PROVOCATION

Herman Cain
June 29, 2009

Why Does Congress Ignore the Public’s Wishes? Because They Don’t Care

Even though the congressional switchboard was shut down for a while last week due to calls from voters asking their representatives to vote no on the “American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454)”, the House of Representatives narrowly passed it anyway.

When former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was asked last Saturday on Fox News why Congress ignored public feedback on this legislation, he said that they know they can get away with it and they don’t care.

Congress continues to insult the people of this country because members know that a majority of voters are clueless, another large group have very short memories on Election Day and those voters that are involved with trying to bring about real change in Washington, D.C. through their respective political parties are victims of poor party leadership.

As a result, members of Congress can get away with ignoring public feedback and broken political promises because the clueless and the forgetful keep sending most of the same members back to Congress over and over again.

Once again, no member of Congress read the 1,000-plus page “climate bill”, just as not one member of Congress read the $787 billion, 1,000-plus page “stimulus bill” that passed recently. Members of Congress received both bills less than 24 hours before Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats called for a vote on these massive expansions of the federal government.

They don’t care that they are spending, taxing and regulating this country into socialism and financial oblivion while continuing to claim the opposite. The president is asking for these fast-track expansions of government after promising “transparency” in government when he was running for president.

This is not transparency. This is irresponsible and insulting.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California), chairman of the committee that wrote the “climate bill”, had a speed reader read the “climate bill” to the members of his committee. This was in response to the criticism of not giving members of Congress time to read the “stimulus bill” before sending it to the floor of the House for a vote.

The Democrats don’t care that they are misleading the public with bogus claims of how this legislation is going to create jobs and help spur the economy, because they can’t credibly substantiate or explain their claims.

The president simply says “trust me”, the people who dispute his claims are wrong, but the administration cannot tells us how they got their numbers. The president also said the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent if the “stimulus bill” were to pass. It did. The current unemployment rate is 9.4 percent and climbing.

Health care reform is the next mega-expansion of government on the Democrats’ fast track agenda. While addressing the American Medical Association recently concerning a proposed government health insurance option, the president said “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

White House officials later responded that the president’s rhetoric should not be taken literally. I suppose we should not take his promise of “transparency” literally, nor his promise of a five-day waiting period before he signs legislation into law. He signed the “stimulus bill” in three days.

Broken political promises and ignoring public feedback is doubly insulting, but some of us will remember on Election Day. Trust us.

© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer’s work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # HC169. Request permission to publish here.

Duke’s homosexual rape case elicits silence
Pete Chagnon – OneNewsNow – 7/1/2009 5:00:00 AM

Caution: This story contains descriptions that some may find offensive.

A professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington says the outrage over a homosexual statutory rape case at Duke University is a deafening sound of silence.

Frank Lombard, associate director of Duke University’s Center for Health Policy, has been accused of molesting his adopted five-year-old African-American son and offering him up for sex with strangers on the Internet. Lombard’s homosexual partner, who resides in the same house with Lombard, was allegedly unaware of the activities.

Mike Adams is a professor at UNC-Wilmington and has written several pieces on the case.

“The conduct that he was accused of engaging in, in front of a webcam with his five-year-old son, includes molestation,” Adams explains. “There was oral sex that was involved, and other very unhealthy practices that are too grotesque for me to describe….”

In a 2006 rape case involving white lacrosse players from Duke who were accused of raping a black stripper, more than 80 university officials and professors signed a statement accusing the players of racism. The players were eventually found innocent of all charges.

Adams wonders where those professors are now in this new rape case at the university. “I expect to see a continued silence on this,” he relates. “I don’t expect them to ever speak out on the issue — and I expect, as a result of that, Duke University to take a severe, severe hit in the court of public opinion.”

If convicted, Lombard faces up to 20 years in prison.

‘No truth’ in Obama’s speech before homosexuals
Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 7/1/2009 7:20:00 AM

A black evangelical Christian pastor and former NFL linebacker says there was “absolutely no truth in anything” President Obama said in his speech to homosexuals in the East Room of the White House Monday.

