Thread: This Is Absolutely Unbelievable!!

Real CHANGE IN 2010!!!!

http://www.kickthemallout.com/

http://goooh.com/

PRESS RELEASE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intensify Obama Security Screen,
Says LaRouche
Dec. 22, 2009 (EIRNS)—With U.S. President Obama reduced to banging on doors to meet with the Chinese at Copenhagen, American statesman Lyndon LaRouche assessed that he is now seen as a total failure by his British controllers, making him expendable to them. For that reason, LaRouche called for Obama's security screen to be intensified, for the very worst thing now would be the assassination of the President. This is very real danger, LaRouche said, citing the lifting of Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi's security screen for an attack.

In Copenhagen, Obama failed to push through genocidal measures under the prextext of climate change, at a time when his authority and popularity at home are crashing. His deadly healthcare bill is now stuck. If the Senate passes any legislation, it must be reconciled with a House version after the New Year. Obama has pressed Congress so hard for a British eugenics-modelled bill, that the Wall Street Journal commented on Dec. 18, that "the Democratic Party is turning into a suicide pact." This week's NBC/Wall St. Journal poll shows only 32% of Americans think Obamacare is a "good" idea. According to the Washington Post, only 35% of Independent voters support it—a drop of 10 points in one month.

The former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, penned an op ed in the Washington Post of Dec. 17, in which he said that were he a Senator, "I would not vote for the current health care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health care.... I reluctantly conclude that, as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America."

Leading Democrats who have fought for Obama's program are being declared political dead meat. In North Dakota, for example, a recent Zogby poll showed only 28% of state voters support Obamacare, and a full 40% said that they would be less likely to vote for otherwise popular incumbent Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan in 2010 if he supports it. In Arkansas, where incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln faces a tough election in 2010, only 32% of voters support the White House healthcare policy.These are Senators whose votes Obama must have.

In addition, over the week before Christmas, four long-term moderate Democrats looked at the polls, and decided to retire. As of now, between 40-65% of African-Americans do not intend to vote in 2010, according to polls. The Congressional Black Caucus is furious with the President, as his "jobs" bill does not address the fact that the real unemployment rate in the African-American dominated inner cities is up to 49%.

As to "climate change," the Rasmussen poll showed that only 34% of Americans believe that man has an effect on climate change, while 50% think the change is caused by long-term planetary factors, with no human role in it.

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2009/0912 ... urity.html

They don't care or listen, they stopped replying to my letters, and they continually do the opposite of the will of the majority! If they won't voluntarily listen what can we do?

Originally Posted by 93camaro

They don't care or listen, they stopped replying to my letters, and they continually do the opposite of the will of the majority! If they won't voluntarily listen what can we do?

Real CHANGE IN 2010!!!!

http://www.kickthemallout.com/

http://goooh.com/

Rush is on this today.

Plus, the basic question is "CAN CONGRESS MANDATE PEOPLE TO BUY A PRODUCT?" Is this Constitutional?

Originally Posted by ShockedinCalifornia

Plus, the basic question is "CAN CONGRESS MANDATE PEOPLE TO BUY A PRODUCT?" Is this Constitutional?

I guess they think they can but I don't know how they will force all of us to do it, if thousands decide not too and thousands of people are against this. If we all REFUSE, that will be pretty devastating for them.

After talking to Barbara in Senator Risch's office this morning, I forwarded this to her in her personal office email. She responded right away with this:


Thank you. I have forwarded this on to the Senator’s legislative assistant that works on health care issues.

Barbara Strickfaden

Constituent Services Director

U.S. Senator James E. Risch

202-224-1008

Originally Posted by tinybobidaho

After talking to Barbara in Senator Risch's office this morning, I forwarded this to her in her personal office email. She responded right away with this:


Thank you. I have forwarded this on to the Senator’s legislative assistant that works on health care issues.

Barbara Strickfaden

Constituent Services Director

U.S. Senator James E. Risch

202-224-1008

WAY to GO TINY!!! I am getting the word out about this myself and posting on other sites, everyone needs to be aware of this TRAVESTY!!! How dare THEY try to take our country and our freedom of choice from us!!!!

Updated December 22, 2009
Health Care Bill Could Face String of Legal Challenges

FOXNews.com

Organizations and lawmakers opposed to the health care reform package are getting their legal briefs in a bunch, threatening to challenge the constitutionality of the sweeping overhaul should it make its way to President Obama's desk.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid speaks at a news conference on Capitol Hill Dec. 22. (AP Photo)

Organizations and lawmakers opposed to the health care reform package are getting their legal briefs in a bunch, threatening to challenge the constitutionality of the sweeping overhaul should it make its way to President Obama's desk.

