About Me

Name: Gabrielle Cusumano
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Obama's Face Replaces the States on American Flag (See Flag)

Heil Obama by Democrats?  See desecrated flag below.    Other views under article "Can the President Kill You?"
 
  What's Next?

Napolitano: Can the President Kill You?

By Andrew P. Napolitano
 
Can the president kill an American simply because the person is dangerous and his arrest would be impractical? Can the president be judge, jury and executioner of an American in a foreign country because he believes that would keep America safe? Can Congress authorize the president to do this?
Earlier this week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder attempted to justify presidential killing in a speech at Northwestern University law school. In it, he recognized the requirement of the Fifth Amendment for due process. He argued that the president may substitute the traditionally understood due process -- a public jury trial -- with the president's own novel version of it; that would be a secret deliberation about killing.  More at: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2012/03/14/harsanyi-can-the-president-kill-you/?subscriber=1
 
I Pledge Allegiance... to Obama? FL democrats replace stars with Obama Picture on  U.S. flag

For whatever reason, the flag didn't fly long or get any more publicity.

PhotobucketPhotobucket
 
This should send a shudder up your spine!

BARACK OBAMA USA FLAG 3' X 5' BANNER

  

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ObamaCare: Americans will “see” an effective 40 % tax hike on the over-the-counter medicines

– from an antihistamine such as Claritin for allergies, pain relief medicine such as Tylenol or Excedrin, Pedialyte to prevent their kids from becoming dehydrated when they are sick, and even prenatal vitamins if they are expecting another one."
 
Also see:
  • Dems reject amendment to ban Viagra for sex offenders - Live Pulse ...

    Why would any body want to deny sex offenders their Viagra? ..... Viagra for sex offenders and rapists? Ok. Questioning the Democrats power and making them ...
    www.politico.com/.../Dems_reject_amendment_to_ban_Viagra_for_sex_offenders.html
  • 6a00d8345157c669e200e54fafab388833-800wi

    But one of the first things millions of Americans will “see” is an effective 40 percent tax hike on the over-the-counter medicines – from an antihistamine such as Claritin for allergies, pain relief medicine such as Tylenol or Excedrin, Pedialyte to prevent their kids from becoming dehydrated when they are sick, and even prenatal vitamins if they are expecting another one.

     
     'Seeing' Red at Reconciliation over Medicine Cabinet Tax - Big ...
    Mar 25, 2010 ... an effective 40 percent tax hike on the over-the-counter medicines – from ... While an over-the-counter drug is less expensive than the ...
    biggovernment.com/.../seeing-red-at-reconciliation-over-medicine-cabinet-tax/ - 8 hours ago
  • » over the counter drugs - Big Government

    Mar 25, 2010 ... Posts Tagged 'over the counter drugs' ... is an effective 40 percent tax hike on the over-the-counter medicines – from an antihistamine such ...
    biggovernment.com/tag/over-the-counter-drugs/ - 8 hours ago
  • Health Care- Fix middle-class “medicine cabinet tax” in ...

    Mar 23, 2010 ... an effective 40 percent tax hike on the over-the-counter medicines – from ... drugs even when OTC drugs are just as safe and effective. ...
    www.openmarket.org/.../health-care-fix-middle-class-medicine-cabinet-tax-in-reconciliation/ - Cached
     
  • Health care bill's hidden tax on pain relievers, Pedialyte, and ...

  • Dec 22, 2009 ... The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the tax hike will ... OTC drugs are much cheaper those available for prescription, ... ObamaCare Restricts FSAs, HSAs - Effective tax increase of up to 40% on OTC drugs ...
    www.openmarket.org/.../health-care-bills-hidden-tax-on-pain-relievers-pedialyte-and-prenatal-vitamins/ - Cached

  • Newsmax - Obamacare Creates Windfall for Big Pharma

    Mar 23, 2010 ... But one of the first things millions of Americans will “see” is an effective 40 percent tax hike on the over-the-counter (OTC) medicines ...
    www.newsmax.com/JohnBerlau/obamacare-health-care.../353602 - Cached
  • Newsmax - Senate Healthcare Bill: $400B in New Taxes

    Dec 24, 2009 ... Americans for Tax Reform estimates seven of these tax hikes ... These taxes cover everything from indoor tanning salons to over-the-counter drugs. ... face a potential 40 percent excise tax, or $149.1 billion in taxes. ...
    www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/healthcare-taxes-obama.../344620 - Cached
     
  • ObamaCare Equals Huge Tax Hike on OTC Drugs - by John Berlau

    Dec 23, 2009 ... ObamaCare Equals Huge Tax Hike on OTC Drugs ... are eligible expenses — you will face an effective tax increase of up to 40 percent on these ...
    www.heartland.org/.../ObamaCare_Equals_Huge_Tax_Hike_on_OTC_Drugs.html - Cached
  • ObamaCare Equals Huge Tax Hike on OTC Drugs - by John Berlau

    ObamaCare Equals Huge Tax Hike on OTC Drugs. Big Tax on Pedialyte, ... the effective tax increase on these medicines could be more than 40 percent. ...
    www.heartland.org/.../ObamaCare_Equals_Huge_Tax_Hike_on_OTC_Drugs.html

     

     

  • News results for viagra for sex offenders


    CBS News
    Dems reject amendment to ban Viagra for sex offenders‎ - 1 day ago
    ... insurance exchanges from using federal money to cover Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for rapists, pedophiles and other sex offenders. ...
    Politico - 307 related articles »
  • Classical Values :: Viagra For Sex Offenders?

    Mar 24, 2010 ... Viagra For Sex Offenders? The Republicans are getting really diabolical. I mean besides ExVP Cheney and Karl Rove. ...
    www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2010/03/viagra_for_sex.html - Cached
  • Dems Vote For Viagra For Sex Offenders and Other Stories | FDL ...

    Mar 24, 2010 ... Republicans have something of a free shot in the reconciliation bill. Democrats have already signaled that they will whip against any ...
    news.firedoglake.com/.../dems-vote-for-viagra-for-sex-offenders-and-other-stories/ - Cached
  • Sex offenders get Medicaid-paid Viagra - U.S. news- msnbc.com

    May 22, 2005 ... Scores of convicted rapists and other high-risk sex offenders in New York have been getting Viagra paid by Medicaid for the last five years, ...
    www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7946129/ - Cached - Similar
  • Hot Air » Blog Archive » GOP to Dems: Will you join us in voting ...

    Mar 23, 2010 ... GOP to Dems: Will you join us in voting to ban Viagra for sex offenders?
    hotair.com/.../gop-to-dems-will-you-join-us-in-voting-to-ban-viagra-for-sex-offenders/ - Cached
  • GOP Amendment: No Viagra for Sex Offenders - Political Hotsheet ...

    Mar 23, 2010 ... Tom Coburn Seeks to Embarrass Democrats by Introducing Amendments to Health Bill That Are Difficult For Them to Oppose Read more by Brian ...
    www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001033-503544.html - Cached
  • Dems reject amendment to ban Viagra for sex offenders - Live Pulse ...

  • Why would any body want to deny sex offenders their Viagra? ..... Viagra for sex offenders and rapists? Ok. Questioning the Democrats power and making them ...
    www.politico.com/.../Dems_reject_amendment_to_ban_Viagra_for_sex_offenders.html
  • Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    KUHNER: Impeach the president? The 'Slaughter Solution' would violate the Constitution

    (Using the Slaughter Rule) They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy. It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment.

