How about “the Republic faces extinction”?
Unfortunately, I believe the Dems are more than willing to be lemmings and commit political suicide ... individually and even as a Party ... for the current President (more so than any other in the past) and to move America to their favored dream.
It is said to realize, hope more Americans wake-up ad see it, that it is Party over Country for a vast majority of our elected officials today.
There is a good article in the WSJ talking about some of the key provisions of the bill.
The Cost-Control Illusion. Breaking down the ObamaCare claims (WSJ)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2470277/posts
“ObamaCare’s real cost-control plan boils down to this: First subsidize coverage so much that costs explode, raise taxes as much as possible to pay for it, and when that isn't enough, hand power to an unelected committee to limit treatment and control prices by government order. This is what Democrats are voting for.”
The Members of the Dumocrat Party should be asking themselves if they want to be members of a Party that DEMANDS all member goosestep to the edits of ONE Leader?
The closest I can come up with is the post-Civil War legislation and amendments that were forced on a defeated South. Those were supported in the North, though, so it's not a good analogy. Nothing has ever been shoved down the throats of Americans, and, God help these Marxists, nothing ever will be.
First they came for the Unborn...granny & gramps your next.
Defeat Obamacare call list: List now contains the new MAYBES culled from FR posts.
KEEP THE CALLS UP! DC OFFICE LOCAL OFFICE
Code Red” - House Target List on Health Care
The National Republican Congressional Committee has published a target list on health care. In addition to continuing to contact the five Tennessee Democrat Congressmen, you can go http://www.votervoice.net/link/clickthrough/ext/94697.aspx to contact some of these targets. Much of the talk following Obama’s announcement has focused on how to defeat this second bill through reconciliation, but that is misleading because the first step to defeating Obamacare is not by concentrating on defeating the “fixer” bill but by defeating the Senate bill in the House when it goes to the floor for an up-or-down vote on Thursday, March 18th.
Rep. Lincoln Davis 202-225-6831 Columbia office: 931-490-8699
Rep. Jim Cooper 202-225-4311 Nashville office: 615-736-5295
Rep. Bart Gordon 202-225-4231 Murfreesboro office: 615-896-1986
John Tanner (202) 225-4714, Union City, (731) 885-7070, Jackson Phone: (731) 423-4848, Millington (901) 873-5690 TN (MAYBE)
Rep. Steve Cohen 202-225-3265 Memphis office: 901-544-4131
Harry Mitchell (202) 225-2190 (480) 946-2411 AZ 5th District
Gabrielle Giffords (202) 225-2542 (520) 881-3588 AZ 8th District
Ann Kirkpatrick (202) 225-2315 (928) 226-6914 AZ 1st District
Jerry McNerney (202) 225-1947 925-833-0643 CA 11th District
John Salazar 202-225-4761 970-245-7107 CO 3rd District
Jim Himes (202) 225-5541 (866) 453-0028 CT 4th District
Alan Grayson (202) 225-2176 (407) 841-1757 FL 8th District
Bill Foster (202) 225-2976 630-406-1114 IL 14th District
Baron Hill 202 225 5315 812 288 3999 IN 9th District
Mark Schauer (202) 225-6276 (517) 780-9075 MI 7th District
Gary Peters (202) 225-5802 (248) 273-4227 MI 9th District
Dina Titus (202) 225-3252 702-256-DINA (3462) NV 3rd District
Carol Shea-Porter (202) 225-5456 (603) 743-4813 NH 1st District
Tim Bishop (202) 225-3826 (631) 696-6500 NY 1st District
John Hall (202) 225-5441 (845) 225-3641 x49371 NY 19th District
Bill Owens (202) 225-4611 (315) 782-3150 NY 23rd District
James Matheson Toll-Free Number 1 (877) 677-9743 (202) 225-3011Mike Arcuri (202)225-3665 (315)793-8146 NY 24th District
Dan Maffei (202) 225-3701 (315) 423-5657 NY 25th District
Earl Pomeroy (202) 225-2611 (701) 224-0355 ND At-Large District
Steven Driehaus (202) 225-2216 (513) 684-2723 OH 1st District
Mary Jo Kilroy (202) 225-2015 (614) 294-2196 OH 15th District
Zach Space (202) 225-6265 (330) 364-4300 OH 18th District
Kathy Dahlkemper (202) 225-5406 (814) 456-2038 PA 3rd District
Patrick Murphy (202) 225-4276 (215) 826-1963 PA 8th District
Christopher Carney (202) 225-3731 (570) 585-9988 PA 10th District
Paul Kanjorski (202) 225-6511 (570) 825-2200 PA 11th District
John Spratt (202) 225-5501 (803)327-1114 SC 5th District
Tom Perriello (202) 225-4711 (276) 656-2291 VA 5th District
Alan Mollohan (202) 225-4172 (304) 623-4422 WVA 1st District
Nick Rahall (202) 225-3452 (304) 252-5000 WVA 3rd District
Steve Kagen (202) 225-5665 (920) 437-1954 WI 8th District
Bart Stupak (202) 225 4735 MI (MAYBE)
Brian Baird (202) 225-3536, Vancouver, (360) 695-6292. Olympia, (360) 352-9768, (MAYBE)
senator mark begich (202) 224-3004 toll free. (877) 501 - 6275 just became a MAYBE
Jason Altmire 202-225-2565, Aliquippa, 724-378-0928,
Natrona Heights, 724-226-1304 (MAYBE)
On the Bubble (Major developments from the “yes” and “no” columns in the House)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2467046/posts
Congressional Dems on Twitter
http://www.arrghpaine.com/congressional-dems-on-twitter
And here are toll-free numbers we can use to call any Senators or Reps.
