Liberals have been much more effective at controlling the language of debates than conservatives have and it allows them to win even though they always have the losing argument. Let's look at the abortion debate as an example. I'm not personally taking sides in this debate, I'm just using this to illustrate a point. Liberals have been able to control the language of the abortion debate by using terms such as Pro-Choice. Now, who in the world could be against a person's right to choose? That would just be downright unfair. People don't stop to think about choose what? But if they do, the liberals will counter with "The right of women to control their own bodies." Again, who could possibly be against that? But, that's not what's really happening is it?

Now assume that instead of being anti-choice, you change the language to anti-feticide, thereby making your opponent pro-feticide. It's much harder to justify why one is pro-feticide and it doesn't look good as a t-shirt slogan or bumper sticker either. By controlling the language of the debate one can control the debate. The important lesson is to remember to call things what they actually are and avoid falling into the politically correct language trap. Never debate against euphemisms.  Insist on calling things what they actually are and you will win every debate against liberal opponents.

The recent defeat of Republicans on the "Health Care Reform" act is a case in point. This bill does not reform health care; it transforms our health care system into a system of socialized medicine, and that's exactly the debate that should have been taking place. Do we want socialized medicine in this country? That's a completely different debate than the one we just had. I saw hundreds of polls, but I don't recall seeing even one that asked: "Are you in favor of socialized medicine in this country?"  We should have been asking that question over and over again. We must learn from our losses and avoid making the same mistakes over and over again.

Some hoaxes are innocent pranks played on the gullable just for the humor of it. For example, the 1957 BBC pseudo-documentary showing a Swiss family harvesting spaghetti from their spaghetti trees was done for the humor of it. Afterward, hundreds of spaghetti-loving dimwits phoned in to find out how they could get a spaghetti tree of their own. While they were probably disappointed to find out that spaghetti, like money, does not grow on trees and even a bit miffed at having proven just how empty-headed they were, no real harm was done. Other hoaxes, however, are much more nefarious. Usually these hoaxes are designed to defraud the public of their money or to make the perpetrator famous based on undetected deceit. The man-made climate change fraud tries to accomplish both — on an unbelievable scale.

Thanks to an unnamed Russian computer hacker that pilfered 60 megabytes of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University East Anglia in Great Britain, that fraud has been revealed. If the story "gets legs" as they say in the reporting business, this fraud will make the exposure of the Piltdown Man hoax of 1912 seem trivial. It seems that the climate-change "scientists", if one can call these people that with a straight face, have known like anyone else who has been paying attention, that the earth's rising temperatures leveled off a decade ago and has, in fact, been cooling — rather rapidly. The bad news for them was that not only would they lose face if the real data was used, not only would their computer models be shown to be completely wrong, not only would they be revealed for the con-men that they are, but — god forbid — the research money and the notoriety of being an IPCC big shot would come to an end. Well come to an end it has, and there can be little doubt that today, the Forrest Gump of the scientific world, Al Gore, is having a hissy fit. 

We do not know if the the emails are real, but it has been reported that Dr. Phil Jones of the CRU, from which the emails where stolen says the "emails appear to be genuine."   If that is the case,  then they are clearly damning evidence of a multi-trillion dollar hoax perpetrated on a global scale. Here are a few samples from the emails.

According to one email, Dr. Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit says, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps for each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Who is this Mike that he's talking about?  He's Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University, the guy who came up with the ridiculous hockey stick graph so proudly bandied about by the climate crowd as proof positive of global warming.  Of course, people knew that the data being used by these hucksters was fraudulent, and they began to call them out on it.  Apparently becoming worried, Dr. Jones said in one email to Dr. Mann and Dr. Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts and Malcom Hughes of the University of Arizona: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!" 

Again,  according to an email,  Dr. Mann says, "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" [...] "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."  He went on to say in another, ""I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails."

Clearly he didn't delete enough of them.

In a later email, he tells us what was behind the falsification of data. The email says  that the data would support the argument of the climate-change skeptics.  It appears to have been very important to keep the work of the climate-change skeptics out of the peer reviewed journals, so as to maintain the appearance of "settled science", as Al Gore says.  According to one email Dr. Jones says,  "We will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Even as this is being written, Barrack Obama, is preparing to meet in Copenhagen to sell American down the river under the guise of climate change, and the American taxpayers wait to be soaked yet again by the massive Cap and Tax bill now in the Senate — all based on a hoax.

The Center for Immigration Studies predicts a grim future for unemployed Americans. In an article titled Worse Than It Seems, the CIS reports overall unemployment for native-born Americans at 9.7 percent as of June 2009, which is 12.7 million unemployed native-born Americans. That number continues to rise as the most recent jobless rate has now climbed to 10.2 percent, the highest unemployment level since 1983.

There is another part of this equation, now referred to as U-6 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that needs to be considered and includes those unemployed people that want to work but have either given up looking for a job or have decided to take a temporary job. Using information from the June 2009 article, if U-6 individuals are included in the unemployment rate, that number then climbs as high as 16.3 percent, or 21.7 million native-born Americans. For certain segments of the population, including minorities with less than a high school education, their U-6 number climbs as high as 42 percent. 

Those millions of unemployed Americans understand that these statistics represent more than numbers, they represent individuals and families struggling to make scheduled mortgage and loan payments and the ability to buy food, medicine, and other necessities. Add to that the constant worry of not knowing when things will get better. Promises made by politicians about new job creation and an imminent economic turnaround just are not believable anymore, particularly for those who have been out of work for months fearing no light at the end of the tunnel.