    KUHNER: Impeach the president?

      The 'Slaughter Solution' would violate the Constitution     Washington Times   by Jeffrey Kuhner

    ...The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy. It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the...  http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president/
     
    Excerpt:

    Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure's sweeping and radical aims - the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda.

    Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives. It has badly fractured the country, dangerously polarizing it along ideological and racial lines. Even a majority of Democrats in the House are deeply reluctant to support it.

    Numerous states - from Idaho to Virginia to Texas - have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law. They will declare themselves exempt from its provisions, tying up the legislation in the courts for years to come.

    Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party's congressional majority and - most disturbing - our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country's stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.

    The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.

    It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.

    It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.

    Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the daily host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from noon until 3 p.m.

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Obama refuses to campaign for Dems voting NO on healthcare...

    Please! You Deomcrats in Congress, Jump Ship Now!  Save America and yourselves from a terrible fate. Your leader Obama doesn't care a whit about you.


    Obama refuses to campaign for Dems voting NO on healthcare...

    Midnight, Sunday, Democrats released a 2,309 page health care bill that will start the process of reconciliation —
      it’s not the actual reconciliation bill with all the changes you’ve been reading about. Instead, as Rep. Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member on the Budget Committee, explained to me last week, this is just the “shell” bill — the vehicle that Democrats need to get moving on health care. Once the bill gets approved (likely Monday), Democrats will send this phantom bill over to the Rules Committee, where it will be stripped, and then they’ll insert in all of the actual changes that they’ve negotiated.

    2309 pages. Download PDF here.

    http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF

    Page 7
    TITLE IV—AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986

    Subtitle A—Shared Responsibility
    PART 1—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
    Sec. 401. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
    PART 2—EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY
    Sec. 411. Election to satisfy health coverage participation requirements.
    Sec. 412. Responsibilities of nonelecting employers.  (much more under picture)


    MICHIGAN

    Rep. Bart Stupak, Michigan 1st

    http://www.house.gov/stupak/

    DC Office Number: (202) 225-4735, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-4744
    Local Office Number: (906) 786-4504, Local Fax Number: (906) 786-4534
    Voted Yes on Stupak, Voted Yes on Health Care, Currently Undecided on Next Health Care Takeover Vote

    Rep. Mark Schauer Michigan 7th

    http://schauer.house.gov

    DC Office Number: (202) 225-6276, DC Fax Number: (202) 225-6281
    Local Office Number: (517) 780-9075, Local Fax Number: (517) 780-9081
    Voted Yes on Health Care
    Currently Undecided

    Rep. Gary Peters, Michigan, 9th

    http://peters.house.gov/index.html

    DC Office Number: (202) 225-5802, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-2356
    Local Office Number: (248) 273-4227, Local Fax Number: (248) 273-4704
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    (The Bill continued)
    Subtitle B—Credit for Small Business Employee Health Coverage Expenses
    Sec. 421. Credit for small business employee health coverage expenses.
    Subtitle C—Disclosures to Carry Out Health Insurance
    Exchange Subsidies
    Sec. 431. Disclosures to carry out health insurance exchange subsidies.
    Subtitle D—Other Revenue Provisions
    PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS
    Sec. 441. Surcharge on high income individuals.
    Sec. 442. Distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin.
    Sec. 443. Delay in application of worldwide allocation of interest.
    PART 2—PREVENTION OF TAX AVOIDANCE
    Sec. 451. Limitation on treaty benefits for certain deductible payments.
    Sec. 452. Codification of economic substance doctrine.
    Sec. 453. Penalties for underpayments.

    Page 8
    PART 3—PARITY IN HEALTH BENEFITS
    Sec. 461. Certain health related benefits applicable to spouses and dependents extended to eligible beneficiaries.

    1054
    19 SEC. 114. NONDISCRIMINATION IN BENEFITS; PARITY IN
    20 MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
    21 DISORDER BENEFITS.

    22 (a) NONDISCRIMINATION IN BENEFITS.—A qualified
    23 health benefits plan shall comply with standards estab
    24 lished by the Commissioner to prohibit discrimination in
    25 health benefits or benefit structures for qualified health

    1055
    1 benefits plans, building from sections 702 of Employee
    2 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 2702 of the
    3 Public Health Service Act, and section 9802 of the Inter
    4 nal Revenue Code of 1986.

    5 (b) PARITY IN MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE
    6 ABUSE DISORDER BENEFITS.—To the extent such provi
    7 sions are not superceded by or inconsistent with subtitle
    8 C, the provisions of section 2705 (other than subsections
    9 (a)(1), (a)(2), and (c)) of section 2705 of the Public
    10 Health Service Act shall apply to a qualified health bene
    11 fits plan, regardless of whether it is offered in the indi
    12 vidual or group market, in the same manner as such provi
    13 sions apply to health insurance coverage offered in the
    14 large group market.

    1223
    11 TITLE IV—AMENDMENTS TO IN
    12 TERNAL REVENUE CODE OF
    13 1986
    14 Subtitle A—Shared Responsibility
    15 PART 1—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
    16 SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
    17 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
    18 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
    19 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at
    20 the end the following new part:
    21 ‘‘PART VIII—HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
    ‘‘SUBPART A. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
    22 ‘‘Subpart A—Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable
    23 Health Care Coverage
    ‘‘Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

    1224
    1 ‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
    2 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
    3 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
    4 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
    5 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
    6 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
    7 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in
    8 come for the taxable year, over
    9 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in
    10 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
    11 ‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS.—
    12 ‘‘(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.—
    13 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The tax imposed
    14 under subsection (a) with respect to any tax
    15 payer for any taxable year shall not exceed the
    16 applicable national average premium for such
    17 taxable year.
    18 ‘‘(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE
    19 PREMIUM.—
    20 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of
    21 subparagraph (A), the ‘applicable national
    22 average premium’ means, with respect to
    23 any taxable year, the average premium (as
    24 determined by the Secretary, in coordina
    25 tion with the Health Choices Commis
    26 sioner) for self-only coverage under a basic

    1225
    1 plan which is offered in a Health Insur
    2 ance Exchange for the calendar year in
    3 which such taxable year begins.
    4 ‘‘(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE
    5 FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL.—In the
    6 case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the
    7 requirements of subsection (e) with respect
    8 to more than one individual during the tax
    9 able year, clause (i) shall be applied by
    10 substituting ‘family coverage’ for ‘self-only
    11 coverage’.
    12 ‘‘(2) PRORATION FOR PART YEAR FAILURES.—
    13 The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect
    14 to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed
    15 the amount which bears the same ratio to the
    16 amount of tax so imposed (determined without re
    17 gard to this paragraph and after application of para
    18 graph (1)) as—
    19 ‘‘(A) the aggregate periods during such
    20 taxable year for which such individual failed to
    21 meet the requirements of subsection (d), bears
    22 to
    23 ‘‘(B) the entire taxable year.
    24 ‘‘(c) EXCEPTIONS.—