President Obama promised LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) supporters Monday at a White House “gay pride” celebration that he “will continue to be an ally and a champion” for their agenda, once again vowing he will repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. (Related article: Obama White House not appealing transgender ruling)

Ken Hutcherson, senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Washington state, says it is “a shame” that the president is “supporting what destroys the family.”

“There’s absolutely no truth in anything he said, from beginning to the end,” says Pastor Hutcherson. “There is no such thing as [a] biblical stance for homosexuality, if you use the Bible. If you want to use any other denomination, feel free — but where I stand is…biblical; it is marriage between one man [and] one woman, and that is the relationship, heterosexual, that is ordained, blessed, and called by God.”

In his talk, Obama acknowledged that many Americans still disapprove of homosexuality. “There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes,” he stated. (See related article) Hutcherson says those comments demonstrate the president has contempt for more than just conservative Christians.

“I think this president has a disdain for anyone who disagrees with anything about him — don’t just limit it to Christians and conservatives,” he remarks. “Brother, this man doesn’t like anyone who doesn’t think he’s the smartest man in the world.”

Hutcherson says until conservative Christians make their small voice a dominating one, there is nothing that will stop President Obama from pushing for the legalization of same-sex “marriage.”

As President Obama urges senators to follow the House on a controversial climate change bill, Republican leadership warns that the legislation will hurt the U.S. economy — from big business down to the individual taxpayer — with House Minority leader John Boehner calling the bill “a bureaucratic nightmare.”

The House narrowly passed the sweeping climate change bill during a late-night session Friday by a vote of 219-212. Forty-four Democrats broke rank to oppose the bill.

The legislation mandates reductions in greenhouse gases, puts emission limits on industry, and puts tighter restrictions on coal. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will cost $175 a year per household.

“By imposing a tax on every American who drives a car or flips on a light switch, this plan will drive up the prices for food, gasoline and electricity,” said Boehner, R-Ohio, in the Republicans’ weekly radio and Internet address.

Boehner calls the bill “a bureaucratic nightmare. It will cost jobs, depress real estate prices, put the government in the part of the economy, where it has no role.”

The sharply debated bill’s fate is unclear in the Senate, and Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address to ratchet up pressure on the 100-seat chamber.

“My call to every senator, as well as to every American, is this,” he said. “We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don’t believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth.”

“It will spur the development of low-carbon sources of energy — everything from wind, solar and geothermal power to safer nuclear energy and cleaner coal,” he said.

The vote marked the first time either house of Congress has passed legislation to curb global warming gases. The legislation, totaling about 1,200 pages, would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83 percent by mid-century.

Majority Leader Harry Reid says he wants to take up the legislation by the fall. Sixty votes will be needed to overcome any Republican filibuster.

The “razor-thin vote in the House spells doom in the Senate,” said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the top Republican on the Senate’s environment panel.

Reid, D-Nev., was more optimistic.

“The bill is not perfect, but it is a good product for the Senate,” Reid said. “Working with the president and his team, I am hopeful that the Senate will be able to debate and pass bipartisan and comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation this fall.”

Supporters and opponents agreed that the legislation would lead to higher energy costs. But they disagreed on the impact on consumers.

Democrats pointed to two reports — one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency — that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year. But Republicans and industry groups say the real figure would much higher.

The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of green jobs as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles — and away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

It will “make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who negotiated deals with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks to broaden the bill’s support.

Republicans saw it differently, with Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., declaring it “amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change.”

Government help that hurts
Star Parker – Syndicated Columnist – 6/22/2009 8:45:00 AM

The Democrats’ healthcare initiative reminds me of the joke about the Boy Scout fighting on a street corner with an old lady.

When a passerby asked what was going on, the scout said, “I’m trying to help her across the street but she refuses to go.”

