Vote on Values not Labels

I was reading an article in the New York Times yesterday about the Congressional Race in New York's 23rd district. There is a three way race: Bill Owens - Democrat, Douglas Hoffman - Conservative Party, Dede Scozzafaza - Republican.

It is alarming to me that people, who are supposedly in the know, think that electing someone with the desired label next to their name is all that is needed when that person's beliefs and record show that they have little in common with their label. In this case, Dede Scozzafaza has been endorsed by Newt Gingrich who believes that the Republican party must prioritize getting its numbers up. I think Newt is wrong. We must first take a stand for our principles. Compromising our principles is not a way to win support but to become obsolete as an option.

Why should I or any other conservative vote for a person/label who doesn't and won't support my principles, beliefs, and values? I would think that Mr. Gingrich would have learned a lesson by the example of Senator Arlen Specter who happily took Republican money and endorsements but switched labels when it was beneficial for himself.

I agree with Sarah Palin when she wrote on facebook, "Unfortunately, the Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate who more than blurs the lines, and there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race. This is why Doug Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party's ticket."

Doug Hoffman says that he values "smaller government, less taxes, fiscal responsibility and not spending money you don’t have". I think a lot more of our senators and representatives need to learn some fiscal responsibility - especially since it is NOT their money that they are wasting.

One may wonder what some other district's election has to do with anything. My answer is that each of the elected members of Congress vote on laws concerning all Americans, not just their own district. What can you do? You can spread the word and you can support Hoffman's campaign.

Send a message to Washington: We are silent no more.

Letter to the President

I just sent a letter to President Obama via Susan B. Anthony List. In the letter are the facts concerning the funding of abortion in the current congressional health care bill. Because this form letter has such good information, I posted it here for you to read. If you would like to send a letter to the President demanding the truth be told, you may write your own or go to http://www.sba-list.org/obama.

Dear President Obama,

As one of your constituents, I am disappointed that you have chosen to mislead the American people in regard to abortion funding in the health care bill.

On August 19th, you stated: “You've heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true. This is all, these are all fabrications that have been put out there. . .”

President Obama, you are misleading the American people. Here are the facts:

The Capps Amendment, as passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, explicitly requires every enrollee of a government-subsidized health insurance plan to be charged an extra fee to cover abortions. The federal agency administering the health care plan will collect the premium money, receive bills from abortionists, and send the abortionists payment checks from the federal Treasury account.

In response, many pro-abortion politicians are hiding behind the Hyde Amendment, but the truth is the Hyde Amendment does not apply because federal subsidies for private plans and start up money for the public plan are directly appropriated under H.R. 3200.

Therefore, I demand that you oppose any health care bill unless abortion is explicitly excluded from the scope of any federally mandated, federally subsidized, or federally defined health insurance plans.

President Obama, my concerns are not fabrications, they are facts. They are facts that even the mainstream media confirms. Consider these quotes:

“The health-care reform proposed by House Democrats, if enacted, would in fact mark a significant change in the federal government's role in the financing of abortions. […] So in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find themselves paying for abortion coverage. […] Nonetheless, the new system differs markedly from the old federal policy of not involving the government in abortion services unless issues of rape, incest or the life of the mother are at play.” - TIME, August 24, 2009, “How Abortion Could Imperil Health Care Reform.”

“Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.” -The Associated Press, August 5, 2009, “Gov’t Insurance Would Allow Coverage for Abortion.”

“Obama has said in the past that ‘reproductive services’ would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that… Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions ‘fabrications.’”-Factcheck.org, August 21, 2009, “Abortion: Which Side is Fabricating?”

President Obama, the current health care reform proposals, if enacted, would result in the greatest expansion of abortion since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision imposed abortion on America in 1973.

Polls consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Americans are pro-life. Abortion must be explicitly excluded to ensure the pro-life views of Americans are properly reflected in any health care reform effort.

Susan B. Anthony List Activist

Words from a Great Defender of Freedom

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

- President Ronald Reagan

The Tip of the Healthberg

There is so much to say regarding the Health Care Plan in Congress that I will have to do it a portion at a time. The bill is H.R. 3200 with the "short title" being ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009’’ and it is 1,017 pages long. You can read it online. I urge you to request your Congressman to read it as most have not and seem to have no intention of doing so. I have begun to read it in its entirety as well as having read sections of it.