Two key issues seem to be attracting the bulk of the legal threats: a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance and the special treatment that states like Nebraska are getting in the bill.

On the first issue, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., on Tuesday renewed the call to examine the constitutionality of whether the federal government can require Americans to purchase a product.

"I don't believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens," Ensign said in a statement, raising what's known as a "constitutional point of order." Such procedural challenges are rare and typically lead to a vote.

The non-profit Fund for Personal Liberty, as well as a Virginia-based group called the 10th Amendment Foundation, already have threatened to file suit in federal court over this issue if the health care bill passes.

The Constitution allows Congress to tax, borrow, spend, declare war, raise an army and regulate commerce, among other things. Proponents of the insurance mandate point to the Commerce Clause in arguing that Congress is within its rights to require health insurance and dismiss such potential legal challenges.

But foes say the across-the-board requirement is too broad.

"I personally do not believe the Congress has the authority to enact an individual mandate requiring a person to purchase a product from a private seller," said Kent Masterson Brown, lead counsel with The Fund for Personal Liberty. "I don't think the power is there. This is not regulating anything."

He said his group would be joined by the Washington Legal Foundation in filing suit against the health care bill.

"This thing may be stillborn, even if it passes," he said.

Even though Obama argues that the mandate is similar to laws requiring drivers to obtain auto insurance, opponents cite several key differences. First, the auto insurance mandate is avoidable, since anyone who doesn't want to pay doesn't have to drive. Second, auto insurance is mandated in large part so that drivers carry liability insurance to cover damages to other people and cars -- not themselves. Third, auto insurance regulation occurs at the state level.

When the Congressional Budget Office considered the idea of a health insurance mandate back in 1994 under the Clinton administration, it concluded that the mandate would be "an unprecedented form of federal action." The only congressional mandate close to that was the draft, the CBO concluded.

Ensign cited that finding in his complaint.

Still, the legislation does provide for federal subsidies for those who might have trouble affording insurance coverage, and it provides for exemptions for some individuals.

Other legal objections are emerging in the wake of a concession that Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., won for his state as a condition for his support of the health care bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed to provide for full and permanent federal aid for Nebraska's expanded Medicaid population. It was only one of a slew of hand-crafted sweetheart deals for those senators who agreed to support the bill.

But the Nelson deal swiftly drew the ire of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has asked his state's attorney general to give the issue a legal review. He told Fox News on Tuesday that other states can probably bring a "constitutional challenge" over the issue. He said it's unfair for one state to get special treatment while others pick up the tab.

"I don't believe most senators believe this is OK," Graham said. "I think it stinks. I think it's sleazy."

Graham said his state could file an equal rights suit under the Constitution. The Constitution calls for "equal protection" of all citizens.

Likewise, two Republican state representatives from Tennessee on Monday asked their state attorney general to look into the issue -- they called the Medicaid expansion an "unfunded mandate."

Rep. Debra Young Maggart and Rep. Susan Lynn claimed the Nebraska deal was unfair to other states and asked that Attorney General Robert Cooper take "appropriate legal action" against the federal government if the bill becomes law.

"It is clear by the wording of the legislation itself that not every state would face a similar and equal burden," they wrote. "We see this as a violation of equal protection of the law, an affront to our sovereignty, and a breach of the U.S. Constitution."

The non-profit Liberty Legal Institute is poised to assist states that are considering filing suit against the government over the health care bill. The group would not disclose where the suits might come from, but claimed great interest in putting health care reform to the legal test.

"There are a lot of states that are concerned that this violated the 10th Amendment and they are weighing their options," Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel, said in a statement.

The 10th Amendment declares that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are "reserved" for the states or "the people."

Still another challenge is coming from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who on the Senate floor raised concerns about a section in the health care bill that appears to say that the Senate cannot make changes to it in the future.

"It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection," the section says.

DeMint said he found that "particularly troubling."

"We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law," DeMint said. "I'm not even sure that it's constitutional."

The overall section the senator referred to applied to the creation of an Independent Medicare Advisory Board.

But a senior Reid aide noted that the language restricting the repeal of the measure only applied to one subsection -- a subsection dealing with the manner in which the proposal for the board is introduced and considered in Congress. The aide said the language DeMint found "troubling" did not apply to board or its duties as a whole.

Plus the aide noted that the language can be waived by a 60-vote majority in the Senate.

"It's really a sign of desperation," the aide said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12 ... itics%2529