At the first number below you must wait through a tape recording urging you to tell your Rep or Senator to vote “yes” for the health care bill. Just hang on and when the recording is over, you will get the Capitol operator. Just ask for your Rep or Senator’s office. Then you will either talk to an aid or have the chance to leave a message for him/her to vote NO on the health care bill.
When you use the second number and the Capitol operator comes on, just ask for your Rep or Senator’s office. Every time I use this number I get the Rep or Senator’s answer machine, so it may be set up that way all the time...to go to their answer machine. Either way you can leave a message to vote NO on the health care bill!
We need to use these toll free numbers that have been set up for the health care/ BO supporters and illegals to use! After all they are FREE!
1-800-828-0498
1-866-220-0044
NOV is also a time to take out some RINOS and put in true Conservative Republicans.
It is indeed a “kamikaze” mission and Mark Steyn did a brilliant job of explaining why Obama and the Dems are willing to die (temporarily they are betting) for this obomination called ObamaCare.
Because passing it means ever-lasting power (at least for the rest of our lifetime and our children’s lifetimes) for the left in America.
Like herpes, once we’ve got Obamacare, we’ll never get rid of it.
This is a Mark Steyn must read!
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/health-237719-care-government.html
Liar! If I cooked my books like that I would be arrested! Seven years of 'health care' paid for in ten years! You start paying taxes as soon as it passes but you won't see the benefits for AT LEAST three more years!
And wait until seniors see their Health Advantage (prescription drugs) benefits disappear (as if that is ever going to happen). They will have to raise taxes AGAIN to cover that.
Gibbs, you liar, you damn liar!
"Do you save the President, or do you save "the People's" liberty?"
"Found in: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, vol. 4 (Novanglus, Thoughts on Government, Defence of the Constitution) - NO. III. - paragraph 144
"Obsta principiis (translation: resist the beginnings), nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society."
John Adams words castigate the "arbitrary power" holders in Washington today who have gained their offices by promises to "redistribute" the earnings of hard-working citizens, thereby encouraging dependency among the citizenry, and a certain path to tyranny by those who hold the reins of power in government.
“Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said the bill was necessary to rein in insurance premiums and health insurers’ unpopular practices. She attacked the group representing insurers, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), for “carpet-bombing” the Democratic healthcare proposals with critical television advertisements.”
Theres a solution for this. Simply allow the insurers to
sell plans across state lines, and regulate them at the
Fed rather than State level, repealing the mandates for
all the special coverages that some States require.
The first year of the Obama administration seemingly makes no sense. Why squander public approval by running up astronomical deficits in a time of pre-existing staggering national debt?
Why polarize opponents after promising bipartisan transcendence?
Why create vast new programs when the efficacy of big government is already seen as dubious?
But that is exactly the wrong way to look at the year of Obamist policy-making.
Take increased federal spending and the growing government absorption of GDP. Given the resiliency of the U.S. economy, it would have been easy to ride out the recession. In that case we would still have had to deal with a burgeoning and unsustainable annual federal deficit that would have approached $1 trillion.
Instead, Obama may nearly double that amount of annual indebtedness with more federal stimuli and bailouts, newly envisioned cap-and-trade legislation, and a variety of fresh entitlements. Was that fiscally irresponsible? Yes, of course.