    1226
    1 ‘‘(1) DEPENDENTS.—Subsection (a) shall not
    2 apply to any individual for any taxable year if a de
    3 duction is allowable under section 151 with respect
    4 to such individual to another taxpayer for any tax
    5 able year beginning in the same calendar year as
    6 such taxable year.
    7 ‘‘(2) NONRESIDENT ALIENS.—Subsection (a)
    8 shall not apply to any individual who is a non
    9 resident alien.
    10 ‘‘(3) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE UNITED
    11 STATES.—Any qualified individual (as defined in
    12 section 911(d)) (and any qualifying child residing
    13 with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of
    14 this section as covered by acceptable coverage during
    15 the period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of
    16 section 911(d)(1), whichever is applicable.
    17 ‘‘(4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN POSSESSIONS
    18 OF THE UNITED STATES.—Any individual who is a
    19 bona fide resident of any possession of the United
    20 States (as determined under section 937(a)) for any
    21 taxable year (and any qualifying child residing with
    22 such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this
    23 section as covered by acceptable coverage during
    24 such taxable year.
    25 ‘‘(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION.—

    1227
    1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall
    2 not apply to any individual (and any qualifying
    3 child residing with such individual) for any pe
    4 riod if such individual has in effect an exemp
    5 tion which certifies that such individual is a
    6 member of a recognized religious sect or divi
    7 sion thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and
    8 an adherent of established tenets or teachings
    9 of such sect or division as described in such sec
    10 tion.
    11 ‘‘(B) EXEMPTION.—An application for the
    12 exemption described in subparagraph (A) shall
    13 be filed with the Secretary at such time and in
    14 such form and manner as the Secretary may
    15 prescribe. Any such exemption granted by the
    16 Secretary shall be effective for such period as
    17 the Secretary determines appropriate.
    18 ‘‘(d) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE REQUIREMENT.—
    19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of this
    20 subsection are met with respect to any individual for
    21 any period if such individual (and each qualifying
    22 child of such individual) is covered by acceptable
    23 coverage at all times during such period.

    1228
    1 ‘‘(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—For purposes
    2 of this section, the term ‘acceptable coverage’ means
    3 any of the following:
    4 ‘‘(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN
    5 COVERAGE.—Coverage under a qualified health
    6 benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of
    7 the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of
    8 2009).
    9 ‘‘(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSUR
    10 ANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER GRAND
    11 FATHERED EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH
    12 PLAN.—Coverage under a grandfathered health
    13 insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a)
    14 of section 102 of the America’s Affordable
    15 Health Choices Act of 2009) or under a current
    16 employment-based health plan (within the
    17 meaning of subsection (b) of such section).
    18 ‘‘(C) MEDICARE.—Coverage under part A
    19 of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
    20 ‘‘(D) MEDICAID.—Coverage for medical as
    21 sistance under title XIX of the Social Security
    22 Act.
    23 ‘‘(E) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES
    24 AND DEPENDENTS (INCLUDING TRICARE).—
    25 Coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United

    1229
    1 States Code, including similar coverage fur
    2 nished under section 1781 of title 38 of such
    3 Code.
    4 ‘‘(F) VA.—Coverage under the veteran’s
    5 health care program under chapter 17 of title
    6 38, United States Code, but only if the cov
    7 erage for the individual involved is determined
    8 by the Secretary in coordination with the
    9 Health Choices Commissioner to be not less
    10 than the level specified by the Secretary of the
    11 Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of
    12 Veteran’s Affairs and the Health Choices Com
    13 missioner, based on the individual’s priority for
    14 services as provided under section 1705(a) of
    15 such title.
    16 ‘‘(G) OTHER COVERAGE.—Such other
    17 health benefits coverage as the Secretary, in co
    18 ordination with the Health Choices Commis
    19 sioner, recognizes for purposes of this sub
    20 section.
    21 ‘‘(e) OTHER DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.—
    22 ‘‘(1) QUALIFYING CHILD.—For purposes of this
    23 section, the term ‘qualifying child’ has the meaning
    24 given such term by section 152(c).

    1230
    1 ‘‘(2) BASIC PLAN.—For purposes of this sec
    2 tion, the term ‘basic plan’ has the meaning given
    3 such term under section 100(c) of the America’s Af
    4 fordable Health Choices Act of 2009.
    5 ‘‘(3) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—For
    6 purposes of this section, the term ‘Health Insurance
    7 Exchange’ has the meaning given such term under
    8 section 100(c) of the America’s Affordable Health
    9 Choices Act of 2009, including any State-based
    10 health insurance exchange approved for operation
    11 under section 208 of such Act.
    12 ‘‘(4) FAMILY COVERAGE.—For purposes of this
    13 section, the term ‘family coverage’ means any cov
    14 erage other than self-only coverage.
    15 ‘‘(5) MODIFIED ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.—
    16 For purposes of this section, the term ‘modified ad
    17 justed gross income’ means adjusted gross income—
    18 ‘‘(A) determined without regard to section
    19 911, and
    20 ‘‘(B) increased by the amount of interest
    21 received or accrued by the taxpayer during the
    22 taxable year which is exempt from tax.
    23 ‘‘(6) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS
    24 CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.—The tax im
    25 posed under this section shall not be treated as tax

    1231
    1 imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining
    2 the amount of any credit under this chapter or for
    3 purposes of section 55.
    4 ‘‘(f) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall prescribe
    5 such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary
    6 or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section,
    7 including regulations or other guidance (developed in co8
    ordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) which
    9 provide—
    10 ‘‘(1) exemption from the tax imposed under
    11 subsection (a) in cases of de minimis lapses of ac12
    ceptable coverage, and
    13 ‘‘(2) a process for applying for a waiver of the
    14 application of subsection (a) in cases of hardship.’’.
    15 (b) INFORMATION REPORTING.—
    16 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subpart B of part III of
    17 subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is amended
    18 by inserting after section 6050W the following new
    19 section:
    20 ‘‘SEC. 6050X. RETURNS RELATING TO HEALTH INSURANCE
    21 COVERAGE.
    22 ‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT OF REPORTING.—Every person
    23 who provides acceptable coverage (as defined in section
    24 59B(d)) to any individual during any calendar year shall,
    25 at such time as the Secretary may prescribe, make the

    1232
    1 return described in subsection (b) with respect to such in
    2 dividual.
    3 ‘‘(b) FORM AND MANNER OF RETURNS.—A return
    4 is described in this subsection if such return—
    5 ‘‘(1) is in such form as the Secretary may pre
    6 scribe, and
    7 ‘‘(2) contains—
    8 ‘‘(A) the name, address, and TIN of the
    9 primary insured and the name of each other in
    10 dividual obtaining coverage under the policy,
    11 ‘‘(B) the period for which each such indi
    12 vidual was provided with the coverage referred
    13 to in subsection (a), and
    14 ‘‘(C) such other information as the Sec
    15 retary may require.
    16 ‘‘(c) STATEMENTS TO BE FURNISHED TO INDIVID
    17 UALS WITH RESPECT TO WHOM INFORMATION IS RE
    18 QUIRED.—Every person required to make a return under
    19 subsection (a) shall furnish to each primary insured whose
    20 name is required to be set forth in such return a written
    21 statement showing—
    22 ‘‘(1) the name and address of the person re
    23 quired to make such return and the phone number
    24 of the information contact for such person, and

    1233
    1 ‘‘(2) the information required to be shown on
    2 the return with respect to such individual.
    3 The written statement required under the preceding sen
    4 tence shall be furnished on or before January 31 of the
    5 year following the calendar year for which the return
    6 under subsection (a) is required to be made.
    7 ‘‘(d) COVERAGE PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENTAL
    8 UNITS.—In the case of coverage provided by any govern
    9 mental unit or any agency or instrumentality thereof, the
    10 officer or employee who enters into the agreement to pro
    11 vide such coverage (or the person appropriately designated
    12 for purposes of this section) shall make the returns and
    13 statements required by this section.’’.
    14 (2) PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE.—
    15 (A) RETURN.—Subparagraph (B) of sec
    16 tion 6724(d)(1) of such Code is amended by
    17 striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (xxii), by
    18 striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (xxiii) and
    19 inserting ‘‘or’’, and by adding at the end the
    20 following new clause:
    21 ‘‘(xxiv) section 6050X (relating to re
    22 turns relating to health insurance cov
    23 erage), and’’.
    24 (B) STATEMENT.—Paragraph (2) of sec
    25 tion 6724(d) of such Code is amended by strik

    1234
    1 ing ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (EE), by
    2 striking the period at the end of subparagraph
    3 (FF) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by inserting
    4 after subparagraph (FF) the following new sub
    5 paragraph:
    6 ‘‘(GG) section 6050X (relating to returns
    7 relating to health insurance coverage).’’.
    8 (c) RETURN REQUIREMENT.—Subsection (a) of sec
    9 tion 6012 of such Code is amended by inserting after
    10 paragraph (9) the following new paragraph:
    11 ‘‘(10) Every individual to whom section 59B(a)
    12 applies and who fails to meet the requirements of
    13 section 59B(d) with respect to such individual or
    14 any qualifying child (as defined in section 152(c)) of
    15 such individual.’’.
    16 (d) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—
    17 (1) The table of parts for subchapter A of chap
    18 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
    19 amended by adding at the end the following new
    20 item:
    ‘‘PART VIII. HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES.’’.
    21 (2) The table of sections for subpart B of part
    22 III of subchapter A of chapter 61 is amended by
    23 adding at the end the following new item:
    ‘‘Sec. 6050X.Returns relating to health insurance coverage.’’.

    1235
    1 (e) SECTION 15 NOT TO APPLY.—The amendment
    2 made by subsection (a) shall not be treated as a change
    3 in a rate of tax for purposes of section 15 of the Internal
    4 Revenue Code of 1986.
    5 (f) EFFECTIVE DATE.—
    6 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by
    7 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning
    8 after December 31, 2012.
    9 (2) RETURNS.—The amendments made by sub
    10 section (b) shall apply to calendar years beginning
    11 after December 31, 2012.

    1253

    13 Subtitle D—Other Revenue
    14 Provisions

    15 PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS

    16 SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

    17 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part VIII of subchapter A of
    18 chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added
    19 by this title, is amended by adding at the end the following
    20 new subpart:

    21 ‘‘Subpart B—Surcharge on High Income Individuals
    ‘‘Sec. 59C.Surcharge on high income individuals.

    22 ‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

    23 ‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer
    24 other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addi

    1254

    1 tion to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal
    2 to—

    3 ‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified ad
    4 justed gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds
    5 $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

    6 ‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified ad
    7 justed gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds
    8 $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

    9 ‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified ad
    10 justed gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds
    11 $1,000,000.

    12 ‘‘(b) TAXPAYERS NOT MAKING A JOINT RETURN.—
    13 In the case of any taxpayer other than a taxpayer making
    14 a joint return under section 6013 or a surviving spouse
    15 (as defined in section 2(a)), subsection (a) shall be applied
    16 by substituting for each of the dollar amounts therein
    17 (after any increase determined under subsection (e)) a dol
    18 lar amount equal to—

    19 ‘‘(1) 50 percent of the dollar amount so in ef
    20 fect in the case of a married individual filing a sepa
    21 rate return, and

    22 ‘‘(2) 80 percent of the dollar amount so in ef
    23 fect in any other case.

    24 ‘‘(c) ADJUSTMENTS


    Page 1223

    11 TITLE IV—AMENDMENTS TO IN
    12 TERNAL REVENUE CODE OF
    13 1986

    14 Subtitle A—Shared Responsibility
    15 PART 1—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY

    16 SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
    17 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

    18 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
    19 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at
    20 the end the following new part:

    21 ‘‘PART VIII—HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES

    ‘‘SUBPART A. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

    22 ‘‘Subpart A—Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable
    23 Health Care Coverage

    ‘‘Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

    1224

    1 ‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
    2 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

    3 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
    4 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
    5 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
    6 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

    7 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in
    8 come for the taxable year, over

    9 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in
    10 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

    11 ‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS.—
    12 ‘‘(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.—

    13 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The tax imposed
    14 under subsection (a) with respect to any tax
    15 payer for any taxable year shall not exceed the
    16 applicable national average premium for such
    17 taxable year.

    18 ‘‘(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE
    19 PREMIUM.—

    20 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of
    21 subparagraph (A), the ‘applicable national
    22 average premium’ means, with respect to
    23 any taxable year, the average premium (as
    24 determined by the Secretary, in coordina
    25 tion with the Health Choices Commis
    26 sioner) for self-only coverage under a basic

    1225

    1 plan which is offered in a Health Insur
    2 ance Exchange for the calendar year in
    3 which such taxable year begins.

    4 ‘‘(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE
    5 FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL.—In the
    6 case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the
    7 requirements of subsection (e) with respect
    8 to more than one individual during the tax
    9 able year, clause (i) shall be applied by
    10 substituting ‘family coverage’ for ‘self-only
    11 coverage’.

    12 ‘‘(2) PRORATION FOR PART YEAR FAILURES.—
    13 The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect
    14 to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed
    15 the amount which bears the same ratio to the
    16 amount of tax so imposed (determined without re
    17 gard to this paragraph and after application of para
    18 graph (1)) as—

    19 ‘‘(A) the aggregate periods during such
    20 taxable year for which such individual failed to
    21 meet the requirements of subsection (d), bears
    22 to

    23 ‘‘(B) the entire taxable year.

    24 ‘‘(c) EXCEPTIONS.—

    1226

    1 ‘‘(1) DEPENDENTS.—Subsection (a) shall not
    2 apply to any individual for any taxable year if a de
    3 duction is allowable under section 151 with respect
    4 to such individual to another taxpayer for any tax
    5 able year beginning in the same calendar year as
    6 such taxable year.

    7 ‘‘(2) NONRESIDENT ALIENS.—Subsection (a)
    8 shall not apply to any individual who is a non
    9 resident alien.

    10 ‘‘(3) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE UNITED
    11 STATES.—Any qualified individual (as defined in
    12 section 911(d)) (and any qualifying child residing
    13 with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of
    14 this section as covered by acceptable coverage during
    15 the period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of
    16 section 911(d)(1), whichever is applicable.

    17 ‘‘(4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN POSSESSIONS
    18 OF THE UNITED STATES.—Any individual who is a
    19 bona fide resident of any possession of the United
    20 States (as determined under section 937(a)) for any
    21 taxable year (and any qualifying child residing with
    22 such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this
    23 section as covered by acceptable coverage during
    24 such taxable year.

    25 ‘‘(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION.—

    1227

    1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall
    2 not apply to any individual (and any qualifying
    3 child residing with such individual) for any pe
    4 riod if such individual has in effect an exemp
    5 tion which certifies that such individual is a
    6 member of a recognized religious sect or divi
    7 sion thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and
    8 an adherent of established tenets or teachings
    9 of such sect or division as described in such sec
    10 tion.

    11 ‘‘(B) EXEMPTION.—An application for the
    12 exemption described in subparagraph (A) shall
    13 be filed with the Secretary at such time and in
    14 such form and manner as the Secretary may
    15 prescribe. Any such exemption granted by the
    16 Secretary shall be effective for such period as
    17 the Secretary determines appropriate.

    18 ‘‘(d) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE REQUIREMENT.—

    19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of this
    20 subsection are met with respect to any individual for
    21 any period if such individual (and each qualifying
    22 child of such individual) is covered by acceptable
    23 coverage at all times during such period.

    1228

    1 ‘‘(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—For purposes
    2 of this section, the term ‘acceptable coverage’ means
    3 any of the following:

    4 ‘‘(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN
    5 COVERAGE.—Coverage under a qualified health
    6 benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of
    7 the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of
    8 2009).

    9 ‘‘(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSUR
    10 ANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER GRAND
    11 FATHERED EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH
    12 PLAN.—Coverage under a grandfathered health
    13 insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a)
    14 of section 102 of the America’s Affordable
    15 Health Choices Act of 2009) or under a current
    16 employment-based health plan (within the
    17 meaning of subsection (b) of such section).

    18 ‘‘(C) MEDICARE.—Coverage under part A
    19 of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.

    20 ‘‘(D) MEDICAID.—Coverage for medical as
    21 sistance under title XIX of the Social Security
    22 Act.

    23 ‘‘(E) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES
    24 AND DEPENDENTS (INCLUDING TRICARE).—
    25 Coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United

    1229

    1 States Code, including similar coverage fur
    2 nished under section 1781 of title 38 of such
    3 Code.

    4 ‘‘(F) VA.—Coverage under the veteran’s
    5 health care program under chapter 17 of title
    6 38, United States Code, but only if the cov
    7 erage for the individual involved is determined
    8 by the Secretary in coordination with the
    9 Health Choices Commissioner to be not less
    10 than the level specified by the Secretary of the
    11 Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of
    12 Veteran’s Affairs and the Health Choices Com
    13 missioner, based on the individual’s priority for
    14 services as provided under section 1705(a) of
    15 such title.

    16 ‘‘(G) OTHER COVERAGE.—Such other
    17 health benefits coverage as the Secretary, in co
    18 ordination with the Health Choices Commis
    19 sioner, recognizes for purposes of this sub
    20 section.

    21 ‘‘(e) OTHER DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.—

    22 ‘‘(1) QUALIFYING CHILD.—For purposes of this
    23 section, the term ‘qualifying child’ has the meaning
    24 given such term by section 152(c).

    1230

    1 ‘‘(2) BASIC PLAN.—For purposes of this sec
    2 tion, the term ‘basic plan’ has the meaning given
    3 such term under section 100(c) of the America’s Af
    4 fordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

    5 ‘‘(3) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—For
    6 purposes of this section, the term ‘Health Insurance
    7 Exchange’ has the meaning given such term under
    8 section 100(c) of the America’s Affordable Health
    9 Choices Act of 2009, including any State-based
    10 health insurance exchange approved for operation
    11 under section 208 of such Act.

    12 ‘‘(4) FAMILY COVERAGE.—For purposes of this
    13 section, the term ‘family coverage’ means any cov
    14 erage other than self-only coverage.

    15 ‘‘(5) MODIFIED ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.—
    16 For purposes of this section, the term ‘modified ad
    17 justed gross income’ means adjusted gross income—

    18 ‘‘(A) determined without regard to section
    19 911, and

    20 ‘‘(B) increased by the amount of interest
    21 received or accrued by the taxpayer during the
    22 taxable year which is exempt from tax.

    23 ‘‘(6) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS
    24 CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.—The tax im
    25 posed under this section shall not be treated as tax

    1231

    1 imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining
    2 the amount of any credit under this chapter or for
    3 purposes of section 55.

    4 ‘‘(f) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall prescribe
    5 such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary
    6 or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section,
    7 including regulations or other guidance (developed in co8
    ordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) which
    9 provide—

    10 ‘‘(1) exemption from the tax imposed under
    11 subsection (a) in cases of de minimis lapses of ac12
    ceptable coverage, and

    13 ‘‘(2) a process for applying for a waiver of the
    14 application of subsection (a) in cases of hardship.’’.

    15 (b) INFORMATION REPORTING.—

    16 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subpart B of part III of
    17 subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is amended
    18 by inserting after section 6050W the following new
    19 section:

    20 ‘‘SEC. 6050X. RETURNS RELATING TO HEALTH INSURANCE
    21 COVERAGE.

    22 ‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT OF REPORTING.—Every person
    23 who provides acceptable coverage (as defined in section
    24 59B(d)) to any individual during any calendar year shall,
    25 at such time as the Secretary may prescribe, make the

    1232

    1 return described in subsection (b) with respect to such in
    2 dividual.

    3 ‘‘(b) FORM AND MANNER OF RETURNS.—A return
    4 is described in this subsection if such return—
    5 ‘‘(1) is in such form as the Secretary may pre
    6 scribe, and

    7 ‘‘(2) contains—

    8 ‘‘(A) the name, address, and TIN of the
    9 primary insured and the name of each other in
    10 dividual obtaining coverage under the policy,

    11 ‘‘(B) the period for which each such indi
    12 vidual was provided with the coverage referred
    13 to in subsection (a), and

    14 ‘‘(C) such other information as the Sec
    15 retary may require.

    16 ‘‘(c) STATEMENTS TO BE FURNISHED TO INDIVID
    17 UALS WITH RESPECT TO WHOM INFORMATION IS RE
    18 QUIRED.—Every person required to make a return under
    19 subsection (a) shall furnish to each primary insured whose
    20 name is required to be set forth in such return a written
    21 statement showing—

    22 ‘‘(1) the name and address of the person re
    23 quired to make such return and the phone number
    24 of the information contact for such person, and

    1233

    1 ‘‘(2) the information required to be shown on
    2 the return with respect to such individual.
    3 The written statement required under the preceding sen
    4 tence shall be furnished on or before January 31 of the
    5 year following the calendar year for which the return
    6 under subsection (a) is required to be made.

    7 ‘‘(d) COVERAGE PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENTAL
    8 UNITS.—In the case of coverage provided by any govern
    9 mental unit or any agency or instrumentality thereof, the
    10 officer or employee who enters into the agreement to pro
    11 vide such coverage (or the person appropriately designated
    12 for purposes of this section) shall make the returns and
    13 statements required by this section.’’.

    14 (2) PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE.—

    15 (A) RETURN.—Subparagraph (B) of sec
    16 tion 6724(d)(1) of such Code is amended by
    17 striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (xxii), by
    18 striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (xxiii) and
    19 inserting ‘‘or’’, and by adding at the end the
    20 following new clause:

    21 ‘‘(xxiv) section 6050X (relating to re
    22 turns relating to health insurance cov
    23 erage), and’’.

    24 (B) STATEMENT.—Paragraph (2) of sec
    25 tion 6724(d) of such Code is amended by strik

    1234

    1 ing ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (EE), by
    2 striking the period at the end of subparagraph
    3 (FF) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by inserting
    4 after subparagraph (FF) the following new sub
    5 paragraph:

    6 ‘‘(GG) section 6050X (relating to returns
    7 relating to health insurance coverage).’’.