Health insurance, so far, is not mandatory by law, and we’ve got 16 percent of the population — 47 million or so — without it. Auto insurance is mandatory by law, and according to the Insurance Research Council, 14 percent of drivers nationwide still don’t buy it.

Government can’t make people do what they don’t want to do. And it can’t change human nature.

Political freedom and capitalism work so well because they reflect the truth that human beings have free choice. But this means individuals take personal responsibility.

The left has always been in denial about this, which is why they’re endlessly trying to expand government and reduce freedom. They see individuals as hapless victims the state must take care of.

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama said “The reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it. It’s because they can’t afford it.”

This is largely not true.

According to a new study from the Employment Policy Institute, authored by two economists from City University of New York (one, June O’Neill, spent four years as head of the Congressional Budget Office), 43 percent of the 47 million can afford insurance and choose not to purchase it.

Read related commentary by Larry Elder

According to 2007 census data, 20 percent of uninsured households earn over $75,000.

Regarding the remaining 57 percent, the authors call them “involuntarily” uninsured because they can’t afford insurance. But “involuntarily” is also a misnomer, because it implies no connection in how they choose to live to the fact that they can’t afford insurance.

The study provides the following portrait of this population: About a third are high school dropouts; they are disproportionately young; about a third are immigrants, mostly Hispanic non-citizens; about half are single without children; about 40 percent did not work during the year.

Pulling immigrants out of the equation, we’re left with an uninsured population that can’t afford insurance that is about a third the size of the widely quoted 47 million. It’s a population that is generally poor, young, uneducated, and not working.

We’re already set up to deal with these folks. Either through Medicaid or covering their emergency room visits. The operative question is do we want to further institutionalize this reality into a new national healthcare plan involving trillions in new taxes and programs.

I think the answer is clear: No.

What should we do?

A recent study by consulting firm McKinsey & Company on American education estimates our annual GDP would increase by $500 billion if the educational performance of black and Latino kids is raised to the national average. Otherwise stated, it is costing us $500 billion per year to not do this.

This dwarfs the excessive costs in healthcare that our president now calls our No. 1 economic problem.

It is simply not credible for Obama to propose taxing Americans trillions to subsidize healthcare when he refuses to come to grips with why so many are poor.

Open the door to millions of poor kids out of broken families, broken public schools, and the cycle of poverty through school choice. Give them the opportunity to go to church schools.

Rather than perpetuating poverty through further institutionalization of the welfare state, expose poor kids to the values and education necessary to enable them to make the right choices for their lives.

There is no future for a nation of victims, whether we’re talking about healthcare or anything else. But there is a great future for a country of responsible, free people.

Star Parker (parker@urbancure.org) is president of CURE, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education and author of three books. This column is printed with permission.

Opinions expressed in ‘Perspectives’ columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.

The Obamacare horror story you won’t hear!

Michelle Malkin – Syndicated Columnist – 6/19/2009 7:20:00 AM

The White House, Democrats and MoveOn liberals are spreading healthcare sob stories to sell a government takeover. But there’s one healthcare policy nightmare you won’t hear the Obamas hyping. It’s a tale of poor minority patient-dumping in Chicago — with first lady Michelle Obama’s fingerprints all over it.

Both Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois have raised red flags about the outsourcing program run by the University of Chicago Medical Center. The hospital has nonprofit status and receives lucrative tax breaks in exchange for providing charity care.

Yet, in fiscal year 2007, when Mrs. Obama was employed there, it spent a measly $10 million on charity care for the poor — 1.3 percent of its total hospital expenses, according to an analysis performed for The Washington Post by the nonpartisan Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. The figure is below the 2.1 percent average for nonprofit hospitals in surrounding Cook County.

Rep. Rush called for a House investigation last week in response to months of patient-dumping complaints, noting: “Congress has a duty to expend its power to mitigate and prevent this despicable practice from continuing in centers that receive federal funds.”

