs with success or on budget.
Healthcare can be made more affordable by creating a consumer driven market including mandate free insurance which allows the consumer to purchase the plan they choose, promoting Health Savings Accounts which give the consumer greater control over their own healthcare decisions, litigation reform to reduce the amount of frivolous lawsuits, and portable insurance allowing consumers to move their policies from job to job.Unions and campaign funding blipped on the Illinois GOP gubernatorial campaign radar last week, during a forum featuring five GOP candidates vying to oust impeached Governor Rod Blagojevich's 2006 running mate Patrick Quinn next November.
"I'll take campaign donations from anyone who's not been indicted," said Bloomington state senator Bill Brady, which, he later said, included public sector unions such as SEIU (Service Employers International Union) and AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees).
Senator Brady then seemed to contradict his openness to financial contributions from unions by saying he supports Illinois becoming a Right to Work state.
"Yes, I did say that I'd take contributions from SEIU and AFSCME if there had been no indictments or guilt," Brady, a Bloomington real estate business owner, confirmed to Illinois Review a few days later. "But I'm open to competition between union and non-union companies doing work for the state."
Brady's position puts him in direct contrast to fellow GOP primary contender Dan Proft who's been challenging fellow GOP gubernatorial candidates to reject SEIU/ACORN donations. Proft said he will refuse any offered donations from public sector unions like SEIU, AFSCME or teachers' unions.
"SEIU and the other public sector unions have the game wired," Proft reinterated Monday via email memo to supporters. "They finance the silence of some and intimidate into inaction others who go-along-to-get-along to protect themselves."
But Proft also said at last week's forum he would oppose making Illinois a Right to Work state.
Proft said his views on refusing contributions but opposing forced unionization do not conflict with each other. The difference is between state employee unions and trades unions, he said.
Tradesmen produce wealth, Proft contended in a phone conversation late last week. Trade unions for plumbers, electricians and carpenters should be a part of the Republican coalition.
"They are traditional values conservatives -- with a small 'c' -- and they are prolife, pro-Second amendment. We need to welcome them into the Republican Party, not alienate them." Proft said, and warned that Republicans will not woo trade union members by saying they are open to limiting their collective bargaining rights.
Proft supported home health care parents when SEIU members attempted to bully their way last month into unionizing families that care for the state's neediest in their homes.
Brady, on the other hand, said Illinois should be a Right to Work state, as did the other candidates participating in Wednesday night's forum hosted by the Will County Tea Party Allliance.
Over the past several weeks, SEIU and its affiliation with ACORN have gained national attention, and Illinois Review pointed to the $12 million SEIU gave to Illinois candidates over the past decade. Illinois Review then listed SEIU/ACORN's contributions to Illinois candidates -- both Republicans and Democrats.
One of the GOP gubernatorial candidates -- State Senator Kirk Dillard -- has received SEIU campaign donations on two different occasions. Dillard has not responded to Proft's challenge to refuse SEIU or AFSCME funds during the 2010 campaign.
In the meantime, Americans for Prosperity continue to encourage Illinoisans to "Just Say No to ACORN" and encourage Governor Quinn to investigate the SEIU and ACORN's joint activities affecting campaigns and workplace efforts.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Adam Andrzejewski (an-gee-EF-ski) has won a straw poll sponsored by the Federation of Illinois Young Republicans, an official auxiliary of the Republican Party. The straw poll was conducted at the FIYR state convention held in Bolingbrook, Illinois on Saturday, November 7, 2009. According to FIYR Chairman Dennis Cook, Andrzejewski placed first with 40-percent of the votes cast, followed by Bob Shillerstrom with 26-percent, and Kirk Dillard with 12-percent.
“This was the first opportunity for ‘everyday activists’ to give their opinion since the debate last week,” said Andrzejewski, “I am glad that they see through all of the spin and all the posturing of others who claim to be reformers. People across Illinois are craving for someone to stand up for them and their values, and I am that person. I am honored to win this straw poll, and thank Chairman Cook and the FIYRs for the hard work they do for the Republican Party.”
“I started my campaign with the simple premise that young Republicans do not need to wait their turn,” Andrzejewski added, “Illinois is in crisis now, and now ‘it’s your turn!’ I am leading this paradigm shift with the Illinois Republican Party. We must welcome new people with new ideas.”
“It was clear to me that Adam’s reform message was received very well among those who attended the Young Republicans’ convention,” said Cook, “One party rule has crippled Illinois, and we need accountability in the Governor’s Mansion.”
Third Consecutive Straw Poll Victory for Andrzejewski
This is the third consecutive straw poll victory in three weeks for the conservative reformer. On October 19, 2009, Andrzejewski won the McLean County Freedom Coalition Straw Poll in Bloomington, Illinois, over six rivals, including hometown candidate Bill Brady. In Rockford on November 2, 2009, the Concerned Citizens of America selected Andrzejewski (55%) over political consultant Dan Proft (38%) and career politician Bill Brady (7%).
For 80 years, Young Republicans (YRs) have been an official auxiliary of the Republican Party. Their membership includes young people from all walks of life, united in their belief that the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating ideals and beliefs into positive and successful principles of government. The YRs are open to young people between the ages of 18 and 40. For more information on the Federation of Illinois Young Republicans, visit www.IllinoisYR.com.
Adam Andrzejewski is a Republican candidate for Governor of Illinois. Campaigning on Four Principles, Adam is committed to returning Illinois government to her people. To learn more about Adam and his vision for Illinois, visit his website at www.AdamForIllinois.com.
from the Coulson for Congress campaign
State Representative Elizabeth Coulson announced today that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has approved her request to continue to provide a "Senior Fair" and other services for her Legislative constituents during her campaign for Congress from the 10th Congressional District.
"Rep. Coulson's record of accomplishment and effort on political ethics and campaign reform is well-known", said Jen Belkov, Coulson for Congress Campaign Manager. As she continues maintaining the highest ethical standards, and at considerable expense, she sought an opinion from the FEC before she would hold her annual legislative "Senior Fair" and similar events.
Last week, the FEC, in a comprehensive 16-page opinion, approved those events as entirely consistent with the spirit and letter of federal election law (FEC Advisory Opinion 2009- 26). "Rep. Coulson sponsored (at the state level) a similar mechanism under which candidates can avoid any ethical issues, by obtaining, in advance, an opinion from the state ethics officers", added Belkov.
"We urge all candidates for Congress, who wish to avoid controversy by interpreting ethics and campaign laws on their own, to utilize this FEC process. Rep. Coulson is dedicated to continuing her trend of running a positive and ethical campaign which focuses on Rep. Coulson's background, record, and vision for the US Congress. We urge the other candidates to do likewise, and to avoid intemperate negative campaigning. During her 13 years in elective office, Rep. Coulson has learned that a candidate who feels the need to invent attacks against an opponent likely has little to say substantively."