But I think the key was not so much the spending excess or new entitlements. The point instead was the consequence of the resulting deficits, which will require radically new taxation for generations. If on April 15 the federal and state governments, local entities, the Social Security system, and the new health-care programs can claim 70 percent of the income of the top 5 percent of taxpayers, then that is considered a public good — every bit as valuable as funding new programs, and one worth risking insolvency.
Individual compensation is now seen as arbitrary and, by extension, inherently unfair. A high income is now rationalized as having less to do with market-driven needs, acquired skills, a higher level of education, innate intelligence, inheritance, hard work, or accepting risk. Rather income is seen more as luck-driven, cruelly capricious, unfair — even immoral, in that some are rewarded arbitrarily on the basis of race, class, and gender advantages, others for their overweening greed and ambition, and still more for their quasi-criminality.
“Patriotic” federal healers must then step in to “spread the wealth.” Through redistributive tax rates, they can “treat” the illness that the private sector has caused. After all, there is no intrinsic reason why an auto fabricator makes $60 in hourly wages and benefits, while a young investment banker finagles $500.
Or, in the president’s own language, the government must equalize the circumstances of the “waitress” with those of the “lucky.” It is thus a fitting and proper role of the new federal government to rectify imbalances of compensation — at least for those outside the anointed Guardian class. In a 2001 interview Obama in fact outlined the desirable political circumstances that would lead government to enforce equality of results when he elaborated on what he called an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”
Still, why would intelligent politicians try to ram through, in mere weeks, a thousand pages of health-care gibberish — its details outsourced to far-left elements in the Congress (and their staffers) — that few in the cabinet had ever read or even knew much about?
Once again, I don’t think health care per se was ever really the issue. When pressed, no one in the administration seemed to know whether illegal aliens were covered. Few cared why young people do not divert some of their entertainment expenditures to a modest investment in private catastrophic coverage.
Warnings that Canadians already have their health care rationed, wait in long lines, and are denied timely and critical procedures also did not seem to matter. And no attention was paid to statistics suggesting that, if we exclude homicides and auto accidents, Americans live as long on average as anyone in the industrial world, and have better chances of surviving longer with heart disease and cancer. That the average American did not wish to radically alter his existing plan, and that he understood that the uninsured really did have access to health care, albeit in a wasteful manner at the emergency room, was likewise of no concern.
The issue again was larger, and involved a vast reinterpretation of how America receives health care. Whether more or fewer Americans would get better or worse access and cheaper or more expensive care, or whether the government can or cannot afford such new entitlements, oddly seemed largely secondary to the crux of the debate.
Instead, the notion that the state will assume control, in Canada-like fashion, and level the health-care playing field was the real concern. “They” (the few) will now have the same care as “we” (the many). Whether the result is worse or better for everyone involved is extraneous, since sameness is the overarching principle.
We can discern this same mandated egalitarianism beneath many of the administration’s recent policy initiatives. Obama is not a pragmatist, as he insisted, nor even a liberal, as charged.
Rather, he is a statist. The president believes that a select group of affluent, highly educated technocrats — cosmopolitan, noble-minded, and properly progressive — supported by a phalanx of whiz-kids fresh out of blue-chip universities with little or no experience in the marketplace, can direct our lives far better than we can ourselves. By “better” I do not mean in a fashion that, measured by disinterested criteria, makes us necessarily wealthier, happier, more productive, or freer.
Instead, “better” means “fairer,” or more “equal.” We may “make” different amounts of money, but we will end up with more or less similar net incomes. We may know friendly doctors, be aware of the latest procedures, and have the capital to buy blue-chip health insurance, but no matter. Now we will all alike queue up with our government-issued insurance cards to wait our turn at the ubiquitous corner clinic.
None of this equality-of-results thinking is new.
When radical leaders over the last 2,500 years have sought to enforce equality of results, their prescriptions were usually predictable: redistribution of property; cancellation of debts; incentives to bring out the vote and increase political participation among the poor; stigmatizing of the wealthy, whether through the extreme measure of ostracism or the more mundane forced liturgies; use of the court system to even the playing field by targeting the more prominent citizens; radical growth in government and government employment; the use of state employees as defenders of the egalitarian faith; bread-and-circus entitlements; inflation of the currency and greater national debt to lessen the power of accumulated capital; and radical sloganeering about reactionary enemies of the new state.