What is the purpose of the Congressional Health Care Plan?
To begin the statement of purpose is "To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes." The emphasis is mine because when I read that, I immediately wondered what other purposes are in this health care bill?

Will you be able to keep your current health insurance plan?
On page 16, Section 102, ironically titled "Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage", states that individual health insurance issuer cannot enroll new individuals on or after the first day of Y1 (which is 2013) except for new dependents of current individuals who are already covered. Neither can the health insurance issuer change any of its terms, conditions, benefits, or cost-sharing. If a health insurance company is so regulated as to be unable to accept new clients or make any changes whatsoever that company will be put out of business. No new clients equals a dying business. Page 19, lines 1-5 states that individual insurance coverage offered on or after the first day of 2013 must be "an Exchange-participating health benefits plan". What is that? Page 116, line 10-12 tells us that an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is referred to as "public health insurance option." Some "option" that is! The answer is that if you have individual health insurance coverage, you may be able to keep it for awhile but it won't be long before your insurance company would be forced out of business and your only option would then be the public option.

Who will run the "Public Option"?
There are many people listed in just the first 40 pages who will be responsible for portions or all of the government run insurance plan. There will be a Health Benefits Advisory Committee which will include: the Surgeon General (who is appointed by the President) will be a member and the chair of this Committee, 9 non-federal employees appointed by the President, 9 non-federal employees appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States (who is appointed by the President), and an even number (up to 8) of Federal employees and officers appointed by the President. At this time there is both an Acting Comptroller General of the United States and an Acting Surgeon General who will be replaced by a President Obama appointee. 2/3 of this Health Benefits Advisory Committee will be directly appointed by the President and 1/3 of the Committee will be appointed by a person who was himself appointed by the President. The job of the Committee is to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans to the Secretary of Health and Human Services as stated on page 32, line 22-25.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services is to establish the office of ombudsman for the public health insurance option. (I have not yet read what the ombudsman is supposed to do.) Page 116, line 14-17 tells us that the Secretary designs the "options" of the Exchange benefit levels: basic, enhanced, premium, and premium-plus. (Is that supposed to be the "competition" I hear about?) The Secretary shall collect such data as required to establish premiums and payments rates for the public option as stated on page 118, lines 4-9.
Then there is the establishment of the Health Choices Administration, an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, which will be headed by the Health Choices Commissioner who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Read this for yourself in Section 141 on page 41. The Commissioner shall collect data for the purposes of carrying out Commissioner's duties... and may share such data with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. (page 43, lines 19-24) The Commissioner, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Labor shall conduct a study of the large group insured and self-insured employer health care markets. (page 21, lines 23-26) Page 42, line 12 states the Commissioner is responsible for the establishment and operation of a Health Insurance Exchange which is the Public Option. (page 116, line 14-17)
To sum up, the Public Option will be run by a newly established government agency in the executive branch, a Commissioner appointed by the President, the Surgeon General appointed by the President, the Secretary of Health and Human Services appointed by the President, and a Committee which is 2/3 appointed by the President and 1/3 appointed by a presidential appointee. Does anyone else see a massive power grab by the Executive Branch of the Government?

Who will choose your coverage?
In all these 1,017 pages, the specific coverage and exceptions of benefits and the cost to us is not specified but instead power is given to the above listed people (most of whom are yet to be appointed) to choose insurance for you instead of you having the power to choose your own plan, or choose not to be insured, or the amount of coverage you want for yourself.

Just as you only see the tip of a massive iceberg, so the health care bill only shows us portions of what is its entirety. The rest will be determined after power has been handed over to the Government. Will the United States choose a collision course with this monstrosity? I hope not.

If this posting makes you feel overwhelmed, just consider that I've only partially commented on the first 40 pages and those pages to which they referred. There is much more to come.... another day.

Justice for All?