Foreign Workers Competing for American Jobs

What isn't being talked about on the news or by politicians is that while millions of native-born American workers are struggling to find employment, there are some 125,000 foreign workers being legally welcomed each and every month into the United States to fill jobs Americans supposedly are unable or unwilling to fill. Many organizations are actually requesting more. Roy Beck, founder of NumbersUSA.com, explains in the video below that over the last 12-month period there were 951,247 green cards issued. Green cards give immigrants work permits that remain good throughout their lifetime. These green card holders can stay in the United States and work throughout their entire life if they choose. In addition to the green cards issued during that same time period, another 947,340 foreign workers were granted temporary work permits. These temporary permits do expire, but the holders of those permits can later apply for a permanent green card.

Combining these two numbers tells us that 1.9 million work permits were granted to immigrants during the past year.  Broken down, that equals 160,000 work permits issued per month. To appease immigrant activists who object that the 1.9 million number may include some immigrants that may already have been in the U.S. with temporary permits, let's go ahead and remove those workers from that number. That still leaves some 125,000 work permits being issued each and every month. 

Let's look at what's going on at one more angle:  According to NumbersUSA.com, 7.3 million jobs were eliminated from the American payroll since the start of 2008, while 2.7 million new foreign workers were granted permanent work permits and temporary work visas by the federal government during that same period. These foreign workers supposedly are needed to perform jobs that Americans cannot or will not do, though it's uncertain who determines what those jobs are. Ask any unemployed American worker at random that question, and you'll likely get a much different answer. Wouldn't it then be fair to say that representing that assumption on their behalf might then be considered an affront to either their work ethic or the intelligence of unemployed American workers — or both?

Immigration Reform Legislation Needed 

Whether affected directly by job loss or just empathetic to fellow tax-paying Americans, we should expect our leaders to commit to returning Americans to work before inviting additional immigrants to compete for limited available jobs. Shouldn't we ask politicians to prioritize their legislative efforts and immediately halt the issuing of visas of any kind until Americans are returned to work?

The SAFE Act Could Protect American Jobs

One thing that can be done immediately is ask that your representatives support the SAFE Act. The SAFE Act (H.R. 2305) was introduced by Rep Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and has 45 cosponsors. This bill, as we understand it, would shut down the Visa lottery which is managed by the Department of State and currently grants up to 55,000 permanent resident visas annually based solely on random drawing and without regard to humanitarian needs, family ties, or what skills they might contribute to this country.  Introduced on 5/7/2009, H.R. 2305 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and then referred on June 12th to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, chaired by Rep Zoe Lofgren. (Zoe Lofgren, represents the heavily Democratic16th District of California based in San Jose, CA. Lofgren taught immigration law at Santa Clara University and worked in the office of her predecessor Don Edwards on the Richard Nixon impeachment. After winning the election in to the House in 1994, she has held her seat without substantive opposition. According to OnTheIssues.org, Lofgren scores a 0% on immigration issues by FAIR.)

Does it make sense that our government continues to invite foreign workers into the United States while making excuses for the lack of opportunity to its own people? 

Stop Importing Foreign Workers Until Americans Are Employed – PLEASE!

Today, Christina Romer, the top White House economic advisor, said that the effects of the stimulus bill were tapering off.   She went on to say that by the fourth quarter of 2009 the effects of the stimulus bill will no longer be  contributing to economic growth.  So where are the jobs? 

It's hard to say the words economist and progressive in the same sentence without a chuckle, and yet there are thousands of them being turned out by universities across the nation, just like the ones that Dr. Romer was training at the University of California, Berkeley.  If one listens to what progressives try to pass off as economics, one might believe that the recently enacted Stimulus legislation could create jobs — even if they are government jobs.  The truth is, however, that there can never be a net growth of jobs nationwide when created by means of government money.  Not in the past.  Not now.  Not ever.  The reasons are actually pretty simple and don't require an advanced degree in economics from Berkeley to comprehend. Yet they have been passing this fallacy of government job creation off on the American people for generations — and getting away with it.  It's time that we get a little wiser.

First, and most important, the government has no money that it has not taken from someone else (if you're thinking well, they can borrow or print it, we'll get to that in a moment.) The principle method for government acquisition of money is through taxation.   When they take money from one group of people to create government jobs for another group of people, those that were taxed have less money to spend and the prudent don't borrow money to buy things on credit.  Instead they  buy fewer clothes, fewer washing machines, fewer houses, fewer cars, and  less food.  This means that fewer people will be hired to make clothes,build  washing machines, houses and cars, and farmers will not make as much money from growing crops.  The jobs created by the government are offset by the jobs lost or not created in other sectors of the economy resulting in zero net growth in jobs at best. All that has been accomplished is that one group of people has been deprived of the use of their money, certain sectors of the economy fail to grow,  while another group benefits by receiving the money and other sectors of the economy grow.  The net benefit is like cutting the end off of a blanket and sewing it back on to the other end.   But wait, isn't that what's called redistribution of wealth?  Yes it is.  That's what the President told Joe the Plumber he wanted to do and that's exactly what he's doing.  But "growing the economy from the bottom up," as he puts it, makes as much sense as growing corn from the top down.  It has not worked, can not work and will never work except in the topsy turvy minds of progressives.  Yet having failed miserably the first time,  the odds are the Democrats will try to generate support for doubling down on this  fool's bet.