The modern versions of much of the above already seem to be guiding the Obama administration — evident each time we hear of another proposal to make it easier to renounce personal debt; federal action to curtail property or water rights; efforts to make voter registration and vote casting easier; radically higher taxes on the top 5 percent; takeover of private business; expansion of the federal government and an increase in government employees; or massive inflationary borrowing. The current class-warfare “them/us” rhetoric was predictable.
Usually such ideologies do not take hold in America, given its tradition of liberty, frontier self-reliance, and emphasis on personal freedom rather than mandated fraternity and egalitarianism. At times, however, the stars line up, when a national catastrophe, like war or depression, coincides with the appearance of an unusually gifted, highly polished, and eloquent populist. But the anointed one [Comrade Brother Obama] must be savvy enough to run first as a centrist in order later to govern as a statist.
Given the September 2008 financial meltdown, the unhappiness over the war, the ongoing recession, and Barack Obama’s postracial claims and singular hope-and-change rhetoric, we found ourselves in just such a situation. For one of the rare times in American history, statism could take hold, and the country could be pushed far to the left.
That goal is the touchstone that explains the seemingly inexplicable — and explains also why, when Obama is losing independents, conservative Democrats, and moderate Republicans, his anxious base nevertheless keeps pushing him to become even more partisan, more left-wing, angrier, and more in a hurry to rush things through. They understand the unpopularity of the agenda and the brief shelf life of the president’s charm. One term may be enough to establish lasting institutional change.
Obama and his supporters at times are quite candid about such a radical spread-the-wealth agenda, voiced best by Rahm Emanuel — “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid” — or more casually by Obama himself —“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
So we move at breakneck speed in order not to miss this rare opportunity when the radical leadership of the Congress and the White House for a brief moment clinch the reins of power. By the time a shell-shocked public wakes up and realizes that the prescribed chemotherapy is far worse than the existing illness, it should be too late to revive the old-style American patient. Obama and Redistributive Change by Victor David Hanson (National Review)
“an act of political arrogance” that Americans haven’t seen since Watergate”?
Guess they do not remember that old political arrogant, “I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky”.
Pretty ballsy there too don’t ya think?
Madame Wicked-Witch-of-the-West is sky-writing "Surrender Dorothy" with the fumes from her smelly broom, and her Flying Monkeys are tugging furiously wavering Democritters from coast to coast. DON'T GIVE UP. The wretched Pelosi doesn't have the votes, and we can make double-dog sure it stays that way.
Here's the official Code Red List for the selected HOUSE DEMOCRATS THAT NEED TO BE PUSHED HARDEST.
The clickable links go to their online Message System. You can use the same City, State, Zip, and Area Codes as one of their local district offices (usually listed on the same page) with any street address you want --- you're using local information to get through their spam filter. For Zip+4, use any 4 digits added onto the selected Zip Code.
Write a brief, punchy letter in your Word Program, and cut-and-paste it to one congresscritter after another from the CODE RED LIST.
It is easy to do 15 or 20 of them in an hour.
Each Congressional website also has the phone, fax, and district office addresses for each Representative. Don’t have Fax? www.faxzero.com allows 2 free Faxes per day, available to anyone with internet.
I strongly urge you to phone, fax, and if at all possible, personally visit a District Office. This makes a maximum impression.
Madame Wicked-Witch-of-the-West is sky-writing "Surrender Dorothy" with the fumes from her smelly broom, and her Flying Monkeys are tugging furiously wavering Democritters from coast to coast. DON'T GIVE UP. The wretched Pelosi doesn't have the votes, and we can make double-dog sure it stays that way.
Here's the official Code Red List for the selected HOUSE DEMOCRATS THAT NEED TO BE PUSHED HARDEST.
The clickable links go to their online Message System. You can use the same City, State, Zip, and Area Codes as one of their local district offices (usually listed on the same page) with any street address you want --- you're using local information to get through their spam filter. For Zip+4, use any 4 digits added onto the selected Zip Code.
Write a brief, punchy letter in your Word Program, and cut-and-paste it to one congresscritter after another from the CODE RED LIST.
It is easy to do 15 or 20 of them in an hour.
Each Congressional website also has the phone, fax, and district office addresses for each Representative. Don’t have Fax? www.faxzero.com allows 2 free Faxes per day, available to anyone with internet.
I strongly urge you to phone, fax, and if at all possible, personally visit a District Office. This makes a maximum impression.
Look at it from their perspective. If they pass it, they have to face the wrath of about 60% of the electorate.
If they fail to pass it, they have to face the wrath of about 60% of the electorate WITHOUT MUCH OF THEIR BASE.
Which alternative would scare you more in their position?
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)