President Obama has nominated his first Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor. When he spoke of selecting a Supreme Court justice, he said he wanted to choose a woman or a minority. Sonia Sotomayor is both a woman and Hispanic. This limited idea of what sex or race from which to choose bothers me. Should he not simply choose the best person for the job instead of choosing the best from a certain group? Is the United States not worthy of the best? If a Hispanic woman happens to be the best then that is great. Good for her. However, I do not think that Sonia Sotomayor is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Judge Sotomayor has stated that "a court of appeals is where policy is made." Really? Perhaps someone should let the legislature know that their services are no longer needed because I'm pretty sure that is why they are working. The legislature makes the laws. We do not need legislating from the bench. A court's job is to interpret the law and decide cases brought before it.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” This is a statement made by Sotomayor! How does that sound to you? What about this? I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life. I suggest that if a white male judge made this statement he would be lambasted with criticism and not given a chance at advancement and rightly so. Justice is to be blind. The law is to be enforced fairly without favoritism to one sex, race, or ideology. If her race, sex, and experiences trump the Constitution and federal laws then she should not be a Supreme Court Justice. According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Regarding the preborn, Senator Jim DeMint stated "When I asked if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it. This is not just a question about abortion, but about respect due to human life at all stages -- and I hope this is cleared up in her hearings." I would expect someone who has made decisions about abortion to have considered all the facts instead of simply dismissing that there is another human life to consider in a case.

As she testifies before the Senate judicial committee this week she is not getting great reviews.

In response to Senator Coburn on the use of foreign law, Sotomayor says, “There’s a public misunderstanding of the word ‘use.’" Really? Please don't insult Americans by telling us we don't know the meaning of simple words.

When asked if a person has the right to self-defense, she wavers. She starts talking about if she were to go home and get her gun... Um, excuse me, even most crime show watchers know that is not self-defense but revenge. Maybe someone should buy Judge Sonia a dictionary. Certainly I'm not the only one who wonders why she feels as though she must cloud questions and answers with political non-sense.

Republican senators are being criticized for the questions they are asking. Should they go easy on her because she is a woman? I thought women wanted equality. When you are considering someone for such an important job that is a lifetime appointment, you would be negligent not to determine how that person will perform that job. I find it ironic that a person can be chosen for a position based on their sex or race and then criticism of that person's policies is called racist.

Iran and Freedom

I've been "watching" the news of Iran on Twitter. All you can get are short snippets and links to video, pictures, or articles. The news in Iran is state run so the people are circumventing regular channels in order to let the world know what is happening. All the while, I've been praying for the people of Iran. Like all souls, they long for freedom. What began as an election protest is escalating into a revolution. When people are discounted, silenced, and oppressed something has got to give. The call of every heart is FREEDOM. I do not know what the outcome will be but I know the longing has been loosed and the sparks are spreading.

There are several great editorials about what is happening in Iran: One by Peggy Nonoon, one by Paul Wolfowitz, and another by Charles Krauthammer. The protesters are trying hard to get their message out to the world and their government is trying just as hard to silence them. This week the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution in support of the Iranian citizens. The resolution states:

Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace
the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for
other purposes.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of
freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;
(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and
(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the
importance of democratic and fair elections.

Will President Obama support hope and change in Iran? Will he take a stand against tyranny? I hope so.

Perhaps their struggle for freedom will remind us that freedom is not something we should take for granted. Freedom lost is hard to regain. As we stand in spirit with Iranians, let us not give up our freedoms here. Let us be free to speak, free to disagree, free to give input, free to compete, free to pray, and free to worship. Let FREEDOM ring. In Iran. And in America.

Don't Allow Hate to Beget Hate

In the wake of these recent shootings, I hear people claiming this one is a right-wing extremist and this one is a left-wing extremist. When I hear these outrageous claims, I think that people are trying to paint with the same brush anyone who has any commonalities as these men who had allowed themselves to be filled with bitterness and who fed on their anger. These men are hateful extremists, period. I don't believe either side of the spectrum would claim them as their own.

We don't need to polarize each other. Everyone has different views and should be free to express them without the fear of being clumped in the same category as a murderer. I am pro-life but I do not condone the murder of an abortion provider. Another person is anti-war but doesn't condone the murder of a U.S. soldier. And racism is just plain stupid. To quote Prince of Thieves, "God likes variety."