I told you I'd come back to the issue of the government borrowing or printing money to create jobs.  Borrowing or creating money for government job creation works even less well than taxation.  If the government borrows money from somewhere, say China, the American people will still have to pay the money back through taxation, but this time with a nice bit of interest tacked on to it.  The interest on the debt for the fiscal year ending in October 2009 is $383,363,826,680.60 — but who's counting. The good news is that this can't go on for much longer.  The bad new is that the reason is that United States is quickly becoming a subprime borrower and it's going to be hard to find lenders as foolish as Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.  

The other method is printing the money (they don't actually have to print it, it's just an entry in an accounting ledger.)  This is an even more insidious form of taxation, but one that has worked well for the government since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. While it is truly sinister and evil beyond belief, one must give them high marks for having come up with a con that has lasted one hundred years without the public ever catching on.  When the  Fed creates "liquidity" (creates money out of thin air to give to the government through bonds) it pushes more money into the system (increases the money supply) , the result is that each individual dollar is worth less than it was before, but people don't see the value of the dollar go down, they perceive what appears to be the cost of products going up.  It doesn't matter if the products are houses, cars, milk, gold or oil everything looks like it's getting more expensive.  Wait, here's the beauty of the con — the people don't blame the government that caused the problem.  They blame the producers of the products for  raising prices and being greedy profit mongers.  Then the government is able to hold hearings to regulate them and raise their taxes yet further with full public support.  Now is that slick or what?  The effect on the economy is, however, recession and massive layoffs, but that's not what really counts in Washington.

Benjamen Franklin once stated, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."  Having lived during a time when freedom and liberty were not guaranteed and often were settled on the battlefield, one can only imagine the forethought Franklin called upon when he spoke those words of wisdom. What disdain would Franklin now have toward the lawmakers of his home state that so swiftly abandon liberty for supposed safety? And what type of Orwellian plague did this state unleash on freedom when they voted unanimously in favor of Senate Bill S. 2028? Is 1984 not required reading at prestigious $40k-a-year-snob-universities?

Before discussing S. 2028, let’s look at the bill’s state of origin: Massachusetts. Known as the birthplace of our nation’s constitution, Massachusetts is now known as a breeding ground for progressive ideologies and politicians. Representatives elected to both state and national seats expect liberal legislation to be passed unquestioned. After all, this is Kennedy and Kerry country, and the state where its people actually vote, of free will, mind you, to send people like Barney Frank to represent them in Washington. Repeatedly. It’s not just the U.S. House and Senate that is completely Democratic either.  Only a handful of State representatives dare run on the Republican ticket; and of those attempting a run, few have successful campaigns. Wikipedia informs us that the Massachusetts State Senate breakdown is 35 Democrats (87.5%) to 5 Republicans (12.5%), and the State House has only 16 Republicans (10%) while the remaining 90% are Democrats. 

Ignored by the mainstream press, the Massachusetts Senate passed, without opposition, (36-0), a 28-page Flu Pandemic Bill, S. 2028. That piece of legislation should frighten any half-awake, freedom-loving  American. Instead, S.2028 now lies in the House Ways and Means Committee for mark-up and, if passed, will continue on its merry way to the House for their consideration. Of note, there is a similar 18-page House version titled H. 108.

What these draconian bills propose is for the government to have the authority to impose a virtual police state and martial law in the event of a flu pandemic or other determined public health emergency, where the state health commissioner could grant authority to law enforcement and medical personnel wide authority to mobilize forces, vaccinate portions of the population, enter private property without warrant, destroy property without court order, if deemed necessary, quarantine people without consent at their discretion, and impose fines on those not agreeing to receive vaccinations.

The S. 2028 is only 28 pages, so we suggest you take a few minutes and review it yourself. Hard to believe, we know, without seeing it firsthand. Bill Hemmer of Fox News, seemed a little taken aback himself, as he interviewed Massachusetts Senator Bob Hedlund (Republican) who voted along with the other 35 Masachussetts’ senators for S. 2028 back in May. Hedlund now seems to be voicing some concern over parts of the bill in its current form.  Below is a YouTube video of that interview:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on Tuesday said "If we can't work this out to do something within the committee structure, then we'll be forced to do the reconciliation." Adding, "It remains to be seen as to whether we will have to do reconciliation. I am confident and hopeful we won't have to do that, but time will only tell."

Clearly, the Democrats plan on passing their Health Care legislation, regardless of what the American people want. The people have spoken, openly, forcefully and often on this subject, and the clear message has been that Americans do not want an ill-conceived Health Care bill forced upon them. The arrogant Senators and Representatives in Washington have heard from the voters and clearly, they do not care what the American people have to say on the matter. But, there may be something that can be done yet.

The reconciliation legislation, which would only require 51 votes in the Senate instead of 60, can be slowed, if not halted by the "Byrd Rule." The Byrd Rule, named for Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) allows Senators to place restraints on reconciliation. Specifically, if a Senator believes that any provision of the legislation is "extraneous," they may raise a "point of order."

Wikipedia definition: A point of order is a matter raised during consideration of a motion concerning the rules of parliamentary procedure. A point of order may be raised if the rules appear to have been broken. This may interrupt a speaker during debate, or anything else if the breach of the rules warrants it. The point is resolved before business continues.

The point of order requires that there be 60 votes to waive the Byrd Amendment, which in this case could garner enough moderate Democrat support to stop Prince Harry in his tracks.  If it should come to pass that the Democrats try to steamroll this legislation through the senate using the "nuclear option," be sure to call or fax your Senators to remind them of the Byrd Rule.