    8 (c) RETURN REQUIREMENT.—Subsection (a) of sec
    9 tion 6012 of such Code is amended by inserting after
    10 paragraph (9) the following new paragraph:

    11 ‘‘(10) Every individual to whom section 59B(a)
    12 applies and who fails to meet the requirements of
    13 section 59B(d) with respect to such individual or
    14 any qualifying child (as defined in section 152(c)) of
    15 such individual.’’.

    16 (d) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—

    17 (1) The table of parts for subchapter A of chap
    18 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
    19 amended by adding at the end the following new
    20 item:

    ‘‘PART VIII. HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES.’’.

    21 (2) The table of sections for subpart B of part
    22 III of subchapter A of chapter 61 is amended by
    23 adding at the end the following new item:

    ‘‘Sec. 6050X.Returns relating to health insurance coverage.’’.

    1235

    1 (e) SECTION 15 NOT TO APPLY.—The amendment
    2 made by subsection (a) shall not be treated as a change
    3 in a rate of tax for purposes of section 15 of the Internal
    4 Revenue Code of 1986.

    5 (f) EFFECTIVE DATE.—

    6 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by
    7 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning
    8 after December 31, 2012.

    9 (2) RETURNS.—The amendments made by sub
    10 section (b) shall apply to calendar years beginning
    11 after December 31, 2012.

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Ramirez Cartoon: DEM Donkey blowing himself up "Obama Akbar!" Hilarious

    See Cartoon Here. Democrats = "The Suicide Bomber" With HealthCare Bomb Strapped Around Waist

    Ramirez on Democrats’ ObamaCare death wish   http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/13/ramirez-on-democrats-obamacare-death-wish/ 

    posted at 9:08 am on March 13, 2010 by Ed Morrissey http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/13/ramirez-on-democrats-obamacare-death-wish/
    Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

    No one can accuse two-time Pulitzer Prize winning editorial cartoonist Michael Ramirez of holding back — or of Investors Business Daily of a lack of courage in publishing him.  His latest take on the Democrats’ headlong rush to electoral oblivion in the midterms, and perhaps beyond, is dead-on accurate.  Backbenchers are being asked to blow up their political careers in order to save President Obama’s term in office.  But expect people to strongly object to the imagery and the declaration Ramirez uses:

    Provocative?  Absolutely.  But this isn’t insinuating that Obama is a secret Muslim or that Democrats are terrorists.  It accuses Democrats of putting Obama the man ahead of their own Constitutional obligations, and their own careers.  Perhaps that could also have been depicted as falling on a grenade or committing seppuku, but for this age, the image instantly communicates exactly what the artist intends. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/13/ramirez-on-democrats-obamacare-death-wish/

    What do you think?

    Did Michael Ramirez go too far?





     
    _________________________________________________________________________________________
    _________________________________________________________________________________________

    First the came for the UNBORN, granny, gramps and the disabled are next...in the USA.

    He’s also promising them FREE health care...while he CUTS & GUTS their grannies Medicare/SS and our retired Military over 65 Tricare For Life health ins.

    Defeat Obamacare call list: List now contains the new MAYBES culled from FR posts. IF you have a name to add let me know and I will add it.

    PLEASE CALL! DC OFFICE LOCAL OFFICE State District

    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


     
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    PUT THE "RAMMING IT TO AMERICA" IN REVERSE NOW!

    Tea Party Seeks Recall Of  DEM Senators  (Tuesday a judge will hear oral arguments from the Sussex County Tea Party, which is trying to recall Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat.)

    Tea Party Seeks Recall Of  DEM Senators By: Stephen Dinan

    Republicans' chances to retake the Senate are limited by the fact that only a third of the chamber is up for re-election this year, but some conservative activists are pushing to force more Democrats onto the ballot in November by trying to recall them.

    It's a long-shot approach, the legal hurdles are tremendous - no member of Congress has ever been recalled - and it's limited only to states with recall laws that are broad enough to include federal officeholders.

    But the first test comes Tuesday, when a judge will hear oral arguments from the Sussex County Tea Party, which is trying to recall Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat.

    "Nine states, including 12 Democratic senators who are not up for re-election otherwise, could all be on the ballot with a recall," said Peter Ferrara, a lawyer for the conservative American Civil Rights Union, which is helping the tea partiers with their case. "Given what they're doing on health care this year, that's just going to be a huge boost to the recall effort."  More at: http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/Tea-Party-Seeks-Recall/2010/02/26/id/351018

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Pelosi & DEM Entourage Pollutes Air Big Time From DC to Detroit Auto Show

    teaparty10101   commented  "How much did that cost us (taxpayers), hotel, limo, the flight there? and back (Washington DC to Detroit)...
    looked like a pretty big group...
     
     
    DC Politicians Swarm Detroit Auto Show
     
    1 day ago  Kerrville911Truth
    Pelosi "Show me the Plan we cannot show you the money" Auto Bailout 2:20
    November 20, 2008 Democratic Leadership News Conference Auto Industry Bailout Pelosi Reid
     
    1 year ago 303 views
     
    VoiceofAmericans2008
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Obama Is Fast Losing White Voters' Support" LA Times

    His approval ratings with the crucial bloc have plunged since April...
    Photobucket 
    IS OBAMA OUT OF TUNE ?  ABC NEWS VIDEO OF SENATOR WITH HIS HANDS AT HIS SIDES DURING NATIONAL ANTHEM  AT:
     
     
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    "American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed" Pravda

    "...we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

    Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters. "

     
     
    American capitalism gone with a whimper    by Stanislav Mishin
    27.04.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0

    It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

    True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

    Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

    First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

    Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

    The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

    These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

    These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

    Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

    So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

    Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

    So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

    The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

    The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

    Stanislav Mishin

     


    © 1999-2009. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors
     
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    "FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape" AP

    ""That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit..."

    FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

    By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 1 min ago  Excerpted from: Yahoo News at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090430/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_fact_check_obama

    WASHINGTON – "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One. It actually was partly him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped the latest in a string of precipitously out-of-balance budgets.  For more go to Yahoo News at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090430/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_fact_check_obama

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    "Nobody Realizes That Cap-and-Trade is a Tax" Says Democrat Dingell. Believe It!

    Video Admitting "Nobody in this country realizes that cap-and-trade is a tax -- and it's a great big one," Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan) said Friday
     
    Rep. Dingell (D-MI): Cap And Trade Is A Big Tax
    1:10
    At today's hearing on cap-and-trade, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) bluntly admitted what most Democrats won't and that is ...
    no rating 2 hours ago
     
     
    Cap and Trade: A Great Big Tax
    0:07
    Chairman Emeritus of Energy and Commerce Committee, John Dingell (D-MI), calls cap and trade as it is: Nobody in this ...
    no rating 2 hours ago 3 views
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    "DEMOCRATS LETTING NET NEUTRALITY DIE" JASON LEE MILLER

    The Democrat rope-a-dope strategy of the last few years is coming back around to kill Net Neutrality. The initial plan was simply to let Republicans have enough rope to hang themselves. Congressional Democrats ignored calls for investigations and impeachment of members of the Bush Administration because doing so allowed them to drop all blame square on their opponents' shoulders for everything without putting themselves under undue scrutiny. A few years of doing absolutely nothing was tantamount to lying low while Republicans destroyed themselves so Democrats could take over…and continue to do nothing.
     
    Democrats Letting Net Neutrality Die
    Thursday, April 16, 2009


    New Bosses Same As the Old Bosses   Excerpted from: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/04/13/democrats-letting-net-neutrality-die

    Here was what was supposed to happen: With telco-friendly Republican Congress members swept out of the way, Democrats would usher in legislation enshrining Network Neutrality principles and give the FCC the power to enforce them.