Let's not demonize each other. I suggest the proper reaction is to convey our sympathy and grief to those families that have lost a loved one and allow no root of bitterness and hate to take hold of us. The more people hate each other, the more damage is done to our souls and we become that which we don't want to be. Angry. Hateful. Bitter.

"I would have lost heart, unless I had believed that I would see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. Wait on the Lord; Be of good courage, And He shall strengthen your heart; Wait, I say, on the Lord!" Psalm 27:13-14

What do you support?

Red Envelopes

Today is Red Envelope Day and people around the country are sending their red envelopes to President Barack Obama.

The message is simple: This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception.

50 million babies have died in abortion and were not given the choice to live. Numbers are hard to "see." As these envelopes make their way to the White House, perhaps we'll have a better picture of how many lives have been lost and mothers have been used, misinformed, and wounded.

There are so many people longing for babies ...

Irony

Isn't it ironic that our "pro-choice" president wants to remove the federal regulations known as "conscience protections" which protect medical/health care professionals' freedom of choice? The only choice he seems to want to promote is abortion.

These regulations are in place to prevent doctors, nurses and other health care providers from being discriminated against, persecuted, fired or denied promotions based on their refusal to perform actions which violate their conscience. Forcing people to choose between their conscience and their occupational success doesn't sound like freedom to me.

James Madison wrote, "Conscience is the most sacred of all property..."

There is still time to let your opinion be known. You can read more and comment here.

Should I Get That in Writing?

When my husband first mentioned to me that Congress wanted to pass a law taking away 90% of the bonuses paid by AIG, "I thought that won't happen, it's not legal."

Apparently, the majority of the House of Representatives doesn't care about legality. Yesterday, they trampled the constitution by passing legislation taxing 90% of this group of people's income. This is government taking aim at a group of people they don't like and confiscating their money, the income they had contractually earned.

These bonuses were no surprise. The payout of these AIG bonuses were even provided for by Chris Dodd inserting a loophole for "contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009" in the stimulus package. The outrage by Congress is a sham. Now it is evident that contracts and words spoken mean absolutely nothing to Congress and Timothy Geithner.

Who will be the next target of Congress? Who else will be targeted because the government doesn't like them, their income, their job, their political beliefs, their religion? Will you only say something if the target is you? Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you can punish them at will.

So much for private property and the pursuit of happiness.

Battle for Free Speech

Senator Jim DeMint has put forth the Broadcast Freedom Act banning the Fairness Doctrine. At the same time, Senator Durbin has offered an amendment which will impose the fairness doctrine through FCC regulations.

The Fairness Doctrine is a clever name. Who doesn't want to be fair? If liberals truly wanted fairness, they would be talking about balancing the liberal-leaning television news, Hollywood, newspapers and more. These liberals don't want to be fair though. They want to silence the voices of dissent. In actuality, it is a censorship doctrine. By trying to force a balance of ideas on radio, the government stomps all over free speech. Powers that be, which are supposed to be representing the people who elected them, are instead trying to determine to whom and to what people listen. Apparently, we don't have the sense to choose for ourselves.

News from Senator DeMint on the Senate floor yesterday:

• Senator Durbin says "the contents of media should reflect the diversity of America." translation: DC politicians decide what Americans hear.


• The Durbin amendment passed 57 – 41. All the GOP opposed it. Democrats exposed their plans to impose the fairness doctrine in the backdoor by FCC regulation .


• The Broadcast Freedom Act ban Fairness Doctrine also passed. Victory for free speech.


• Senator DeMint: We have closed the front door on Fairness Doctrine, but the Durbin amendment opens back door to censorship. The fight goes on.


• The ban on Fairness Doctrine passes 87-11. But the fight is not over, Democrats have attacked from back door on media ownership and localism.

Senator Durbin argued that what he was proposing is already in place. So why propose it? Hmm? He's hoping that by forcing diversity in ownership, less airtime will be given to conservatism.

Let's think about this: Diversity in ownership. Who determines diversity? Is it male/female? Black/White/Hispanic? Republican/Democrat? Christian/Atheist/Muslim? I suggest it will be whichever promotes liberal viewpoints. They may have to switch it up in order to find "the right balance."

The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." To silence or ration the voices of dissent is unethical and unconstitutional.

Red Envelopes for President Obama

I received this email today. I'll be participating and I hope you will too!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Friends,

This afternoon I was praying about a number of things, and my mind began to wander. I was deeply distressed at the symbolic actions that President Obama took as he began his presidency. Namely, that he signed executive orders releasing funds to pay for abortions, permission to fund human stem cell research, and federal funding for contraception. I have been involved in the pro-life movement for nearly 20 years, and it pained my heart to see a man and a political party committed to the shedding of innocent blood. This man, and this party lead our country, but they do not represent me or the 54% of Americans who believe that abortion is wrong and should no longer be legal.

As I was praying, I believe that God gave me an interesting idea. Out in the garage I have a box of red envelopes. Like the powerful image of the red LIFE tape, an empty red envelope will send a message to Barack Obama that there is moral outrage in this country over this issue. It will be quiet, but clear.

Here is what I would like you to do:

Get a red envelope. You can buy them at Kinkos, or at party supply stores. On the front, address it to:

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington , D.C. 20500

On the back, or on a note inside, write the following message.

This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception.

Put it in the mail, and send it. Then forward this email to every one of your friends who you think would send one too. I wish we could send 50 million red envelopes, one for every child who died before having a chance to live. Maybe it will change the heart of the president.

We should all try to mail them on the same day so they arrive within a day or two of each other and be even more of a visual at the White House. With Valentine's Day coming up, red envelopes should be easy to come by too. Say we all mail them on the weekend of March 27-31st*. That gives us almost month to pass the word as far and wide as we can. Of course, you can send a red envelope anytime you want, but getting lots at once is great too.

So pass the word!


And all your children shall be taught of the Lord and great shall be the peace of your children. Isaiah 54:13

*The date has been adjusted to March 31st as Red Envelope Day. You can visit the website for more information. http://www.redenvelopeday.com/

No Strings Please

Governor Bobby Jindal gets kudos from me for sincerely doing the best for Louisiana. The Governor said, "We'll have to review each program, each new dollar to make sure that we understand what are the conditions, what are the strings and see whether it's beneficial for Louisiana to use those dollars."

The stimulus bill that was passed has strings attached causing the federal government to grow, to expand beyond what our founders designed and set forth in the Constitution of the United States. When strings are attached to a "gift", it's not a gift but a way to control others.

The So-Called Freedom of Choice Act

When President Obama was campaigning, he said that he wanted to reduce the number of abortions. However, during his first week in office he signed an executive order overturning the Mexico City policy. The Mexico City policy, first enacted by then President Ronald Reagan, prohibited use of U.S. tax dollars to fund or promote abortions in foreign countries. This means that our tax dollars now are funding abortions in foreign countries. His order does not reduce the number of abortions but forces us to pay for the expansion of abortion around the world.

Throughout his political career, Mr. Obama has had a legacy of death. When making a campaign speech, he said, "if my daughters make a mistake then I wouldn't want them punished with a baby." As a senator in the Illinois Senate he voted against the Born Alive Act. When asked what decision he would do differently, he chose the Terri Schiavo vote where he actually did vote to give her a chance at life. When speaking to Planned Parenthood, he promised that if he were elected as president that he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

The Freedom of Choice Act would allow abortion to take place at any time during pregnancy, for any reason. According to NOW, this legislation would “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws and policies.” These are laws and policies that elected officials and everyday people have voted on and passed. This act would negate the choice of the people to limit and reduce abortions. It would sweep away laws and policies protecting girls and women from an uninformed decision regarding a medical procedure that kills an innocent baby and often causes mental and/or physical harm or even death to the mothers. FOCA would override laws that require parental consent before an underage girl can be given an abortion. It would eradicate laws like The Partial Birth Abortion Ban that put a stop to stabbing the head of a late term baby before she is completely born and sucking her brains out. The Freedom of Choice act would not give hospitals and doctors the choice to refuse an abortion, regardless of their beliefs. Would Catholic hospitals have to close their doors as an alternative to sinning against their conscience? Pro-life doctors and nurses would have to choose between being forced to kill or quit their vocation. Where is the freedom of choice in that?