"As the only candidate for Congress in the Primary who has ever been elected to public office, Rep. Coulson will continue to serve the constituents of the 17th State Representative District honorably as their State Representative", said Belkov.
We've been awfully hard on Andy Stern's SEIU/ACORN over the past couple of months, so here's a chance for him to give his side of the story - via CNBC - in his own words.
by Mark Rhoads
If actions speak louder than words,the actions and attempted policies and of Barack Obama have shown him to be the most radical American president of all time in just his short time in office to date. According to Democratic members of Congress quoted in The New York Times today who were personally lobbied on Saturday by President Obama to vote for the Pelosi bill, Obama's three major pleas were "to keep the process moving," reject the "anti-government Tea baggers" and he also warned the members that "I don't want you to be on the wrong side of history." Assuming the reports are correct, that is very revealing language on the part of Obama since that phrase has deep roots in the dialectical materialsim of Karl Marx and the historical determinism of Friederich Engels.
Although the term "Marxist thinker" might sound somewhat oxymoronic, those writers who embraced that term years before Obama was born often were enamored with the comforting and self-delusional superstition that they could not lose the ideological war with non-collectivists because they and they alone were morally superior beings who believed they "were "on the right side of history." As some explained in the middle of the last century, the worker's paradise would eventually triumph because it was "inevitable" that is should do so. Their popular Marxist fomula of that era was that "as the acorn grows to the tree, so also shall communism replace capitalism in the sweep of history."
The extremist radical rhetoric of Barack Obama is puzzling on many levels because it sounds so anachronistic in 2009. Obama sounds like a throw-back to radicals who once walked the Earth in the 1930s. The irony of such radicals is that they always thought of themselves as on the cutting edge of the future, when in truth their ideas would turn back the clock to the middle ages when many people worked as serfs whose labor belonged not to themsevles but to their feudal lords who ruled them. For window dressing, the radicals justified serfdom to the state by claiming it was all so terribly necessary for the greater good of all, of course as defined by them. The only major difference between the Fabian socialists of one hundred years ago in England and the German Marxists was that they had slightly different visions of what their secular Utopia might look like. But Fabians, such as Sidney Webb, Beatrice Webb, and George Barnard Shaw in the UK, or Jack London and Upton Sinclair in the U.S., may have been more elitist but they agreed with the Marxists about collectivism being on "the right side of history" and the "inevitable" victory of some form of elite socialism over freedom. Since Barack Obama never revealed his college transcripts from Occidental or Columbia or Harvard Law School, it is impossible to know what courses he might have taken in economics, political science, or American history, if any or from what professors who assigned what books. What is more clear now from Chicago radio station interviews with Obama about ten years ago when he was a state senator, and his recent actions in office, Obama is no mere Fabian. His radical ideas, whereever and however he got them, can be directly traced back to a more radical strain of collectivist superstitions. His Left Wing ideological passion is no accident. He is committed to radical change in America's economy and the human freedom of American citizens does not enter into his thought process, because he is a wannabe elitist who is emotionally enslaved by the fantasies of radical Utopian Socialism.
America is in for 12 more scary months until the 2010 Congressional elections, but ultimately the desire of Americans for freedom, and not the desire of others to enslave them, will be on the right side of history and the Obama-Pelosi radicals will be on the wrong side. Every individual who loves freedom, can do something to help even it is writing letters or calling Members of Congress you think are too far gone to listen. You know the stakes, try anyway.
According to Greg Hinz, State Rep. Deb Mell "may have screwed up her nominating petitions, with a real risk that she'll be knocked off the February Democratic primary ballot.
Seems "a challenge filed Monday afternoon by an attorney for Joseph Laiacona, the only other remaining candidate in the 40th District race, contends that Ms. Mell is not registered to vote at her apparently new address. By law, all candidates are supposed to be registered at the address they use for their nominating petitions."
Mell is the sister-in-law of Rod Blagojevich and the daughter of powerful Ald. Richard Mell. More here.
Illinois' neighbor just to the west, Missouri, has a powerful political dynasty similar to Illinois' Madigans, Hynes, Daleys or Berrios', that also depends on community activists and service employees to keep them in power. Today, the Missouri Republican Party lifted the veil on a growing political family scandal involving ACORN that could affect Missouri's 2010 U.S. Senate race and the Democrats' balance of power.
The Show Me state's Democrat royalty consists of the younger Carnahans -- Robin Carnahan, who is Missouri's secretary of state, now vying for the U.S. Senate in 2010 and Robin's brother Russ, a Congressman representing southern St. Louis County -- and their parents.
Robin and Russ' mother Jean Carnahan was appointed to fill her husband Mel Carnahan's U.S. Senate seat, when he was killed in an airplane crash just weeks before the 2000 election. The Carnahan's son Randy, who was piloting the plane, was also killed. At the time, Mel Carnahan was finishing his second term as Missouri's governor.
Any queries of the Carnahans have to be handled delicately, in light of their family tragedies. But despite public sympathies, they've won and lost close elections in the bellweather Missouri that leans conservative outside St. Louis County.
Monday's revelation of Secretary of State Robin Carnahan's questionable ties to SEIU/ACORN was carried by the state capitol's News-Leader, but not the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, was especially similar to Illinois' Madigan dynasty and daughter Attorney General Lisa Madigan's close ties to Illinois' SEIU/ACORN.
The Missouri Republican Party's Executive Director Lloyd Smith wrote of what they've uncovered in documents linking Secretary of State Carnahan to Missouri's ACORN chapter:
What we found was shocking: at least 2,300 pages of correspondence that clearly detailed a close working relationship between the highest levels of Carnahan's office and ACORN in Missouri.
These e-mails show the lengths Carnahan's office went to accommodate the group. Top ACORN officials lauded her office for "having the ability to share information." They asked "very quick research question(s)," which Carnahan's staff was happy to provide. They said "we'll do an event whenever Robin can make it to St. Louis, though book closing date is best."
And it gets better ... ACORN and Carnahan worked together to stop photo IDs being shown when voting.
Perhaps most shocking was an e-mail sent after the defeat of a common sense proposal, opposed by Carnahan, that would have required a photo identification to vote. ACORN congratulated Carnahan's office and a host of liberal groups on "a great team effort."
Sound familiar, Illinoisans? Remember how focused ACORN has been on congratulating Attorney General Lisa Madigan for her work shutting down predatory lenders and investigating Advocate Health Systems until they agreed to change their collection methods and allow their workers to unionize (with SEIU, of course)?
In Illinois, the daughter of House Speaker Mike Madigan (who's also the Chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party) was the recipient of $224,000 in Attorney General campaign contributions from Illinois' SEIU/ACORN partnership.
And doers Illinois have photo identification required when voting? Of course not. Photo IDs are required to get on a plane, to drive, but not to vote. And ask State Representative David Reis (R-Olney) how tough it's been to get that legislation out of Rules Committee.
It won't happen as long as the Madigan dynasty is linked to SEIU/ACORN.