    Here’s what happened (is happening) instead: The most powerful Net Neutrality supporters (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton) are kicked upstairs while cable-and-Hollywood-friendly Democrats are killing Network Neutrality legislation in committees.

    Meanwhile, both telecom and cable companies are emboldened by the legislation’s quiet death, the deafening sound of non-action covered up nicely by the economic crisis, and both industries are soothed by interim FCC commissioner Michael Copps’ toothless proposal for a fifth unenforceable principle regarding network discrimination.

    Joe Barton
    Joe Barton


    The Democrat rope-a-dope strategy of the last few years is coming back around to kill Net Neutrality. The initial plan was simply to let Republicans have enough rope to hang themselves. Congressional Democrats ignored calls for investigations and impeachment of members of the Bush Administration because doing so allowed them to drop all blame square on their opponents’ shoulders for everything without putting themselves under undue scrutiny. A few years of doing absolutely nothing was tantamount to lying low while Republicans destroyed themselves so Democrats could take over…and continue to do nothing.

     

    Henry Waxman
    Henry Waxman

    It’s a genius plan until people start watching and learning about the new bosses and start understanding how much they look like the old bosses. The Internet Freedom and Preservation Act of 2006, 2007, 2008? All killed by assassins with supposedly opposing goals.

    The Senate version is suspicously stuck in a committee of formerly staunch proponents. The House version is under the committee supervision of net neutrality opponent Joe Barton (R-TX) and Henry Waxman (D-CA), who represents West Hollywood and Beverly Hills.

     

    Dianne Feinstein
    Dianne Feinstein


    We’re not surprised by Barton, a Texas Republican funded by Comcast and AT&T—that’s historical par for the course. But Waxman’s a Democrat, and Democrats are supposedly pro-net neutrality. Meanwhile, we should also be surprised by Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) lame and failed attempt to sneak in “reasonable network management” provisions into the economic stimulus package as Waxman looked the other way.

    So what’s going on with our supposed neutral net champions? The answer lies in the other industries opposed to net neutrality, namely the Entertainment industry, the principals of which happen to live in Waxman’s and Feinstein’s districts and donate heavily to their campaigns. Waxman gets lots of money from the cable industry, including TimeWarner and Disney. Feinstein’s donors include Time Warner and Disney as well, but also Qualcomm and GE (which owns NBC).

    In the earlier days of the Net Neutrality debate, the argument centered on very technical issues lost on the general public and focused heavily on telecommunications companies like Verizon and AT&T, and some on Comcast. (Though Ted Stevens famously issued a net neutrality push poll asking constituents if they wanted more TV or less TV.)

    As it progresses it becomes less about network issues (as if it ever really was about network issues) and more about Web video. Right now, very large, very wealthy, very powerful entities are battling for control of what will become the new TV (and radio and newspaper). It’s not about bandwidth or network operation. It’s about controlling Web media, especially video.

    Recently we learned from the CEO of a cable company who says American cable providers won’t allow speeds they’re capable of delivering because they’re afraid people will cancel their cable TV subscriptions. TimeWarner, a maker of films and television content as well as a cable Internet and TV provider, is toeing the line with download caps limiting how much video consumers can download.

    John Conyers
    John Conyers


    AT&T on the other side, quietly updated its terms of wireless service to prevent video transfers. AT&T, of course, is also getting into the video content delivery game with its U-Verse. Despite these most recent instances loudly protested, legislators have cited lack of complaints of abuse as the reason why they’ve backed off. Even former neutral net proponent John Conyers (D-MI) suddenly thinks it’s a non-issue. It’d be nice if we could look at his top donors and not see AT&T, TimeWarner, Sprint, and Cable, but sure enough, there they are, as predictable as the sunset.

    You might have also noticed, like we have, that while anything the RIAA and the MPAA want goes right through Congress like crap through a goose, network neutrality legislation (wanted by the people who currently have no money) languishes and dies in committee.

    With a setup like this, good luck getting net neutrality legislation passed this year or the next. Maybe in 2010 the country will suddenly favor independents and third parties so the do-nothing bums still remaining will be thrown out. But that may be overly optimistic—the people will likely still be broke by then, and its money that wins elections, and apparently what runs Congress.   More at: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/04/13/democrats-letting-net-neutrality-die

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Tea Parties Of Historical Proportions. MSM and Liberals Snide and Jealous?

    Melbourne, FL - 1000 ...Boise, Idaho - 2500, Longview, Texas about 1,000, Tyler, Texas about 1,400, Denver, Co. police say 5-6000, (the numbers keep coming in...)
     
     Tea Party Total Head Count being ascertained at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2229982/posts

    Trying to  ascertain an overall national figure of attendance at the tea parties today by asking Freepers to post their crowd estimates on this thread.

    I'm also asking that the thread be kept to just the numbers, no photos, etc.   Please give the location and number of participants.  Melbourne, FL - 1000 ...Boise, Idaho - 2500, Longview, Texas about 1,000, Tyler, Texas about 1,400, Denver, Co. police say 5-6000, (the numbers keep coming in...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2229982/posts  

     
    It's April 15, and Tax Day demonstrators at rallies across America party like it's 1773 | PHOTOS | VIDEO
    FOX FORUM: Mission Accomplished? | YOU DECIDE
    Gov. Says Texans May Want to Secede from Union
    Tea Party Coverage | On-Air Coverage | WATCH LIVE 
     
     PROGRESSIVES IN MAIN STREAM MEDIA MOCK TEA PARTIES

    (See MSNBC Keith Olbermann's vulgar rant  video below)
     
     
    LA Times called the protesters “Glue Sniffers” while MSNBC refers to them as a sexual reference.

    Shakir said, "These tea parties are a sham. The reason they're a sham is because they're directed by lobbyists here in D.C
     
    NBC’s political reporter John Harwood did some nice editorializing on the tea parties, calling them “ridiculous” and making the false claim that Obama hasn’t raised taxes on anyone.
     
    CNN Reporter at Chicago Tea Party: It’s “Anti-CNN Since This is Highly Promoted By the Right-Wing, Conservative Network Fox”
    CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen could barely get through her live shot at the Chicago tea party this afternoon. Over shouts of, "You're not a reporter," Roesgen quickly wrapped up an interview with an attendee, then said, "I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox."
    http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/cnn_reporter_at_chicago_tea_party_its_anticnn_since_this_is_highly_promoted_by_the_rightwing_conservative_network_fox_114141.asp
    "This initiative (TEA PARTIES) is funded by the high end - we call call it astroturf, it's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class."  http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=319613
     

    The Huffington Post  |  Rachel Weiner  |  April 13, 2009 at 03:14 PM

    Anti-tax organizers of "tea parties" around the country have tried to keep out fringe elements like birth certificate conspiracy theorists and potentially embarrassing national politicians like Michael Steele and David Vitter. But Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times Monday that the "movement" is of a piece with the Republican party of the past decade or so:  Republicans have become embarrassing to watch. And it doesn't feel right to make fun of crazy people. Better, perhaps, to focus on...
    Offensive and Vulgar Keith Olbermann's Crazy Jealous Rant about The Patriotic Tea Parties
     
    Keith Olbermann Tea Party Recap; Fox News Lies About Teabagger Turnout 
    10:00
    1,633 views
     
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
     
    April 15, 2009 | Daniel Nasaw
    Excerpt THE GUARDIAN CO.UK  Conservatives gathered in cities across the US today in "tea party" protests to rail against their income tax obligations, in what organisers are billing as the emergence of a mass, conservative grassroots movement to counter President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress. The protests occurred on the day when Americans' income tax returns and cheques are due with the federal government, and protesters were motivated by resentment at having to pay income taxes to fund the massive corporate bailouts and stimulus spending the White House says is necessary to right the economy. The catch-all name of the protests is a...  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/15/tea-party-protests-taxes-barack-obama
     
    More Tea Parties reporting by Americans from around the country (many have photos) go to : http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/news-forum/index  and scroll down News - Activism Leads for Tea Parties
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    "President Barack Obama was the third-ranking recipient collected $31,750 from Stanford company employees"

    "On the whole, Democrats benefited more from Stanford. Of the $2.4 mn in donations tied to the firm since 2000, 65% was directed towards Democrats, says the Center for Responsive Politics."
     