Attendance Reports Vary Widely

Washington – Most of the mainstream media have chosen to either entirely ignore the 9/12 protest in Washington D. C. this weekend, or to try to minimize it as much as possible by saying that it was attended by thousands of people.   Well, thousands of people is not an outright lie, particularly coming from people that don’t think a $10,000,000,000,000,000 deficit is something to worry about, or that a $1,000,000,000,000 health care plan is "budget neutral."   There were indeed thousands of people there, thousands of thousands of them.  Early reports show that the D. C. police estimate the crowd size at about 1.2 million, the Parks and Recreation Dept. at around 1.5 million, and the British press reported earlier that they estimated the crowd size to be around 2 million.  Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) speaking at the rally commented that he attended the Obama inauguration and thought there were more people present at this event than at that one.  We will have more news as soon as it becomes available, including first hand reports, photos and video from our people on the ground there.

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. — Henry Ford

Read the Small Print

Pull out your billfold and take a look at a bill of any denomination and notice inscribed across the top the words "Federal Reserve Note." You've seen these words almost daily throughout your lifetime, but only a handful of Americans actually understand what the Federal Reserve is and what it is that it does. Most assume the Federal Reserve is a branch of the government, perhaps related to the Treasury Department in some way. That assumption is far from the truth. While the subject is far too complex to cover in this post, what Americans need to understand and be concerned about is that this agency (actually a legalized banking cartel), is not a branch of the government, and yet they have the power to create money from thin air and then infuse that money into our economy in extremely large amounts in almost utter secrecy, with no oversight and only limited hindsight.

Right now the Federal Reserve is audit exempt in the areas of monetary policy, foreign transactions, and Federal Market Committee operations. Questions like where has all the TARP money gone can remain unanswered — legally. When logic dictates that Americans should have the right to "follow the money" that ultimately affects the nation's economy, when it comes to the Federal Reserve, we simply cannot. There are trillions of American dollars involved here, controlled by a select few in almost complete secrecy and, according to them, for purposes that you have no business knowing about. Something is very wrong with that, and because most people are not attuned to what the Fed is, much less what it does, this status quo operation has operated under cloak for nearly a century.

Since the Federal Reserve has operated unsupervised for nearly 100 years, things must be going pretty well; right? Wrong. The American dollar has lost over 95% of its value since the Federal Reserve began in 1913, and right now they're creating money in unprecedented amounts. Some say there are about $9 trillion in Fed transactions, but they admit to $2 trillion. Believe it or not, the Fed is protected by law from disclosing this $7 trillion discrepancy.

Federal Reserve Transparency: Bills H.R. 1207 & S. 604

In an effort to introduce long overdue transparency to the Federal Reserve, there are two bills recently introduced that would require a full-scale audit of the Fed by the end of 2010. These bills were each read twice in their respective House and Senate chambers and are now shelved in committees taking backseat to controversial health care and cap-and-trade legislation. The House version, called the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, H.R. 1207, is sponsored by Texas Representative Ron Paul (R) and currently has 282 co-sponsors. This Bill now sits in the Committee on Financial Services, chaired by Barney Frank, since February 26, 2009. There are enough co-sponsors to pass this bill in the House, but it will need to get past Barney Frank and then be allowed by Nancy Pelosi, who is not in support of a transparent Fed. She alone can stop this vote from occurring even with over 60% of the House wanting the Bill to pass. The Senate version, The Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009, S.604, is sponsored by Vermont Senator Bernard Sanders(I), and currently has 23 co-sponsors. That Bill is now in the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, chaired by Chris Dodd, on March 16, 2009.

These are brief, easily-readable one-page bills that should be receiving enthusiastic ayes from the Democrats, whose 2008 campaign mantra was all about transparency. Not so. Even with the tremendous amount of support these bills have received, they remain sidelined in committee. To get these bills to the floor for a vote, they need to get through these committees first. In the House Committee on Financial Services, all 29 Republican representatives sitting on this committee support H.R. 1207 and have signed on as co-sponsors, while only 10 of the 42 Democrats in this committee have done the same. Barney Frank, the Chair of the Committee on Financial Services, so far is not one of the bill's cosponsors. There are seven Blue Dog Democrats currently sitting on the Financial Services Committee, but only three of them are showing support by cosponsoring the bill. Joe Baca (CA), Joe Donnelly (IN), Charles, Wilson (OH), and Dennis Moore (KS) are the four Blue Dog Democrats that have NOT co-sponsored the bill. Since Blue Dogs are supposed to be moderate, especially on fiscal issues, you may want to call these people and ask them why they have not supported this bill along with their fellow committee Blue Dogs.  

Below is a list of Co-sponsors of HR1207, the House Bill, and S604, the Senate Bill. This list is current through 8/2/09. If your representative or senator is not on this list, call them right away and ask that they become a co-sponsor for these bills seeking a Fed audit or ask them to explain why they will not. Visit the websites for the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and contact them to ask when the bills will return to the House and Senate for a vote. If they have since become a co-sponsor but are not yet on this list, let them know you appreciate their support for a transparent Fed.

Who's Voting How – Read. Remember. Vote.