Which makes us wonder when and if the Illinois Republican Party will file similar FOIAs as the Missouri Republican Party did? And then what they will do with the info when and if they get it? After all, the writings are pretty clear on the Illinois State Board of Elections' and on the Illinois General Assembly's websites, as well as the Attorney General's own online boastings of SEIU comraderies.
And we have to wonder just how widespread and deep throughout the bi-state region SEIU/ACORN'S roots flourish. And how determined the citizens will be to get to the bottom of it all.
Check out Missouri Republican Party's www.acorncarnahan.com for more information.
Saturday night, the Democrats passed their health care plan. Rasmussen reports today that most Americans are opposed:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Most (52%) remain opposed. Only 25% Strongly Support the plan while 42% are Strongly Opposed.
And there's more ...
By Betsy McCaughey from Sunday's Wall Street Journal. Ms McCaughey was key in exposing the inner workings of Hillary Care and is a former lieutenant governor of New York.
The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
Eviscerating Medicare:
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.
• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."
The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."
A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.
• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.
• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.
• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.
• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
Questionable Priorities:
While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.
• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."
These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.
• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.
• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."
• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.
For the text of the bill with page numbers, see www.defendyourhealthcare.us.
Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former Lt. Governor of New York state.
The IL GOP has made last Thursday's GOP Gubernatorial debate available online.
by Sam Pierce
This is not intended to paint the entire generation that followed the "Greatest Generation" with the same red brush. There are certainly patriotic citizens and those who cherish the liberty our founders established among the offspring of the generation who fought World War II. I am related by blood and by marriage to such patriotic children of the "Greatest Generation".
This is about the groovy hippies who never grew out of that phase. This is about the "peace" and "love" types like Bill Ayers who likely mentored Barack Obama more than he would ever admit to the voting public. This is about those who were born in the forties and went from the university to law school to Congress and soaked up all the Marxist ideology they could along the way. This is about those who went from hippy to Congressional intestinal worm and have infested the Capitol for decades. This is about the likes of George Miller (Dimocrat CA-7), who has been in the House since he was twenty-nine years old in 1974.
Thank God all of California isn't the same as San Francisco (of course I thank God all of Illinois isn't the same as Chicago too). It is too bad California doesn't have more representatives like the elder and younger Duncan Hunter!
To ensure that American workers are able to follow, without financial harm, the recommendations of their employer and public health authorities to stay home when they have symptoms of a contagious disease that may put co-workers, customers, or the public at risk.
The "without financial harm" is the key to this intrusion. We do not require the federal government to determine how many (if any) paid sick days our employers allow! If a person has influenza, his employer will not make him come to work for fear of losing his job. That is of course if the employer is one for whom it is worth working or if the employee isn't an awful employee.
They have moved the government takeover of medical care delivery in our nation through the House. They with the help of RINOs like Mark Kirk have moved the Cap and Trade job killing and cost raising catastrophe through the House. They, again with the "bipartisan" help of "moderates" like Mark Kirk instituted thought crime legislation, because apprently in the eyes of the leftist, a violent crime such as murder should only warrant a maximum punishment if it can be called a "hate crime". By the way, is the murder victim more dead if he was hated by his killer? Is there such thing as a murder, mugging, or assault that is commited out of love for the victim?
The left has used its tools such as the ACLU and the education system to place our nation in such a politically correct contortion that a Muslim who should have never been allowed near our soldiers after some of his sympathies and viewpoints became known was instead allowed to be a psychiatrist in the Army and on Thursday he slaughtered 13 people and injured several more at Fort Hood.
Our children and grandchildren owe a huge debt that they had no say in creating. This is thanks to Republicans as well as the Dimocrats, but the burden on our children can not be too great in the eyes of the leftist vermin who now run our government. The hippies traded communes for their brand of Communism. They redistribute wealth from the taxpayer to the ever-growing dependent class for the sake of some Utopian "greater good" and borrow, borrow, then borrow some more to feed their appetites for governmental domination of the "middle class".
They seek to forcibly silence dissent as their Cuban and Venezualan role models have. They strive for democracy when the mob will vote to seize from the producer or empower the bureaucracy. They villify businesses ... unless the businesses support their agenda. They demonize profit, just not their own. They artfully practice identity politics and still claim that a black man doesn't have a chance in this "mean" country despite the election of Barack Obama. They insist that Muslim terrorists not be identified as Muslim but they along with their accomplices in the liberal media try to implicate Christians when an abortionist is murdered.
They seek the moral degradation of society to weaken the will of the citizen and make him more susceptible to their socialist goals. They are detstable and their actions are harmful. It is past time for Republicans in positions of political power to stop referring to them as "my friend..." It is time to truly be a "party of no" every time the damn Statists attempt to do any damn thing on a federal level that does not fall under an enumerated power in our Constitution! It is time to respect our Constitution and stop denigrating the decent citizens who demand that which constitutionally must fall to the states or local governments actually be left alone by the federal behemoth, as "tenthers"! The Constitution is specific and the Bill of Rights opposes the ten pillars (which can be found in Uncle Karl's book) revered by the Statist.
The above may seem like ranting or rambling, if so, you shouldn't have read it. The times in which we live seem crazy and we don't need our government actively exacerbating the insanity!
Cross-posted from "The Immoderate Blog"
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate David Hoffman apologized to fellow Democrat Alexi Giannoulias for an accusation that Giannoulias broke a pledge by accepting campaign cash from a corporate banking interest. In his apology, however, Hoffman also challenged Giannoulias to at least five debates. More here.
from the Proft for Governor campaign
Steve Rhodes from the Beachwood Reporter weighs in.
Forget the messenger as Mr. Rhodes is decidedly left of center and apparently ill-informed as to the definition of socialism.
But his message as to Sen. Dillard’s newfound tough talk on Obama is on the mark.
With President Obama’s federal government takeover of health care now moving through Congress, Sen. Dillard correctly understands that his statement that Obama “would serve the country well” isn’t serving his campaign for Governor very well at all.
Instead of walking his error in judgment back in and, frankly, apologizing to GOP primary voters—which is what Sen. Dillard should do and should have done long ago—he comes up with yet a new tale to rationalize and obfuscate.
The unwillingness of politicians to admit a mistake or an error in judgment never ceases to amaze me. I have made plenty of mistakes in my 15 years in the Illinois political arena, things I would do differently had I the opportunity to do them again.
Sen. Dillard’s faux Paul Revere story warning us all about Obama the Socialist does nothing but compound the damage to his credibility that was done by his decision to do the commercial for Obama in the first place.
We’ve got one former governor in federal prison who never did anything wrong and other one on his way. There are few things more dangerous than a politician, particularly one with the power of a governor, who alternates between never having been wrong and never having been responsible when things go wrong.
Sen. Dillard, give it up and own up.
So there is honor among thieves.
by Dick Morris
As the suicidal Democratic congressmen proceed to rubber-stamp the Obama healthcare reform despite the drubbing their party took in the '09 elections, the president trotted out the endorsements of the AMA and the AARP to stimulate support. But these – and the other endorsements – his package has received are all bought and paid for.