    February 20th, 2009

    Stanford’s Favorite Politicians

    by Elizabeth MacDonald     Excerpted from: http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/?s=schumer

    Which Politicians Benefited the Most?

    On the whole, Democrats benefited more from Stanford. Of the $2.4 mn in donations tied to the firm since 2000, 65% was directed towards Democrats, says the Center for Responsive Politics.

    Of the nearly $1 million donated by Standford and his wife, Susan, 78% was directed to Democrats, says the Center for Responsive Politics.

    According to the report, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was the top recipient of Stanford funds with $965,500, although all House and Senate campaign operations benefited from donations. The Republican National Committee also received $161,000.The Individual Politicians Who Benefited From Stanford.
     
    So who are the individual politicians the US district court judge could claw back political donations from?

    Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla), benefited the most, and now says he will give to charity his $45,900 in donations he received from Stanford’s operations.

    President Barack Obama was the third-ranking recipient among lawmakers, with $31,750 collected from Stanford company employees during his presidential bid, while $4,600 was from Stanford himself, says the says the Center for Responsive Politics. President Obama’s campaign says it will give the $4,600 campaign donation to the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, reports indicate.  
    The president’s rival, Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain, was the fifth highest recipient with $28,150. Sen. McCain announced he would donate the money he received from Stanford to charity.Former Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), who served prison time for his role in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, received $28,200 (this includes contributions to Ney’s candidate committee and leadership political action committee).

    Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who reportedly flew on Stanford’s jet, collected $20,100 from the company between the 2000 and 2006 election cycles.Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) got $27,500 from Stanford’s operations, says the Center for Responsive Politics. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) got $17,000. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev) received $8,500, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex) $7,300, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received $6,900.

    So far, only Nelson, the President, and McCain are giving their donations to charity. None of the politicians so far have said they will give the money back to investors.
     
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    "We’re still mad as hell. And now Democrats can’t blame anyone else for a change." Dan Gainor

    "President Obama and the Democrats give us a nearly $800 billion spending plan. And that’s been quickly followed by a housing plan, an auto plan and will probably be followed by another stimulus. How we’ll pay for it? Don’t ask, voters are told."
     

    Watch Out, Mr. President, Because We’re Mad As Hell!   

    Excerpted from: Fox News Forum at: http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/02/20/gainor_obama-4/

    By Dan Gainor
    Vice President Business & Media Institute

    “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

    In the 1970s, that phrase was made popular by the movie “Network,” where anchor Howard Beale parodied what TV news might become. In 2009, millions of us are mad as hell –- not at TV but at politics. Americans are mad because most of us play the game the right way and if we do, we are now the ones who lose.

    Ordinary Americans try to do the right thing, just like Spike Lee told us. We get up, we go to work, raise our families, obey the law and pay our debts. We are mellower versions of the Clint Eastwood character in “Gran Torino.” We just want to be left alone –- by government especially.

    The very change that swept Democrats into D.C. will surely sweep them away again if they squeeze ordinary citizens too much to pay for the failings of others.

    Unfortunately, while ordinary folks were doing those right things, our politicians are doing all the wrong ones. To help deal with a spending crisis, President Obama and the Democrats give us a nearly $800 billion spending plan. And that’s been quickly followed by a housing plan, an auto plan and will probably be followed by another stimulus. How we’ll pay for it? Don’t ask, voters are told.

    And if you live your life right, pay your bills and take care of your mortgage, all you might get is the mini-tax break of $400 per person. That’s about enough money for each of you to go to lunch once a week -– but only for a fast food lunch. At $7.69 a week, Obama’s “Making Work Pay” tax credit doesn’t make work pay very well.

    The Roman Caesars appeased their people with bread and circuses. In 2009, Obama has offered us bread, too. But this time it’s just a few items from the Dollar Menu at McDonald’s. And, for circuses, the passage of his 1,071-page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act certainly ought to qualify. More than 300 Senators and Representatives –- nearly all of them Democrats –- voted for the largest spending bill in history without ever reading the darn thing!

    No wonder we’re angry. While most of us were doing the right thing, some others –- foolish homeowners, stupid bankers, house flippers, idiot politicians and more –- were taking their cues from the movie “Good Fellas” and robbing us blind.

    Now we are supposed to bail them out.

    So far we’ve dumped several trillion dollars into that bucket and we’re still bailing with no end in sight. No end to what it’s going to cost us, that is. There is an end in sight -– an end to our savings, our retirements, our jobs, our future, even our children’s future.

    Who wouldn’t be angry?

    CNBC’s Rick Santelli captured that furor by calling for a “Chicago tea party” in a February 19 edition of “Squawk Box” appearance now spreading across the internet like a wild fire. Santelli was a Howard Beale for a new generation –- an oddly cast Chicago Mercantile Exchange floor reporter venting his rage at the free-spending Obama administration. Santelli urged the new president to arrange an online referendum to “see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages.”

    It wasn’t just Santelli. The exchange floor erupted in anger and boos as he asked them:

    “How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?”

    The left and the mainstream media will discount this spontaneous moment. After all, those people on the floor who responded so strongly are just whiny financial types or so the pundits will claim. But the pundits will be wrong. Desperately wrong.

    Team Obama has helped unleash that anger. Americans were justifiably frustrated at the reckless spending that came out of Washington and they kicked Republicans to the curb for a “change.”

    Change came to Washington claiming bipartisanship and transparency. Obama lied on both. The bipartisan bill was rammed through with classic — and sleazy– Chicago-style politics. And how transparent is a process where even graduates of the Evelyn Wood speed reading course couldn’t have analyzed the bill?

    Rather than mollify a worried electorate, the Democrats have angered it further. They invoke FDR like some patron saint of populism and expect the masses to march to their tune –- Pied Piper style.

    The masses might be ready to march, but with YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and more, they no longer rely on leaders to lead. That populist rebellion took down one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington, not over tax problems, but because of hubris. Tom Daschle, a former Senate Minority Leader, assumed he had the power to weather his tax problems. He had no problem with politicians, but an eruption of voter anger doomed his nomination.

    People in Washington easily forget that the 1992 ... More from this excerpted article at: http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/02/20/gainor_obama-4/

    Dan Gainor is The Boone Pickens Fellow and Vice President of the Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute. His column appears each week on The Fox Forum and he can be seen each Thursday from 9-10:00 on Foxnews.com’s “Strategy Room.”

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
    « Previous123Next »