HR 1207 Co-Sponsors (as of 8/2/2009)

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] – 2/26/2009
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] – 5/6/2009
Rep Adler, John H. [NJ-3] – 5/6/2009
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] – 3/19/2009
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] – 3/10/2009
Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] – 5/20/2009
Rep Austria, Steve [OH-7] – 5/6/2009
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] – 2/26/2009
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] – 4/29/2009
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] – 7/10/2009
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] – 4/21/2009
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] – 4/28/2009
Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] – 5/12/2009
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] – 2/26/2009
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] – 5/4/2009
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] – 5/21/2009
Rep Berry, Marion [AR-1] – 5/20/2009
Rep Biggert, Judy [IL-13] – 4/28/2009
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] – 4/21/2009
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] – 5/4/2009
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] – 4/21/2009
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] – 7/10/2009
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] – 3/16/2009
Rep Blunt, Roy [MO-7] – 3/24/2009
Rep Boccieri, John A. [OH-16] – 7/28/2009
Rep Boehner, John A. [OH-8] – 6/10/2009
Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] – 6/9/2009
Rep Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45] – 4/29/2009
Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] – 5/7/2009
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [IA-3] – 6/9/2009
Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] – 7/20/2009
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-7] – 5/13/2009
Rep Boyd, Allen [FL-2] – 7/14/2009
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] – 4/22/2009
Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] – 6/11/2009
Rep Bright, Bobby [AL-2] – 6/11/2009
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] – 2/26/2009
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] – 6/11/2009
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] – 4/28/2009
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] – 5/20/2009
Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-13] – 3/17/2009
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] – 3/19/2009
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] – 2/26/2009
Rep Buyer, Steve [IN-4] – 4/30/2009
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] – 4/29/2009
Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] – 6/18/2009
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] – 5/4/2009
Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] – 6/23/2009
Rep Cao, Anh “Joseph” [LA-2] – 6/11/2009
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] – 4/1/2009
Rep Carney, Christopher P. [PA-10] – 6/9/2009
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] – 3/31/2009
Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] – 5/4/2009
Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] – 3/17/2009
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] – 3/6/2009
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] – 7/7/2009
Rep Childers, Travis [MS-1] – 6/9/2009
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] – 6/11/2009
Rep Coffman, Mike [CO-6] – 6/16/2009
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] – 4/21/2009
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] – 5/7/2009
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] – 6/23/2009
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] – 7/8/2009
Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] – 5/4/2009
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] – 3/26/2009
Rep Dahlkemper, Kathleen A. [PA-3] – 7/22/2009
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] – 6/26/2009
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] – 5/6/2009
Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-9] – 3/23/2009
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] – 3/9/2009
Rep Dent, Charles W. [PA-15] – 5/6/2009
Rep Diaz-Balart, Lincoln [FL-21] – 7/10/2009
Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario [FL-25] – 6/18/2009
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] – 4/21/2009
Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] – 6/10/2009
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] – 3/6/2009
Rep Edwards, Chet [TX-17] – 6/16/2009
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] – 6/11/2009
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. [MI-3] – 4/21/2009
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] – 7/15/2009
Rep Fallin, Mary [OK-5] – 4/2/2009
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] – 7/8/2009
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] – 7/28/2009
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] – 5/11/2009
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] – 3/18/2009
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] – 5/20/2009
Rep Fortenberry, Jeff [NE-1] – 5/12/2009
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] – 3/10/2009
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] – 3/23/2009
Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [NJ-11] – 6/3/2009
Rep Fudge, Marcia L. [OH-11] – 7/9/2009
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] – 7/7/2009
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] – 3/5/2009
Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] – 5/11/2009
Rep Giffords, Gabrielle [AZ-8] – 6/16/2009
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] – 3/30/2009
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] – 4/23/2009
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] – 4/28/2009
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] – 4/28/2009
Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] – 4/22/2009
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] – 3/11/2009
Rep Griffith, Parker [AL-5] – 6/16/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] – 6/3/2009
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] – 5/7/2009
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] – 4/29/2009
Rep Halvorson, Deborah L. [IL-11] – 6/3/2009
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] – 5/11/2009
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] – 7/7/2009
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] – 5/11/2009
Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] – 5/11/2009
Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] – 3/6/2009
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] – 5/4/2009
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] – 4/21/2009
Rep Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie [SD] – 5/6/2009
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] – 6/2/2009
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] – 7/8/2009
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] – 4/28/2009
Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] – 6/4/2009
Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-52] – 5/13/2009
Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] – 4/23/2009
Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] – 5/12/2009
Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] – 6/16/2009
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] – 7/30/2009
Rep Jenkins, Lynn [KS-2] – 4/23/2009
Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] – 6/9/2009
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] – 4/22/2009
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] – 4/23/2009
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] – 2/26/2009
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] – 6/2/2009
Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] – 2/26/2009
Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] – 4/23/2009
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] – 6/4/2009
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] – 6/11/2009
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] – 3/6/2009
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] – 7/15/2009
Rep Kirkpatrick, Ann [AZ-1] – 7/14/2009
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] – 4/29/2009