Here are the deals: here
Concerned Women for America's President Wendy Wright is absolutely right with voicing serious concerns about the health care bill the House passed Saturday night. Single issue prolife groups raved about the Stupak-Pitts amendment's passage with the help of Blue Dog Democrats, but multi-issue groups like CWA were more somber:
"This monstrous bill will ration and deny health care, pay for coercive 'end of life planning.' create multiple bureaucracies that will control Americans' health care, penalize Americans for not buying a product, fine Americans if a government agent decides their health care plan is not 'government approved,' and may force Americans to buy government mandated insurance that funds objectionable procedures," Wright said.
"Although an amendment passed to bar federal funding of abortion, Democrat leaders refused to guarantee that it will be in the final bill. The vote on the amendment may have been a ruse to gain pro-life Democrats vote for the bill.
In other words, the very amendment added to protect the unborn could end up being very unhealthy for the nation's prolife movement.
Blog Talk Radio's Teri O'Brien agrees with Wright. She told listeners Sunday that prolife Congressmen "were had" and "fooled" by the Democratic leaders allowing a vote to restrict federal funding of abortion. She too pointed to the Democrats' refusal to guarantee those restrictions in the final version of the health care bill.
Concerns were accentuated by the flood of press releases and comments coming from prolife groups congratulating themselves for the Stupak-Pitts amendment's passage.
It's clear that if the Blue Dog Democrats -- like Illinois' Dan Lipinski and Jerry Costello -- hold to their prolife moral bearings, there will be trouble in Pelosi/Obama health care plan's final passage if it includes federal funding for abortion. The Democrats will be in a quandry. Their abortion rights base demands no restrictions and federal funding, but at the same time, they need the Blue Dogs' votes to get it.
There's more for prolifers to be concerned about in the health care bill, too. End of life issues and health care rationing are two major unresolved life-linked problems in nationalized health care. When you think about it, it's all about life -- who gets the best care, what determines who gets that care, and how it will be provided. Pro-lifers should be concerned about it all.
Focusing on the beginning of life and ignoring the end of life issues in this health care debate will segment, weaken and could ultimately destroy America's strong prolife movement. That's something that must be avoided at all costs.
Over the weekend, the Chicago Minutemen Project endorsed Rockford's Robert Zadek as their choice in the 2010 GOP U.S. Senate nominee race.
CMP's head Rick Biesada wrote Zadek of the endorsement, saying the pro-legal immigration group chose the businessman, "...[B]ecause of your recent understanding of illegal immigration, and your unhesitating response to our conversation by posting 'Illegal Immigration is illegal, our laws must be obeyed,' on your web site."
Zadek replied, "Thank you very much for the endorsement from you and the Minute Men. I will do my best to live up to the high expectations that your people expect. I have learned so much more about the illegal aliens. I believed that all federal funds should be withheld from states and cities that harbor these people. What they are doing is illegal , and breaking the laws of our country."
from the Hayes for Congress campaign
Republican nominee for Congress in Illinois' Second Congressional district, Isaac C. Hayes, today issued the following statement, decrying the partisan vote for health care "reform" in the U.S. House of Representatives by his opponent: "Representative Jackson has once again proven that his liberal ideology is more important than practicality. His decision to burden the middle class with less options and small businesses with higher taxes underscores his out-of-touch status with the members of his district.
"His misrepresentation of the truth is egregious at best, considering the poor have always been covered through Medicaid. It is an embarrassing when a sixteen year Congressman suggests that government run health care is “the promise of our founding documents.”
Added Hayes: "I would have him read the words of Thomas Jefferson, one of those founders, who said: 'I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.'"
by Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret.)
By now we have all heard the clichés and seen the posters from the "Tea Parties" espousing freedom, less government, and perhaps most of all, how the federal government had better back off trying to shove their national healthcare down our otherwise healthy throats. The truth of the matter is all the slogans of "Don't Tread On Me" or "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" or "We're Mad As Hell And We're Not Taking It Anymore," don't mean a thing when compared to reality; the real and actual answer to all the protests, marches, and outrage. The answer is in our own backyards!
The States can stop every bit of it! That's right, the individual States can stop "Obamacare" and all other forms of out-of-control federal government mandates and "big brother" tactics. If Arizona, Hawaii, New Hamshire, Texas, etc. want nothing to do with National Healthcare as proposed by Barack Obama or Congress, then all they have to do is say "No!"
For you skeptics who think the States could no more do this than fly to the moon, let's look at the law. First, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate and supreme law of the land. More specifically, the Bill of Rights was established, because some of our Founding Fathers, feared that the Constitution did not go far enough in restricting or limiting the central government. Hamilton was one of a select few who wanted a bigger and powerful federal government. However, several key states and powerful delegates such as Patrick Henry, said they would not support the formation of a new government if the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights, a supreme law to establish basic and fundamental human rights that could never, for all future American generations, be violated, altered or encroached upon by government. So the Framers of our Constitution came up with ten; ten God-given freedoms that would forever be held inviolable by our own governments.Read the rest : http://www.rense.com/general88/adip.htm
H/T Evert Evertsen
by Ralf Seiffe
You have to hand it to Nancy Pelosi, the first female Tyrant of the House, for squeaking the health care bill through by just five votes. The news media was agog this morning, telling its diminishing audience that “health care reform” had passed, noting in every story that a single, misguided Republican had voted to support the Speaker. Now, with this sweeping bipartisan support, the legislation heads over to the senate. Expect another blue dog-type swindle there, and this so-called health care reform to become law by February. But, in reading it and by news reports, why exactly do we get from health care “reform”?
What, indeed? Americans do not think it’s the most important issue facing the nation, according to the exit polls in last week’s elections. The people want jobs yet Commisar Pelosi’s troops felt empowered to appropriates one of six dollars in the economy. The externalities this will add to micro-economic, job-creating decisions are evident even to knuckle-dragging, reflexive Democrats in New Jersey.
It won’t save money.
The record of government’s ability to estimate or run large social programs is both clear and almost universally unsuccessful. The USPS, Medicare, and Social Security are all built on financially unsustainable models and have amassed a $72 trillion dollar unfunded liability for our children. Need more proof? In 1965, the cost of Medicare was estimated to have an annual cost of about $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost was more than $110 billion. It now costs more than $400 billion. If the CBO estimates are twice as accurate, as they were in 1965, the $1.2 trillion cost estimate for Pelosi Care will have an annual variance of five times the forecast.
What’s more, the forecast is an accounting fraud. One flaw in congressional budgeting rules is that forecasts only cover ten years. Recognizing this, the bill’s cost estimates are based on collecting ten years’ of revenues, starting now, but only five years of benefits, starting in 2013. Even General Motors would be profitable if they got ten years of sales but only had to make five years’ worth of cars. Said another way, the Speaker is counting her revenues twice.