So far the public outcry against this legislation has been loud and clear. We must not stop fighting for what is right. Stand strong for our God-given rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Congress has not yet reintroduced FOCA. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards told the Wall Street Journal: "We're going to be smart and strategic about our policy agenda to bring people together to make progress for women's health. The Freedom of Choice Act is very important . . . but we have a long list of things to get done that I think can address problems immediately that women are facing, that are really immediate concerns." If this legislation were to be introduced and passed piecemeal, it would still be just as devastating to our nation.

If you do not know what abortion entails or have never fully considered the consequences of it, you can click here. This site will give you abortion facts, articles, and testimonies.

You can contact your Representatives and tell them not to allow the taxpayer funding of abortions. You can sign a petition against the Freedom of Choice Act at http://www.fightfoca.com/ This is our nation, let's make our voices heard. Stand strong and choose life at every opportunity.

Quoteworthy

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."
-Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-Thomas Jefferson

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child."
-Mother Theresa

Is it really a Stimulus Package?

President Obama says spending is stimulus. I believe sustained spending is stimulus. Spending that business owners can continue to count on will, in return, encourage investment and more hiring. Temporary influx of money is just that: nothing long term. Who do you think is wiser in how to spend? Do you think it is government which does not have a balanced budget and is known for wasteful spending or you who knows there is a limit to spending and prioritizes? Will it think there is stimulus when inflation skyrockets because of our government printing all this extra money and our dollar's value drops?

When the government takes less away from hard-working, business-owning, investing Americans, we will have more of our own hard-earned money to invest in the economy in ways that benefit other businesses and local economy. When the government takes more from the achievers, i.e. business owners and entrepreneurs, there is less incentive to work so hard and to succeed since you are "punished" for your success.

This is an interesting website where you can see exactly to where and on what this stimulus bill has designated money. http://www.stimuluswatch.org/ You can vote on what you think is critical or not. I would suggest you consider whether that project truly will stimulate the economy or whether it is just a pet project or social program put into the bill while "the spending is good." Some projects listed seem like good ideas but don't seem to belong in this bill and probably should be paid by their own states or municipalities.

Our Constitution begins with "We the People of the United States" not "Those who govern the masses". We must take responsibility for our lives and our nation. Government is not supposed to manage our lives or our companies but to secure these rights: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If you believe this stimulus package is not what they call it, you can sign this petition.

Big Pushes - Stand Firm

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," said Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's chief of staff on November 21, 2008.

It seems that Obama and his team are trying to push through so much legislation and nominations as quickly as possible to overwhelm and/or prevent people from realizing what is being crammed down our throats.

President Obama has nominated four people to the Justice Department who have horrible records on pro-family issues. These are David Ogden, Dawn Johnson, Thomas Perrelli, and Elana Kagan. David Ogden opposes restrictions on abortion and pornography. He filed a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in support of child pornographer, Steven Knox. Dawn Johnson is the former legal director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. Thomas Perrelli, Obama’s nominee to serve as associate attorney general, represented Terri Schiavo’s husband as he fought to have food and water withheld from his disabled wife. He was successful and she died a horrible death. Elana Kagan lacks the qualifications for solicitor general as she has never argued a case to the supreme court which is the solicitor general's function. Apparently, she has not even tried a single case. She does qualify as a far-left liberal though.

The stimulus bill just passed in the Senate. The House and the Senate still will need to reconcile the bill. It contains grievous governmental growth and interference. President Obama has claimed it there are no earmarks in this bill. I guess he hasn't read it or even been briefed on it. Why are groups like ACORN (which is being investigated for voter fraud) being given 4 billion dollars? Why is there $600 million stipulated for preparation for universal healthcare? $50 million to the National Endowment of the Arts? $650 million to switch from analog to digital TV? $600 million for "climate change" research? The list goes on extremely long. This bill gives money to special interest groups, groups that supported Obama's campaign. Earmarks, pork, special interests, whatever you want to call it, it is wasteful and not stimuli.

Universal healthcare was inserted into the so-called stimulus bill. They want to oversee your doctor's care of you and computerize all your health records. Good-bye privacy. Tom Daschle has said that senior citizens need to just grow old instead of seeking treatment. This is outrageous that people would use the fear of recession to further their own agenda.

The worst offense to me is the provision in the stimulus bill that attacks religious freedom. The provision reads: "PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS. - No funds awarded under this section may be used for - (C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities - (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission." This is religious discrimination and an affront to freedom of speech. Christian groups such as Campus Crusade, Christian Athletes, Catholic Student Ministries and others could very well be banned from campuses and facilities that would remain open to other non-religious organizations.

This is our nation. We the People of the United States are ultimately responsible for what our nation and what our government does. We must be vigilant. We must pray. We must take a stand for our rights and freedoms. We must not be silent.

"And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart." Galatians 6:9

"Continue earnestly in prayer, being vigilant in it with thanksgiving." Colossians 4:2

CALL YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES. Let them know where you stand. Both your representative and your two senators can be reached at 1-202-224-3121. Find more contact information for your congressional representative and senators here.

The Silencing of Dissent

"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." - President Barack Obama

President Obama, let us not silence the voices of dissent.

Let's put away the Fairness Doctrine which would force radio stations to air both sides of any controversial topics but leave liberal-run television and newspapers alone. Christian radio stations voicing moral concerns would be forced to share viewpoints in opposition to the Bible. Talk radio would lose revenue and jobs because people that want a conservative viewpoint don't want to listen to the emotional ranting of liberals. It is an attempt to silence conservative voices.

Let's stop supporting hate crimes legislation which elevates one group of people above others, creating a special class. Our laws protect every citizen equally. Each crime has a consequence. What crime is not based in hate? This legislation seeks to punish extensively anyone who commits a crime "with actual or perceived bias against" a person's sexuality or religion. Perceived bias. Do we now have thought police? The Declaration of Independence says "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Our right to free speech is under attack by an inquest of "hate speech." Hate Crimes legislation is an attempt to silence anyone who believes and says that homosexuality is wrong. It is an attempt to silence Christians who believe what God says in the Bible.

Let us keep the Motion to Recommit. The Motion to Recommit has been used for a century by the minority party to amend a bill before it passes. In the last Congress, Republicans were able to block some tax increases using the Motion to Recommit. Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats passed rules severely limiting the ability of conservatives to debate policies important to a great many Americans. It is an attempt to silence many concerned voices in America.

President Obama, please don't silence our voices of dissent.

Where's MY Bailout??

Everyone seems to be lining up to get money from the government. States, cities, programs, insurance companies, car companies, ... and the list goes on.

Car companies have a legitimate complaint but they shouldn't get a financial bailout. They should get a bailout from all the regulations that government has put on them. The car companies know how to make good cars that people want. Let them do what they do best instead of congress stipulating to the companies what government thinks is best.

Government regulated the banks and mortgage companies into bankruptcy by stipulating that they give bad loans. Any regulating should have been to keep people's savings and investments sound by not allowing bad loans. Even Bill Clinton spoke out and said that the democrats in Congress during his administration caused much of this housing mess. I would love to see those "overseers" held accountable for their actions.

One that makes me laugh is student loan forgiveness. These people knew what they were getting into. Supposedly, on average, a degree will help you to earn a million dollars more in a lifetime than someone without a degree. So what percentage of a million dollars is their school loan? 20%? 10%? Less? It seems like a good deal to me. Why should they get a bailout for services rendered? Perhaps they should give their degrees back. I thought these people went to college to be productive members of society. At least they have student loans and didn't just go to college and put it on Mom and Dad's tab. (Hey, if you study and work hard and don't party away mom and dad's money, "Way to go!" and "Thanks Mom and Dad!") These students must have gone into college with the idea of making their own way in the world. Maybe the colleges persuaded them that society owes them. In that case, they received a disservice.

President-elect Obama is talking about another stimulus package. The last one didn't work. Congress is demanding to know where the money went and how it was spent. Maybe they should have considered that before giving so much power to the Secretary of the Treasury. Maybe they shouldn't have rushed through a bailout bill when the majority of the country was against it. We can't bail our way out of this.

Where do you think this money is coming from? Our government has a deficit. They don't have the money. They are either borrowing money or simply printing it. When we borrow more money, we give foreign nations a bigger say in our government. Proverbs 22:7 tells us "the borrower is servant to the lender." If we simply print more money, then the value of our dollar drops dramatically and prices soar.

I'd like to bail out of all these bailouts.