Don’t expect the president to support a probe. While a top executive at the hospital, Mrs. Obama helped engineer the plan to offload low-income patients with non-urgent health needs. Under the Orwellian banner of an “Urban Health Initiative,” Mrs. Obama sold the scheme to outsource low-income care to other facilities as a way to “dramatically improve healthcare for thousands of South Side residents.”

In truth, it was old-fashioned cost-cutting and favor-trading repackaged as minority aid. Clearing out the poor freed up room for insured (I.e., more lucrative) patients. If a Republican had proposed the very same program and recruited black civic leaders to front it, Michelle Obama and her grievance-mongering friends would be screaming “RAAAAAAAAACISM!” at the top of their lungs.

Joe Stephens of The Washington Post wrote, “To ensure community support, Michelle Obama and others in late 2006 recommended that the hospital hire the firm of David Axelrod, who a few months later became the chief strategist for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Axelrod’s firm (ASK Public Strategies) recommended an aggressive promotional effort modeled on a political campaign — appoint a campaign manager, conduct focus groups, target messages to specific constituencies, then recruit religious leaders and other third-party ‘validators.’ They, in turn, would write and submit opinion pieces to Chicago publications.”

Some healthcare experts saw through Mrs. Obama and PR man Axelrod — yes, the same Axelrod who is now President Obama’s senior adviser. But the University of Chicago Medical Center hired ASK Public Strategies to promote Mrs. Obama’s initiative. Axelrod had the blessing of Chicago political guru Valerie Jarrett — now a White House senior adviser.

Axelrod’s great contribution: re-branding! His firm recommended renaming the initiative after “internal and external respondents expressed the opinion that the word ‘urban’ is code for ‘black’ or ‘black and poor.’ …Based on the research, consideration should be given to re-branding the initiative.” Axelrod and the Obama campaign refused to disclose how much his firm received for its genius re-branding services.

In February 2009, outrage in the Obamas’ community exploded upon learning that a young boy covered by Medicaid had been turned away from the University of Chicago Medical Center. Dontae Adams’ mother, Angela, had sought emergency treatment for him after a pit bull tore off his upper lip. Mrs. Obama’s hospital gave the boy a tetanus shot, antibiotics and Tylenol, and shoved him out the door. The mother and son took an hour-long bus ride to another hospital for surgery.

I’ll guarantee you this: You’ll never see the Adams family featured at an Obama policy summit or seated next to the first lady at a joint session of Congress to illustrate the failures of the healthcare system.

Following the Adams incident, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) blasted Mrs. Obama and Axelrod’s grand plan. The group released a statement expressing “grave concerns that the University of Chicago’s policy toward emergency patients is dangerously close to ‘patient dumping,’ a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)” — signed by President Reagan, by the way — “and reflected an effort to ‘cherry pick’ wealthy patients over poor.”

Rewarding political cronies at the expense of the poor while posing as guardians of the downtrodden? Welcome to Obamacare.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Michelle Malkin (malkinblog@gmail.com) is author of the forthcoming “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2009).

Opinions expressed in ‘Perspectives’ columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.

Hello Intelligent Thinker.

As the war of words about healthcare “reform” (bill # not yet assigned) heats up in Washington, DC, each faction is trying to fashion its own idea of how best to get the sheeple on the road to health care rationing. We need to remind our members of congress to:

Please VOTE NO to mandated health insurance.
Please VOTE NO to a Government health insurance option.
Both of these ideas would certainly put this country on the road to socialized medicine and eventually to healthcare rationing.

Please contact your Members of Congress ASAP because many of them are not listening, so we will continue to let them know how we feel.

Thank you.
Herman Cain – Head Coach
Intelligent Thinkers Movement

Take Action: Ask Your Federal Representatives to…

Please VOTE NO to mandated helath insurance.

Please VOTE NO to a government health insurance option.

Subject: NO Government Health Insurance
Issue Arrea: Health

Yesterday President Obama’s team repeated what I believe is the most outrageous lie of his Administration.

The President and his team again claimed the stimulus has “saved” 150,000 jobs during a time when 1.6 million jobs were actually lost!