Rep Kosmas, Suzanne M. [FL-24] – 6/17/2009
Rep Kratovil, Frank, Jr. [MD-1] – 6/4/2009
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] – 6/11/2009
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] – 4/21/2009
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7] – 5/11/2009
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4] – 4/21/2009
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] – 4/28/2009
Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] – 5/20/2009
Rep Lee, Christopher J. [NY-26] – 6/10/2009
Rep Lewis, Jerry [CA-41] – 6/24/2009
Rep Linder, John [GA-7] – 5/6/2009
Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] – 6/4/2009
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] – 5/4/2009
Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] – 6/10/2009
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] – 7/7/2009
Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] – 4/21/2009
Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9] – 4/21/2009
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [WY] – 3/19/2009
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] – 5/7/2009
Rep Mack, Connie [FL-14] – 5/12/2009
Rep Maffei, Daniel B. [NY-25] – 5/12/2009
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] – 4/21/2009
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] – 3/11/2009
Rep Markey, Betsy [CO-4] – 6/25/2009
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] – 4/22/2009
Rep McCarthy, Kevin [CA-22] – 5/4/2009
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] – 4/21/2009
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] – 3/6/2009
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] – 3/19/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] – 4/29/2009
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] – 6/10/2009
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] – 4/30/2009
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] – 5/4/2009
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] – 6/10/2009
Rep McKeon, Howard P. “Buck” [CA-25] – 6/11/2009
Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [WA-5] – 5/4/2009
Rep Melancon, Charlie [LA-3] – 7/10/2009
Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] – 5/12/2009
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] – 5/7/2009
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] – 4/28/2009
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] – 6/10/2009
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] – 3/24/2009
Rep Minnick, Walter [ID-1] – 5/13/2009
Rep Mitchell, Harry E. [AZ-5] – 6/9/2009
Rep Moran, Jerry [KS-1] – 5/4/2009
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] – 7/7/2009
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] – 6/9/2009
Rep Murphy, Scott [NY-20] – 7/9/2009
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] – 4/29/2009
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] – 4/28/2009
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] – 4/30/2009
Rep Nunes, Devin [CA-21] – 6/12/2009
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] – 7/31/2009
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] – 4/21/2009
Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. [TX-27] – 5/14/2009
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] – 6/9/2009
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] – 5/20/2009
Rep Paulsen, Erik [MN-3] – 3/30/2009
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] – 7/30/2009
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] – 4/21/2009
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] – 6/10/2009
Rep Perriello, Thomas S.P. [VA-5] – 5/13/2009
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] – 3/19/2009
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] – 3/10/2009
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] – 4/28/2009
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] – 3/19/2009
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] – 2/26/2009
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] – 6/11/2009
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-15] – 2/26/2009
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] – 3/10/2009
Rep Putnam, Adam H. [FL-12] – 4/28/2009
Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] – 5/6/2009
Rep Rehberg, Denny [MT] – 2/26/2009
Rep Reichert, David G. [WA-8] – 5/20/2009
Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37] – 7/28/2009
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] – 4/21/2009
Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] – 7/14/2009
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] – 5/13/2009
Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] – 5/20/2009
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] – 3/6/2009
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] – 4/22/2009
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] – 4/28/2009
Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] – 6/2/2009
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] – 5/21/2009
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] – 6/18/2009
Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] – 5/12/2009
Rep Ryan, Paul [WI-1] – 5/14/2009
Rep Salazar, John T. [CO-3] – 7/15/2009
Rep Sarbanes, John P. [MD-3] – 6/15/2009
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] – 5/20/2009
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] – 5/6/2009
Rep Schauer, Mark H. [MI-7] – 5/20/2009
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] – 7/14/2009
Rep Schmidt, Jean [OH-2] – 6/11/2009
Rep Schock, Aaron [IL-18] – 5/6/2009
Rep Scott, David [GA-13] – 7/20/2009
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] – 5/7/2009
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] – 3/23/2009
Rep Shadegg, John B. [AZ-3] – 5/7/2009
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] – 6/9/2009
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] – 6/23/2009
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] – 4/22/2009
Rep Shuler, Heath [NC-11] – 6/12/2009
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] – 5/7/2009
Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] – 4/28/2009
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] – 6/17/2009
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] – 4/22/2009
Rep Smith, Adrian [NE-3] – 4/28/2009
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] – 6/15/2009
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] – 4/2/2009
Rep Snyder, Vic [AR-2] – 6/23/2009
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] – 6/16/2009
Rep Space, Zachary T. [OH-18] – 6/23/2009
Rep Speier, Jackie [CA-12] – 6/11/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] – 3/26/2009
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] – 3/6/2009
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] – 7/8/2009
Rep Taylor, Gene [MS-4] – 3/6/2009
Rep Teague, Harry [NM-2] – 6/12/2009
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] – 3/30/2009
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] – 7/17/2009
Rep Thompson, Glenn [PA-5] – 4/22/2009
Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] – 5/21/2009
Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] – 4/28/2009
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] – 4/28/2009
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] – 7/20/2009
Rep Titus, Dina [NV-3] – 7/14/2009
Rep Tonko, Paul D. [NY-21] – 6/9/2009
Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] – 5/13/2009
Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] – 4/29/2009
Rep Visclosky, Peter J. [IN-1] – 7/20/2009
Rep Walden, Greg [OR-2] – 5/4/2009
Rep Walz, Timothy J. [MN-1] – 5/7/2009
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] – 3/16/2009
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] – 5/21/2009
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] – 4/2/2009
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] – 5/14/2009
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] – 4/29/2009
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] – 4/1/2009
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] – 6/11/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] – 2/26/2009
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] – 7/13/2009
Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3] – 7/14/2009
Rep Young, C.W. Bill [FL-10] – 6/3/2009
Rep Young, Don [AK] – 3/6/2009

S 604 Co-Sponsors (as of 8/4/2009)

Sen Barrasso, John [WY] – 7/15/2009
Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT] – 7/15/2009
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] – 7/8/2009
Sen Burr, Richard [NC] – 7/9/2009
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] – 7/28/2009
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] – 7/8/2009
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – 7/20/2009
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] – 7/20/2009
Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] – 6/25/2009
Sen DeMint, Jim [SC] – 6/11/2009
Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] – 7/15/2009
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] – 7/24/2009
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] – 8/3/2009
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] – 7/20/2009
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] – 7/24/2009
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] – 7/20/2009
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] – 7/9/2009
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] – 7/8/2009
Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. [AR] – 7/15/2009
Sen McCain, John [AZ] – 7/15/2009
Sen Risch, James E. [ID] – 8/3/2009
Sen Vitter, David [LA] – 6/16/2009
Sen Webb, Jim [VA] – 8/3/2009

Empowering Patients First Act – Republican Bill Held Up in 8 Committees

The Democrats’ mantric claim that the Republicans have not offered any solutions of their own is pure poppycock.  The Democrat-sponsored  "America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" (H.R. 3200) is not the only proposed health care bill submitted for Congressional consideration, but the major media networks are not giving equal air time to the Republican-sponsored alternative. Speaker Pelosi has repeatedly stated that Democrats would consider reasonable alternatives if offered by the other side, all the while not acknowledging the existence of  H.R. 3400, "The Empowering Patients First Act", arguably the better-written and more cost-effective bill of the two. Clearly Pelosi and her gaggle of radical left-wing sycophants do not want the American people to know that the Republican bill exists and that’s why they have it safely buried under the weight of not one, but eight different committees. See the full text of the bill here: H. R. 3400

Fooled one too many times, the American people are now attempting to read legislation as it comes to vote, since the elected elite no longer find it necessary to read the legislation that they vote on. The Democrat bill H. R. 3200, filled with over a thousand pages of complex lawyer speak, is riddled with loopholes that in the end would lead the American people down a road to an expensive, government-run healthcare system, many say will deliver the coup de grace that will topple our nation into complete socialism.  Had the American public not been previously alerted and outraged by the recent "Porkulus" and "Cap and Tax" bills, also unread and rushed through the voting process, the controlling Democrats, at the charge of Nancy Pelosi, would have most certainly done the same thing with health care. 

H.R. 3200: Has Few Liberal Cosponsors

H.R. 3200, which the radical Democrats tell us is a health care moral obligation, has found only eight representatives to cosponsor their bill, while the Republican’s bill, H.R. 3400, has twenty-eight. Take a look at the names and the districts represented by the sponsor and eight cosponsors and decide if this is a representation of the American people as a whole and deserves unquestioned support. First, it’s nearly impossible to get the names of those responsible for crafting the bill, although the communist radical Jeff Jones, a co-founder of the Weather Underground and now a major player in the Apollo Alliance, has surfaced as one of the primary players. The congressman sponsoring the bill is Rep John Dingell, a doddering Democrat serving the 15th district of Michigan since 1955. There are eight cosponsors of the bill: 1) Rep Robert Andrews, a Democrat serving heavily unionized and mobster infested New Jersey district since 1990, and has run unopposed in the last two elections; 2) Rep Dale Kildee, a Democrat, whose top contributers are a variety of unions, from the 5th district of Michigan, since 1977;  3) Progressive Caucus Member, Rep Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from the 14th district in New York since 1993. This district voted over 70% for the Democrat candidate for President in the last three elections and is considered a highly radicalized electorate; 4) Bay Area Progressive Caucus member, Rep George Miller, a Democrat from the 7th district of California, also a consistently wing-nut electorate; 5)  Rep Frank Pallone, a Democrat from the 6th district of New Jersey since 1993; 6) The infamous tax dodger, Rep Charles Rangel, a liberal Democrat from the 15th district of New York since 1971. To get an idea how liberal this district is, the electorate voted 87% or higher for the Democrat candidate for President in the last three elections;  7) Rep Pete Stark, a Democrat of the 13th district of California since 1973. Stark is the first openly atheist member of Congress.  He has won his Rep seat with at least 70% since 1998; The Mini Me of the House, Rep Henry Waxman, a delusional Democrat from California’s 30th district since 1975. The 30th district includes Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, and Malibu, and consistently supports liberal candidates.

H.R. 3200: Rushed Through Committees

There were  five committee referrals assigned to H.R. 3200 for consideration and mark-up. The procedural process, unlike that of H.R. 3400, has been urgent. The five committees assigned H.R. 3200 are: Committee on Energy and Commerce, Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Education and Labor, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the House Budget. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by Rep Henry Waxman, ordered the bill reported (Amended) by Yeas and Nays: 31-28; the House Ways and Means Committee, chaired by Charles Rangel, reported by Yeas and Nays: 23-18; House Education and Labor Committee, chaired by Rep George Miller, reported Yeas and Nays: 26-22. The breakdown of those voting yea and nay in each of these three committees can be found in pdf format. Read. Remember. Vote.

H.R. 3400: Republican Health Care Alternative

The Republican alternative, H.R. 3400, is sponsored by Rep Tom Price and has 27 sponsors: Rep Robert Aderholt, Rep W. Todd Akin, Rep Rodney Alexander, Rep Michele Bachmann, Rep J. Gresham Barrett, Rep Roscoe Bartlett, Rep Dan Burton, Rep Bill Cassidy, Rep Mike Coffman, Rep John Culberson, Rep Mary Fallin, Rep John Fleming, Rep Trent Franks, Rep Elton Gallegly, Rep Phil Gingrey, Rep Jim Jordan, Rep Doug Lamborn, Rep John Linder, Rep Cynthia Lummis, Rep Kenny Marchant, Rep Jeff Miller, Rep Joseph Pitts, Rep David Roe, Rep Thomas Rooney, Rep Steve Scalise, Rep Mark Souder, and Rep Zach Wamp. This bill was introduced on 7/30/2009 and referred to the following eight committees: Committee on Energy and Commerce, Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Education and Labor, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House Judiciary, House Rules, House Budget, and House Appropriations.

Unlike H.R. 3200, which has well over a thousand pages before mark-up, the Republican bill has only 63, and there are six members of the Republican Doctors Caucus who were either involved directly in the crafting of the bill or have become cosponsors. Those who’ve labored endless hours trying to decipher the poorly-crafted, monstrous H.R. 3200 bill will find H.R. 3400 much easier reading.

Substantive Health Care Reform

Representative Linder of Georgia has excellent information comparing and contrasting these two healthcare bills on the linder.house.gov website.  A couple of the key contrasting points to the Republican version would be an inclusion of much-needed Tort reform, which the Democrat version excludes, incentives to insure individuals considered high-risk, extension of income tax deduction on premiums purchased individually, tax credit for low-income Americans, creation of health insurance pooling and removal of state line restrictions for purchasing insurance, incentives for healthy lifestyle choices, certain reform for Medicaid and SCHIP, including the coverage of most needy American children before covering childless adults or illegal immigrants. The Democrat version has loopholes allowing coverage of illegal immigrants, which would have egregious impact on the cost.

- Why does the FCC have a diversity "czar"?

- Who is Mark Lloyd and how does he plan to "balance" the airwaves?

- Will he bring back the Fairness Doctrine or worse?

- Cass Sunstein once said he wants to balance the Internet; is that next?

- Will broadcasters who leave the airwaves be allowed to go to satellite or Internet without government regulation?

- Is there any place (that has a mass audience) where the government wont regulate free speech?

- Why does it seem every member of the Obama advisory team hates capitalism, unless those companies (like G.E.) are in bed with the administration?

If Lloyd has his way, stations who don’t comply to the governments definition of the "public interest" will have to pay a massive fine — that helps support public broadcasting:

- What will be the definition of "public interest"?

- Who defines "public interest"?

- Why should it be balanced? Because it’s public airwaves? (Well, there are public roads that go by my house and I don’t count how many Republicans and Democrats are driving on them) Why do we need a civilian force?

- Who is posing a threat to us?

- Who will this "force" be made up of?

- Who is the real enemy?

- Does the president know of a coming event? If not, who builds an army against an unrecognized enemy?

- Why won’t the media get off their butts and look into these radicals in the White House? And into this civilian army?

- Who is "surrounding" the President in the White House? 
  
 - Do any of the President’s advisers have criminal records? 
  
 - Are the President’s advisers working to better the country or their own ideals? 
  
 - Who are the anti-capitalists in Washington? 
  
 - What roles do they have in crafting bills? 
  
 - What was "STORM"? What happened to the founders, where are they now? 
  
 - What qualifications must one have to be a Presidential adviser? 
  
 - What is the difference between a community organizer and a community activist? 
  
 - Do the czars have power? 
  
 - Should a communist have the ear of the President of the United States? 
  
 - What role did the Apollo Alliance play in crafting bills? 
  
 - Does the President know the co-founder of the Weather Underground is a board member of the Apollo Alliance? 
  
 - How many people in the administration are connected to the movement for a democratic society? 
  
 - What role does George Soros play… CONSTITUTIONALLY? 

- Our unfunded liability for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is close to $100 trillion. Is there any way to pay for these programs without bankrupting America? 
  
- We are in so much debt, why spend more borrowed money on cap-and-trade and healthcare programs before we stop the flow of red-ink? 
  
- The stimulus package funneled billions of dollars to ACORN. How does giving billions of dollars to ACORN stimulate the economy? 
  
- If it was so important for congress to pass the stimulus bill before they even had time to read it why has only a fraction of the stimulus money been spent 6 months later? 
  
- Bush said he had to abandon free market principles in order to save them, how exactly does that work? 
  
- Why won’t members of Congress read the bills before they vote on them? 
  
- Why are citizens mocked and laughed at when they ask their congressman to read the bills before they vote on them? 
  
- Was the cash-for-clunkers program meant to save the earth or the economy? Did it accomplish either? 
  
- How did Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist become a special advisor to the president? 
  
- Did President Obama know of Van Jones’ radical political beliefs when he named him special advisor? 
  
- The Apollo Alliance claimed credit for writing the stimulus bill—why was this group allowed to write any portion of this bill? 
  
- If politicians aren’t writing the bills and aren’t reading the bills, do they have any idea what these 1000 page plus bills actually impose on the American people? 
  
- If the ‘public option’ health care plan is so good why won’t politicians agree to have that as their plan? 
  
- If town hall meetings are intended for the politicians to learn what’s on our mind—why do they spend so much time talking instead of listening? 
  
- Politicians are refusing to attend town hall meetings complaining, without evidence, that they are scripted. Does that mean we shouldn’t come out and vote for you since every campaign stop, baby kiss and speech you give is scripted? 
  
- Why would you want to overwhelm the system? 
  
- Is using the economic crises to rush legislation through congress what Rahm Emanuel meant when he talked about "not letting a crises go to waste"? 
  
- What are the czars paid? What is the budget for their staffs/offices?