It’s errant theft from our children. One enduring image of this speaker’s regime was on her first day, on the House podium surrounded by her grandchildren. Those children—and yours—are the victims of “health care” because we will have to borrow the money to pay for it. The duty to repay will fall on our children coming in the form of much lower living standards in a diminished America. The will serve at the pleasure of our foreign creditors.
It will lead to rationing just as Medicare now proportionally denies more care than does private industry. It’s clear why—when one entity has a monopoly, it cannot grow faster than the market, by definition. Since it cannot get larger by competing with others by offering better service at lower prices, its incentives are perverted. Typically, monopolies raise prices and lower service levels. In the case of “health care reform” we are already seeing the outlines of huge new taxes and penalties—including jail for insurance scofflaws. As for lower service levels—simply compare what’s available in the U.S. versus Canada. Friends in Michigan tell me the only hope to keep Detroit from disappearing altogether are Canadians coming for hip replacements and chemotherapy.
It will stop the advance of life expectancy. In the last 150 years, medical technology, especially that created by Americans, has roughly doubled life expectancy. This occurred not because we “controlled costs” but because we invested and spent more on medicine. One hallmark of a successful, wealthy society is the ability to fund increasing amounts into complex and expensive life extension techniques. Once the government takes on healthcare, expect bureaucrats to conclude that research simply increases the options—and the costs –of keeping old people alive. One-man death panelist Robert Reich, the intellectual and former Democrat cabinet minister, will quickly see a double benefit in killing research to bolster his already expressed odious arguments on “pulling the plugs”..
It doesn’t fit the times. Nationally socialized health care is an artifact of 1930’s, command and control thinking. Democrats—and their “bipartisan majority”—have been working on this political fool’s gold since Harry Truman followed through on FDR’s “second bill of rights”. But it’s an idea that meshes with an industrial, hierarchical society that vanished from America in the 1970’s and ‘80’s. In every successful business—and that includes the practice of medicine—product and treatment choices expand over time. Ossified politicians that offer fewer choices do not understand this basic fact of nature and for this reason, nationalized health care will fail.
In addition, the Democrats decided that one of their most important concepts, “a woman’s right to choose”, could be threatened in order to pass this 2,000+ page monstrosity. This is a certainly a temporary condition as future congresses will reverse that decision as we move to a single payer system. Given the importance of this kind of “Choice” to Democrats, and its inculcation in their political frame of reference, the ban on federally-funded abortions—even temporarily--is an extraordinarily telling indicator of how important imposition of national health is for Democrats.
So, what hit us last night? The prima facie shortcomings of the bill tell us that it’s not about improving health care. The new taxes and uncertainties will kill off any hopes of job creation and fix blame on the majority. The Townhall misgiving that developed in August haven’t evaporated and threaten the Blue Dogs and a big part of the Speaker’s majority. Despite letting these so-called conservatives vote “no”, she knows the voters will see through that fiction. The bottom line is that in 2010 voters will reprise New Jersey nationwide and the health care bill only makes the Democrats’ position more difficult.
The Speaker doesn’t seem to care. Nothing could be further from the truth but what could be worth this passel of trouble? For the professionals like Nancy Pelosi, risking their political power indicates that they believe it’s a worthwhile gamble; the only thing that could be is more power… massively more.
The chances aren't too good, members of the US Senate said on Sunday tv press shows, My Way News writes this afternoon:
"If a government plan is part of the deal, "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome GOP filibusters.
"The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said dismissively.
Democrats did not line up to challenge him. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has yet to schedule floor debate and hinted last week that senators may not be able to finish health care this year.
And then there's the unpredictable Olympia Snowe who, as usual, wants to be reasonable ...
Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who voted for a version of the Senate bill in committee, has given the Democrats a possible way out. She's proposing to allow a government plan as a last resort, if after a few years premiums keep escalating and local health insurance markets remain in the grip of a few big companies. This is the "trigger" option.
So, there's still a long way to go in this drama before we hear from the fat lady...
Top New York doctors discuss the nationalized health care plan passed Saturday night by Democrats:
The complete transcript of this October 19, 2009 forum is found HERE.
by John F. Di Leo
On the weekend of November 6, 2009, the American people were calling for action from their government. Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat House Leadership had a choice to make -- whether to continue with their planned schedule, or to react appropriately and urgently to the events of the day before. What they chose to do tells a great deal about their priorities, and about the dangers of electing representatives who don't share the same priorities of their constituents.
Horrified by the mass murders at Fort Hood, in which a lone islamofascist terrorist murdered at least thirteen soldiers, injuring twenty-some more, the American people expected action from their government. While the underlying issue of traitors in our military have been raised before, by the occasions of muslim chaplains, for example, this event crystallized for all the desperate need to get a handle on the problem, as fast as possible.
American military personnel are based all over the world, and we now see that we have no effective filter to keep people with anti-American beliefs from joining up and enmeshing themselves within a unit, to do sabotage, murder, or mayhem as they choose.from the Purcell for Congress campaign
BATAVIA -- Republican Jim Purcell, one of five GOPers seeking to topple liberal Democratic Congressman Bill Foster next November, said that Foster’s vote for the Obama-Reid-Pelosi Socialized Medicine law will cost him his seat.
“Congressman Foster last night took the side of Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in favor of Socialized Medicine and I predict that vote will cost him his seat,” Purcell said. “I’m running for Congress to provide a clear contrast for voters fed up with Bill Foster’s left-wing Socialist viewpoint.”
Purcell said he’s the strongest candidate to run against Foster.“Republicans aren’t going to win with a famous name or a career politician with a history of raising taxes,” Purcell said. “I’m just a hard-working taxpayer fed up with the direction our country is taking and I’m taking on Bill Foster to do something about it. That’s why I’m in this race and I intend to win it.”
“Bill Foster has stood shoulder to shoulder with Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in their assault on taxpayers and working families everywhere,” Purcell said. “He supported their bailouts, their ‘cash for clunkers’ scams, and their stimulus schemes. Now he’s supporting their plan to Socialize one-sixth of the economy through the Obamacare proposal. Bill Foster is one liberal mistake that needs to be corrected as soon as possible.”
“This is not a campaign to take back one seat in Congress; it’s not about the Red Team beating the Blue Team. This is about taking back our country. That’s what this election is all about.”
by Sam Pierce
I was perusing the new Demotivators catalog this evening and I saw a poster that perfectly represented the atrocity that is our current crop of political porkers. There can be no plausible denial of the obvious fact that many of what are referred to as our "leaders" (or in Barry's case, our "reader") derive inspiration from Marx and believe that Communism simply hasn't been implemented by the right group of Statists to this point. They view themselves as just the (rotten) crop to bring about the U.S.S.A.
While the Dimocrats currently hold the power and certainly represent the bulk of the problem, our "friends" on the other side of the aisle deserve some recognition for their contributions to the seizure of our liberty! Ridiculous RINOs of varying degrees have conspired with the Dims to support the further redistribution of wealth from the producer to the parasite and the punishment of the productive through catastrophic scams such as Rep. Mark Kirk's (RINO - IL 10) Cap and Trade (which he was for before he decided he needs to say he is against it for Senatorial campaigning reasons.)
Today the people's house is doing the work of the left and trying to impose a government takeover of the system of healthcare delivery in our great (but for how long?) nation. The grotesquely disfigured at the hands of an incompetent plastic surgeon, Nancy Piglosi (Statist - CA)... hey do you think her war on our healthcare system was inspired by her tragic face-lift fiasco?... anyway, she is doing her evil worst to take from us the control over our medical care! Power must be centralized and grown in the eyes of these people and the proletariat must be equalized. There must come a time when we depend solely on the benevolence of the all-powerful government, lest Obama's vision not be realized.I urge you to visit despair.com and purchase an item such as the following succinct explanation of one of our glorious government's recent cluster-f***s:
from the Vargas for Congress campaign
“Throughout Aurora, Carpentersville, Dixon, Oswego, West Dundee, and the rest of the 14th District, voters are united against Government run health care,” stated Mark Vargas, Republican Candidate for the 14th Congressional District. Congressman Bill Foster ran as a fiscal and pragmatic moderate. However, his votes have betrayed his constituents. Yesterday, Foster proved his alliance with the hard left and Nancy Pelosi.
Mark Vargas vows “I will make fighting this bill a top priority. My staff and I will be meeting with officials in Washington, Representative Foster’s staff, and staff members in the U.S. Senate. As your elected representative, I will lead the charge to repeal this bill.”
Despite coming from a fiscally responsible district, Bill Foster has voted for the mishandled $787 Billion Porkulus, the unpopular TARP bill, sent $4 Billion tax dollars to ACORN, and now helped pass the most expensive tax and spend bill in history.
Massive, inefficient programs like a Government takeover of the healthcare industry are not the answers Illinois voters are looking for. You can help make Washington fiscally responsible again by voting for Mark Vargas (IL-14) in the Republican primary on February 2nd, 2010.
Today radio talk show host and IR contributor Teri O'Brien will be talking at 2:00 PM CST about:
And of course, lots more. Is Teri right or wrong about the prolife Stupak-Pitts amendment? Tell her and us about it ...
from the Kormos campaign
O’Fallon, IL - Theresa Kormos, the 2010 conservative Republican challenger for Jerry Costello’s congressional seat said she is disappointed but not surprised by the congressman’s vote in support of passing the HR 3962, “The Affordable Health Care for America Act.”
“Jerry Costello did not vote in the interest of the people of southwest Illinois. We have already been burdened enough by the debt that incurred from the stimulus package and bailouts while the unemployment rate continues to climb. This health care bill will add additional debt to our children and grandchildren as well as transform health care as we know it.”
Ms. Kormos, a Registered Nurse with over 31 years of experience in healthcare, said that while a crisis exists for the US citizens who are uninsured, a crisis is not a time to change the best health care system in the world. “When any crisis exists, the task is to stabilize the problem through using those methods that have proven to be effective in the past. It is not a time to experiment or use methods that have failed. In other countries, socialized medicine has indeed shown to have already failed.”
Some problem areas in the bill Ms. Kormos points out: (1) while the bill does not go into effect until 2013, tax increases will be immediate; (2) tax on businesses may result in additional job-loss; (3) the individual purchase of private insurance will be prohibited in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase insurance from the federal government; (3) 1.5 billion dollars will be taken out of Medicare Advantage plans placing senior citizens at risk for losing coverage; and (4) the establishment of a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research may be used to ration life saving treatments based on cost.
From this weekend's "Huckabee", he interviews the Planned Parenthood Exec Director that defected the abortion ranks recently. Abby Johnson confirms it's all about money. Which calls to mind Barack Obama's promise to Planned Parenthood in January 2008: "I will not yield, and Planned Parenthood will not yield." (@ 9:30 on the YouTube)
While there were no surprises among the Illinois U.S. House delegation in the final vote on Obama's health care plan, there were some interesting votes counted on the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which abortion rights groups are calling "the biggest setback in decades." Two Democrats -- Jerry Costello and Dan Lipinski -- voted to remove abortion funding from the health care bill by supporting the pro-life amendment. And so did Illinois' two staunchest pro-abortion Republicans -- Judy Biggert and Mark Kirk.
Republican leaders voiced concerns on the House floor Saturday that abortion funding removal could be negotiated back into the final bill, creating a real conundrum for Democrats over the abortion funding issue. The Stupak-Pitts amendment gave Democrats a roll call on what to expect if the final version comes back from the Senate with abortion funding. The Dems can't win with it in there, and the abortion fanatics won't let the health care plan progress without it.
No one in the Illinois delegation broke party ranks ... VOTE
Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady issued the following statement today on the passage of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats’ government-run health care experiment:
"Today is a disappointing day for Illinoisans as Nancy Pelosi, Melissa Bean, Debbie Halvorson and Bill Foster ignored the concerns of voters and rammed a trillion dollar 1,990 page government-run health care bill through Congress ignoring pledges of transparency and bi-partisanship. Illinois for generations will be forced to deal with the consequences of this legislation that increases health care costs, increases taxes on small businesses and the middle class, cuts Medicare and puts a Washington bureaucrat between you and your doctor.
“This Tuesday, the American people made clear at the polls that they oppose bigger government, more spending and higher taxes, but this is exactly what they are getting with this new government-run health care legislation. Melissa Bean, Debbie Halvorson and Bill Foster chose to vote with their liberal buddies in Washington rather than in the best interest of their constituents back home, and this vote will not be forgotten by Illinois voters in 2010.”
from Congressman Mark Kirk's office
WASHINGTON U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) tonight voted against Speaker Pelosi's trillion-dollar 1,990-page government health care bill, just hours after House leaders refused to allow an up-or-down vote on the congressman's amendment to prohibit the government from coming between patients and their doctors.
On Friday night, Congressman Kirk offered H.R. 2516, the Medical Rights Act, as an amendment to the Speaker Pelosi's bill (H.R. 3970). The Medical Rights Act would prohibit the government from compromising the doctor-patient relationship, delaying service or denying care. Despite the Speaker's floor remarks declaring her bill "puts you and your doctor in charge," the Speaker refused to put her words into law.
"Nothing is more important than your relationship with your doctor," said Congressman Kirk, who worked over the last 10 months to develop a centrist Republican alternative to lower health care costs and expand coverage. Despite repeated pledges that a government takeover of health care would not compromise the doctor-patient relationship, Speaker Pelosi refused to put the issue to a vote. By rejecting the Medical Rights Act, Speaker Pelosi opted to allow the federal government to come between you and your doctor.
After holding 18 live and telephone town hall meetings, and consulting with dozens of patient, doctor, hospital and employer representatives, Congressman Kirk introduced the Medical Rights and Reform Act, H.R. 3970.
Among its provisions, this centrist reform alternative would:
Adopt the Medical Rights Act, prohibiting the government from interfering with decisions made by you and your doctor;
Cut billions of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse;
End defensive medicine by enacting lawsuit reform and expanding electronic medical records;
Allow Americans to buy cheaper and more flexible health insurance from any state in the nation;
Give individuals who buy their own insurance the same tax break employers receive;
Promote innovative state programs to insure high-risk pools and end pre-existing conditions; and
Not raise taxes, add to the deficit or cut Medicare.
The Pelosi health care bill narrowly passed the House 220 to 215 with 39 Democrats voting against it. The bill would:
cut $400 billion from senior health care under Medicare, including a $100 billion cut to Medicare hospitals, a $100 billion cut to Medicare doctors, a $100 billion cut to Medicare Advantage and other cuts to Medicare skilled nursing, hospice and even wheelchairs;
raise taxes by more than $700 billion, pushing the top marginal rate in Illinois to 49.9%, Â or four percentage points higher than France; and establish more than 100 new government programs.
Tonight, Republicans offered a clear alternative to lower health care costs by 10 percent while preserving the quality of American medicine – without raising taxes, putting more Americans out of work and cutting billions from Medicare.†Congressman Kirk said. “We showed the American people that we are not the party of no – we are the party of better.â€
from the Dold campaign
Illinois' 10th District Congressional Candidate Robert Dold denounced the passage of Speaker Pelosi's health care plan Saturday, citing it as another example of a big government takeover that will hurt senior citizens and the middle class by imposing new mandates and taxes on small businesses, raising taxes for families and implementing drastic cuts to Medicare.
“It’s disheartening that, during a time of economic crisis when the focus should be on job creation, the Democrats are halting economic recovery by spending trillions of taxpayer dollars on a big-government bill,” Dold said.
Dold, a fiscal conservative, is supporting a Republican alternative that provides a commonsense, responsible solution to the health care crisis without raising taxes, increasing the deficit or cutting Medicaid. This plan would allow for more private insurance options, provide for a comprehensive reform of medical malpractice, and ensure reliable care for people with pre-existing conditions.
This alternative would not result in job loss, while senior White House economists say Pelosi’s bill will destroy 5.5 million jobs over the next 10 years.
Creating and maintaining employment for residents in the 10th District will be Dold’s major objective as Congressman. He plans to implement smarter government regulation, lower taxes, and meaningful health care reform, which will help businesses create jobs.
“As Congressman, I plan to put people back to work and balance our budget by handling tax payer dollars with care and responsibility,” Dold said.
from the Green campaign
Winnetka, Illinois - Tonight, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's $1.3 trillion takeover of the U.S. health care system by a vote of 220-215.
Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal called Pelosi's legislation "The Worst Bill Ever."
"Tonight, the United States Congress passed a trillion dollar spending increase while our economy is still struggling, and our debt burden is surging from an irresponsible massive increase in government spending." said Republican candidate Dick Green. "This is as if the entire middle-class had their credit cards stolen and Nancy Pelosi maxed them out."
from the Shimkus office
Washington, DC...Congressman John Shimkus (R, Illinois-19) voted against Speaker Pelosi's 2,000 page, $1 trillion government take-over of health care late Saturday, November 7.
In his floor speech Shimkus surmised, "The goal of this legislation has been clear from the beginning. To pass a public option that will serve as a gateway to single payer, government-controlled health care."
Shimkus has quoted Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky saying in the past that "a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business." He also has quoted Congressman Barney Frank who said in the past that "if we get a good public option, it could lead to single payer."
"I cannot support a public option. While I know that our current health insurance system is not perfect, I do not want to put our entire health care system under government-control," Shimkus commented. "Once the government is the only option, it will inevitably have to ration care."
As part of the debate, an amendment was allowed to be voted on that added a prohibition on federal funding of abortions to the bill. Shimkus supported this amendment that passed 240-194-1.
He also voted for the Republican substitute that would have instituted health insurance reforms without a government take over of health care. That alternative, however, failed 176-258.
On the final vote Shimkus voted no on Speaker Pelosi's health care take over. It did pass the House 220-215.
"This doesn't mean all is lost," Shimkus noted. "The Senate must still work on their version of health care reform. And, if they pass something, then the differences between the two must be negotiated. I continue to believe that the Senate cannot pass a public option."
from the Kinzinger for Congress campaign
BOURBONNAIS, IL – Despite a promise to hold an in-person town hall forum before the final health care vote, Debbie Halvorson chose to ignore her constituents today by voting for Nancy Pelosi’s 2,000 pages, $1 trillion dollar health care bill. HB 3296 narrowly passed the U.S. House late Saturday night despite Democrat leadership strong-arming members to tow the party line and vote for the bill.
“Once again, Debbie Halvorson proved herself to be a loyal foot soldier in Nancy Pelosi’s liberal army,” said Adam Kinzinger. “Today’s health care vote will harm seniors by cutting Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars, add to our national debt, increase health care costs and hurt families and small businesses by raising taxes. If Debbie Halvorson would have held her own town hall forum on health care, she clearly would have heard loud and clear her constituent’s opposition to this bill.”
Commenting on the health care bill, Halvorson was quoted saying, “We’re trying to change the culture of our society (Morris Daily Herald, November 6, 2009).” The Congresswoman is right about one thing, the passage of this bill will change the culture of our society to one where the federal government mandates health insurance costing American families $15,000 a year, jail sentences of five years for failure to purchase adequate health insurance and rationed care for families and seniors. (Source: U.S. House Joint Committee on Taxation).
Over the last several months, Kinzinger has offered his own ideas for healthcare reform, which included allowing businesses or associations to pull together their health plans to obtain larger health premium discounts and extending tax-free individual health savings accounts. He’d also recommend tax breaks to individuals who wish to purchase individual health insurance plans and the funding of qualified healthcare centers in uninsured or under-insured areas.
“Adding over 100 new government bureaucracies is not the answer to lowering health care costs,” stated Kinzinger. “We can address problems with health care coverage by sensible reforms but expanding government’s role in another industry or changing the culture of our society is not the reform that we need.”
Health care reform has been a hot topic since summer when members of Congress went back to their districts to town hall forums with constituents. Congresswoman Halvorson has been dodging her constituents since August with excuse after excuse including:
1) ISSUE NOT ON THE CONGRESSWOMAN’S AGENDA
“no plans to hold any town hall forums on healthcare.” – Ottawa Times, August 5, 2009
2) DISTRICT TOO BIG & CONGRESSWOMAN TOO BUSY
“Because of the size of the 11th Congressional District, and because there’s a lot on her schedule already, she feels so many people are waiting to talk to her that we thought it best to have a teletown hall meeting instead of going county to county." – Morris Daily Herald, August 13, 2009
3) THERE IS NO BILL TO DISCUSS SO WHY HAVE A FORUM
“Once we have a specific bill and if people want to come talk about a specific bill I will have one (a public town hall forum). I just want that out there that when we have a bill, we have something to talk about.”
– comments at the Bradley-Bourbonnais Regional Chamber of Commerce Legislative Breakfast, September 28, 2009
4) NOW, SHE SAYS SHE HAS HELD 60 PUBLIC FORUMS
“I’ve done more than anyone else in the district,” she said, citing 60 public forums at which she’s appeared in the 11th Congressional District since Jan. 14.” – Morris Daily Herald, November 6, 2009
“The people of the 11th district wanted and deserved a public discussion with their congresswoman about this trillion dollar plan,” said Kinzinger. “As predicted, her promise to hold an in-person town hall meeting before the final vote on health care was disingenuous. It was an insincere, calculated decision to promise a town hall forum knowing full well that she wasn’t going to make the time for it.”
The 11th District covers all or portions of Bureau, Grundy, La Salle, Kankakee, McLean, Will and Woodford counties.
“If there’s anything that Tuesday’s elections in New Jersey and Virginia showed us, it’s that the public is sick and tired of the Democrats’ reckless policies, like the government-run option, that create more government and not more jobs. By being the key votes for delivering government-run option to Nancy Pelosi, Melissa Bean, Bill Foster and Debbie Halvorson can kiss their hopes of re-election good-bye.” – Tom Erickson, NRCC spokesman, said in a statement late last night.
The House just passed their $1.2 trillion government takeover of healthcare by a slim margin of 220-215. Delivering the key votes for Nancy Pelosi’s government-run takeover of healthcare were Illinois’ Melissa Bean, Bill Foster and Debbie Halvorson. These Illini delivered the 218th, 219th and 220th votes to Nancy Pelosi; carrying the bill over the finish line just in the nick of time.
Today is the first day of the end of their terms in Congress.
from the Walsh for Congress campaign
Lake Zurich, IL -- Joe Walsh, Republican Candidate for Congress in the 8th District of Illinois issued the following statement in response to Rep. Melissa Bean’s votes in favor of the House health care bill and against the Stupak Amendment this evening:
“With these votes Melissa Bean has abandoned any pretense of pretending she's a moderate any longer. In just the past year she's been a rubber stamp for Nancy Pelosi on the wasteful stimulus package, the misguided cap-and-trade proposal, and now this jobs-killing ObamaCare monstrosity.
“This bill is the first step toward President Obama’s stated goal of creating a universal, single-payer, government run health care system in the long term. In the short term, it raises taxes on families and businesses by over $500 billion, cuts $500 billion from Medicare and reduces seniors’ options for coverage, and will kill more jobs in our struggling economy. It is wrong for taxpayers, wrong for America, and certainly wrong for the voters of the 8th District.
“The American people shouted “STOP!” at the top of their lungs. But Nancy Pelosi and Melissa Bean didn't listen. Next November, the voters of the 8th District of Illinois are going to send Melissa Bean a message she can't ignore. They're going to kick Melissa Bean and her reckless-spending, Medicare-shrinking, government-run healthcare right out the door.
“Importantly, Ms. Bean also voted in the minority against the Stupak amendment which prevents federal funding of abortions in the health care bill. Beginning with the Hyde Amendment in 1976 the U.S. Congress has had a long bi-partisan tradition of preventing the government funding of elective abortions in this country. Voting against Stupak is just unconscionable.”
Joe Walsh is challenging Melissa Bean because he’s had enough of the higher taxes, skyrocketing spending, and expanding government that she supports in Washington. In fact, “HAD ENOUGH?” has become his campaign slogan as he meets with citizens, activists, and taxpayers throughout the 8th District.
Additional information about Mr. Walsh and his campaign can be found on his website at www.joewalshforcongress.com.
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in the 50 states, issued the following statement regarding today's actions in the House of Representatives on the health care restructuring legislation, H.R. 3962.
The House adopted the NRLC-backed Stupak-Pitts Amendment, 240-194. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment removed two major pro-abortion components from H.R. 3962. Specifically: (1) the amendment would permanently prohibit the new federal government insurance program, the "public option," from paying for abortion, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest; and (2) the amendment would permanently prohibit the use of the new federal premium subsidies ("affordability credits") to purchase private insurance plans that cover abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). The amendment was sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.). It was supported by 176 Republicans and 64 Democrats. It was opposed by 194 Democrats. One Republican withheld his support by voting "present."
NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said: "The Obama White House and top congressional Democratic leaders spent months concealing and misrepresenting provisions that would directly fund abortions through a government plan, and subsidize premiums for private abortion plans. Today's bipartisan House vote is a sharp blow to the White House's pro-abortion smuggling operation. But we know that the White House and pro- abortion congressional Democratic leaders will keep trying to enact government funding of abortion, and will keep trying to conceal their true intentions, so there is a long battle ahead."
The Associated Press reported, "Abortion rights advocates called the measure the biggest setback to women's reproductive rights in decades."
In addition to working hard to remove abortion subsidies from the bill, NRLC has sought to educate lawmakers and the public about components of H.R. 3962 that could result in rationing or discriminatory denial of lifesaving medical care. A letter sent by NRLC to the House late today, summarizing objectionable elements of the amended bill, is posted here. The letter states: "We will continue to work to correct provisions that we find objectionable in this area, both in the health care legislation that will come before the Senate, and in any conference committee on health care legislation. We reserve the right to score the roll call vote on the conference report, or on any Senate-passed bill, if these concerns are not adequately resolved."
An archive of NRLC letters to Congress and other documents regarding the abortion-related components of the legislation are posted here
from the Hastert for Congress campaign
Ethan Hastert, candidate for Congress in Illinois’ 14th Congressional District, today issued the following statement after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Bill Foster and other House Democrats passed their massive $1 trillion partisan proposal for government-run health care:
“Representative Bill Foster, ignoring the wishes of the voters of the 14th Congressional District, sided with Nancy Pelosi and voted to approve a huge government take over of our health care. Bill Foster voted to stick middle-class families with higher taxes, fewer jobs, sweeping cuts to Medicare and even bigger government bureaucracy.
"Though Bill Foster had the opportunity to vote for a health care proposal that would actually lower costs and reduce the ballooning deficit, instead he voted with Nancy Pelosi to push for more spending and more government control at the expense of economic recovery. It is clear that Bill Foster hasn't been listening to the voters in the 14th Congressional District, who do not support another big-government, top-down entitlement program.
"I am concerned and disappointed that Bill Foster also voted to spend taxpayer dollars on publicly funded abortions. We deserve better.
“Families and small business owners in the District have told me that they want to see health care reformed in a bipartisan, common-sense way that preserves the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship and makes health care more affordable, more portable and more accessible. My health care proposal would do just that."
[Please visit www.hastertforcongress.com to view Ethan Hastert’s “Five Common Sense Solutions for Health Care Reform.”]