+ + Obama’s magical “saved” jobs

This is the same BALD-FACED LIE Obama has been telling since last November — when his plan to “create” jobs was carefully morphed into a plan to “save or create” jobs.

That small change has given Obama the ability to claim that his programs are working even when they are failing!

No matter how bad the economy gets, or how high unemployment rises, Obama and his team can simply CLAIM that their massive stimulus spending still “saved” jobs.

But it is a bald-faced lie!

And we have the proof.

+ + Unemployment is WORSE that Obama even projected!

In January, Obama announced his big-spending “stimulus” would “save or create at least 3 million jobs by the end of 2010.” Obama justified this by saying his spending PLAN would cause unemployment to be lower than what economists were projecting.

But the opposite has happened… unemployment has soared to 9.4 percent in May and hundreds of thousands more jobs have been lost than had been originally projected pre-stimulus.

Yet Obama still claims to have “saved” 150,000 jobs. In fact, using Obama’s own warped logic, there is a better case to be made that Obama has DESTROYED hundreds of thousands of jobs since the economy is WORSE than what was expected.

I have posted up even more details for you on my
ResistNet blog — including a chart which graphically
exposes the “saved jobs” lie. Go here:

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=19530&RID=20927685

By the way, if you have not yet signed up at ResistNet, please do so today. We simply cannot fight back against the Obama Statist regime unless we build stronger connections at the grassroots, and ResistNet is doing just that. Go here to sign up:

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=19531&RID=20927685

+ + Action Item: Help Me Expose Obama’s Lie!

This one lie about “saved jobs” justifies every socialist, big-government, liberal spending scheme this Administration devises! If we allow Obama to get away with this lie, he will claim political success and doom America to another decade of statism!

We simply cannot allow Obama to get away with this bald-faced lie about “saving” jobs.

Here’s what I’m asking you to do…

Please call President Obama and your members of Congress and tell them that Obama must stop using the deceptive “saved jobs”
language.

+ + Talking Points

1. President Obama must immediately stop his untruthful claims of
“saved jobs” as a measure of his Administration’s success.

2. “Saved jobs” is a meaningless economic term designed to
give political cover for failed policies.

3. Obama must be judged like all other Presidents on job “creation”
during his Administration — not bogus “saved jobs” that allow
Obama to claim success no matter what happens in the economy.

4. The fact is, job losses have only accelerated above
projections since President Obama dramatically increased
government spending.

5. We must break this pattern of endless government spending.
I urge you to “Stop The Spending.”

+ + Contact Numbers

President Obama

–Switchboard: 202-456-1414

–Comment Line: 202-456-1111

Thank you again for taking action!

Steve Elliott, President
Grassfire.org

Michelle Obama trip…….Interesting Information! ….It explains a lot!

I had not even thought about the reason Michelle didn’t do the whole trip with Obama until reading this.

I do not know who originated this message, but it sure is a possible explanation.

I was at Blockbusters on Saturday renting videos, and I was going along the wall and there was a video called “Obama”.
I told the men next to me that I wouldn’t waste my time.
We started talking about Obama.
These guys were Arabs, and I asked them why they thought Michele Obama headed home following her visit in France instead of traveling on to Saudi Arabia and Turkey with her husband.

They said she couldn’t go to Saudi Arabia , Turkey or Iraq .
I said “Laura Bush went to Saudi Arabia , Turkey , Dubai.”
They answered, “Obama is a Muslim, and by Muslim law, he would not be allowed to bring his wife into the countries that accept Sharia Law.”

Just thought it was interesting that the Arabs at Blockbuster’s accept the idea that we’re being led by a Muslim … who follows the Islamic creed.

They also said that’s the reason he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia .. It was a signal to the Muslim world. Just thought you would like to know.

Odd, I thought HE SAID he was a Christian.

Now he wouldn’t lie to us would he?

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
By Lou Pritchett

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don’t understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America’ crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.

Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated “open letter.” “I did write the ‘you scare me’ letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits