Federal Issue

U.S. Senate hearings on President Barack Obama’s choice of Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court are scheduled to begin next Monday. It is clear that Kagan is hostile towards traditional family values, the military and the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. As such, she should not be confirmed to sit on the nation’s highest court.

Judge Robert Bork, William Saunders and Professor Gerard Bradley urged the U.S. Senate to reject her confirmation to the high court because of the radical political positions she has taken in her career and because of the people she has extolled as her heroes — Aharon Barak, the retired president of the Supreme Court of Israel.

“He is the judge who has best advanced democracy, human rights, the rule of law and justice,” stated Kagan in September 2006 introductory remarks at a Harvard University award ceremony.

Barak has been recognized across the political spectrum as one of the most liberal activist judges.

Unfortunately, this may be an indication of how she plans to operate as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, adjudicating abstract concepts and values, instead of using the U.S. Constitution as the ultimate standard to consider the validity of the laws passed by legislatures or legal referendums passed directly by the people (California’s Prop. 8 for example).

According to an Associated Press report, Robert Bork said Kagan’s admiration for the liberal Barak disqualifies her to serve on the nation’s highest court.

Barak “may be the worst judge on the planet — the most activist,” said Bork. “If people understood that an American Supreme Court nominee was going to follow the example of Barak, there would be grave misgivings and probably a refusal to confirm.”

Read more on Kagan from our friends at Family Research Council HERE.

This week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report showing that over the past eight years, nearly $1 billion has been given to “family planning organizations” (read abortion providers).

Planned Parenthood Federation of America received $657.1 million in taxpayer dollars from Fiscal Year 2002 to Fiscal Year 2009. While Planned Parenthood says that none of the money it received has been used for abortion, the money still encourages abortion providers to continue their work killing the unborn. So far, over 30 Republican lawmakers are working to shut down this outrageous spending of taxpayer money to abortion providers. We’ll keep you updated on this issue.

Also this week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on a special attempt to strike the individual mandate (forced buy-in) from the healthcare “reform” legislation. The attempt to repeal this onerous part of Obama’s new “Health-Care” policy failed 230-187 on Tuesday afternoon.

Republicans had often protested the measure within the healthcare bill, arguing that it would drive up costs for consumers and that it was possibly unconstitutional.

IFI Media Watch

You probably haven’t noticed it. It is subtle, yet powerful. It’s a tool that changes the way Americans process the news they receive via television, print and radio. What am I talking about? The style book. Ever heard of it? Every newspaper and magazine has one; every journalist practically knows what it says by heart and, subsequently, it is akin to a politically correct language guide for the establishment press.

If you haven’t heard of the style book before now, don’t feel bad. I wasn’t aware such a thing existed until a few years ago when I wrote a column about how the Chicago Tribune changed the word pro-life to anti-abortion every time a pro-life leader used the word in a published letter to the editor. I requested and received a quote from a Tribune editorial page editor who acknowledged the existence of this bible of political correctness.

Do you ever wonder why we never hear the words pro-abortion in the mainstream media’s coverage of right to life issues? The word pro-abortion is not in the style book. It’s taboo. It’s a big no-no. The style book says to use the word pro-choice. Why would the establishment press prefer to use the term pro-choice over pro-abortion? Even I can answer that question. It sounds much cleaner, much neater. Heck, we’re all pro-choice. We make lots of choices during the day. We choose if we will talk a walk or have a high calorie dessert when we’re supposed to be on a diet. But still, choice is a nice word.

In contrast, the word pro-abortion is not in the dominant media’s style book. Listen closely. You’ll never hear it. You’ll never read it. The word has been scrubbed from the journalistic lexicon.

The style book has been used in many ways to impact thought. Take the word gay. According to my very old Webster’s Dictionary, gay is defined as:

1. joyous and lively; merry; happy; lighthearted
2. bright; brilliant [gay colors]
3. given to social life and pleasures [a gay life]
4. wanton; licentious [a gay dog]
5. [Slang] homosexual

Today, the word gay is no longer slang for homosexual, it’s synonymous with homosexuality. Gay no longer means happy. It’s not called a Homosexual Pride Parade, it’s a Gay Pride Parade. It’s not homosexuals in the military, it’s gays in the military. Why? Because the term gay is meant to take our mind off of the subject, the meaning behind homosexuality and the act itself. The word gay is definitely in the p.c. style book and it’s there for a purpose.

Do you want another example? Well, whether you want one or not, here it is. Have you ever heard the term “undocumented worker”? You probably have, but this is where the style book has run into trouble. Most Americans know the difference between what an undocumented worker is and an illegal alien or illegal immigrant. In this case, Americans have refused to buy into the politically correct language used by the dominant media to refer to this group. Again, the term undocumented worker sounds much better and much less offensive to Americans than illegal immigrants.

Now don’t bother to call the Chicago Sun-Times, Springfield State Journal Register, the Daily Herald, Bloomington Pantagraph or any of the numerous newspapers throughout Illinois to try to obtain a copy of their style book. They probably will tell you the style book doesn’t exist. But trust me, there is one.

The Chicago Tribune editor told me, in using the style book, they are “strictly trying to be consistent with all sections of the paper, and to be as fair and accurate as we possibly can.” But what’s fair and what’s accurate and to whom?

The style book is a vital tool for liberals in the press which they hope will help change the way you think about contentious issues of the day and to a large extent they have been successful. Is it sinister? Well, I guess it depends on how it’s used and who is using it. Now all members of the mainstream media cannot be painted with a broad brush of condemnation. In many cases, the “bad guys” are the editors who enforce the use of the style book on their journalists.

So, the next time you’re watching ABC, CBS or NBC, or reading a newspaper, or listening to some radio stations, pay close attention to their language when they discuss some of these issues. Some say what they are doing is censorship. Personally, I think it is censorship, but I’ll leave that conclusion up to you. No style book here.

One of the nation’s leading pro-life organizations is voicing strong opposition to President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. The President selected Kagan to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Americans United for Life says that Kagan, who currently serves as U.S. Solicitor General, is a “radical abortion rights activist.” The group is urging the U.S. Senate to refuse to confirm Kagan for the High Court.

“President Obama has chosen another activist who seeks to reshape the traditional understanding of the Constitution to suit her personal views,” says Charmaine Yoest, President of AUL. “Kagan has been open in her admiration of activist judges who rewrite the law to suit themselves and has advocated that judges ‘advance’ social policy rather than faithfully applying the law.”

Yoest states that AUL’s research reveals that Kagan is “an ardent abortion supporter.” She says that Kagan has been a donor to the National Partnership for Women and Families, which has close ties to the National Abortion Rights Action League and Emily’s List, a pro-abortion political action committee.

Kagan has publicy and repeatedly criticized the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rust v. Sullivan, Yoest adds. In that decision, the High Court upheld regulations that prohibited the use of tax dollars for programs that promote or counsel for abortion. Kagan has also written articles dismissing the harmful effects of abortion on women’s physical, emotional, and psychological health.

“Americans do not need a radical abortion-rights activist taking a fill-in-the-blank approach to the U.S. Constitution,” Yoest concludes.

You can read more about AUL’s analysis of Kagan’s record by visiting their website at this link:

Americans United for Life

President Barack Obama has nominated current Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, former Harvard Law School dean, to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice John Paul Stevens. Court watchers suggest Obama’s primary reason for choosing Kagan is the belief that she’s has the intellectual gravitas to serve as a counterweight to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia. Kagan is unique since she has never served as a judge, and since she’s only 50 Kagan expected to serve for many years.

Also, the ObamaCare “age 26” rule goes into effect this week, allowing young adults up to age 26 to stay on their parent’s health insurance policy. The federal Health and Human Services department is expected to publish updates rules governing the process, though it should be noted that these “children” in most cases won’t be able to get on their parent’s plan until 2014 if they had an opportunity for coverage from their employer. More important, conservatives have pointed out that many young adults simply do not want health insurance, which may prove troublesome when the individual mandate is fully implemented.

Bottom Line: Though Kagan will likely draw some heat from her work on an advisory board for Goldman Sachs, she’ll draw the most criticism for her opposition to military recruiters on the campus of Harvard’s Law School because she believed the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy violates Harvard’s “anti-discrimination” policy.

Given Obama’s remaining agenda leading up to November, conservatives would be wise to draw on every conceivable problem Kagan poses, and drag this confirmation process out as long as reasonably possible.

Read more:

Click HERE for more Kagan resources

Click HERE for Kagan clips

If Elena Kagan Is a Lesbian, She Should Say So because Public Has a Right to Know

Like many Americans across the nation, I watched intensely as Congress debated and ultimately passed the onerous health care “reform” bill Sunday evening. One main point of contention is the idea — affirmed by some radically “progressive” lawmakers — that health care is a “right.” This is nothing short of socialistic propaganda. The implicit claim in the assertion that health care is a “right” is that it is a constitutionally protected right. All experts agree that health care is neither a constitutional nor a legal right. In America we understand that our rights to the free exercise of religion, to speak freely, to bear arms and to be secure from unwarranted search and seizure come from God.

To see the difference in government-mandated health care and real rights, look at how they are exercised. Historically, American citizens have been free to exercise their real, constitutionally protected rights — or not — as they see fit. The government does not compel citizens to attend church in the name of religious freedom. The government does not compel citizens to own a gun in the name of the Second Amendment. And the government does not force citizens to engage in the political process in the name of free speech. In contrast, our radically “progressive” friends are eager to compel every American using the heavy hand of government to exercise their so-called right to health care. Should we celebrate the passage of a bill that in the service of non-existent rights actually diminishes our liberty?

What is really at issue is not whether health care is a “right” but whether citizens have a right to taxpayer-funded health care. What other cherished American “right” has ever required that we diminish another’s liberty? Does the right to free speech require newspaper owners to print every op-ed and editorial? Does the right to bear arms require the government to arm its citizenry? Does the freedom of religion require government-funding of churches, mosques and synagogues? Why then, does this “right” to healthcare require the government to take from some to give to others? When in the history of our country have we had to secure a right by trampling on the liberties of others?

Make no mistake, that is exactly what is happening with this government takeover of the healthcare industry. This new health care “right” will be forced on every American, and it will be made possible by taking from citizens “according to their ability” and giving to others “according to their needs” (Karl Marx, 1875).

According to U.S. Representative John Boehner (R-OH), this legislation will create 160 new governmental boards, commissions and mandates and require $500 billion in tax increases to pay for it. Of course, that will be only the beginning, as additional taxpayer funds will most certainly be needed.

Health care lawyer and policy analyst John S. Hoffilluminates the troubling questions left unanswered by the phrase “right to health care,” which he argues “does not address the relevant issues that must be considered in considering taxpayer subsidies for health care”:

How much health care is to be paid for by the taxpayer, for what beneficiaries, and under what circumstances? Does it include the most advanced or experimental treatment? Indeed, what is health care? Long term care? What are the parameters of self-responsibility? Should there be taxpayer subsidies for smokers, drug abusers, and dare-devils? And which taxpayers should be paying? Should the working young and low-income workers subsidize the health care costs of those who are wealthier and sicker? These are political judgments that we have barely addressed, and they are camouflaged by invocation of a broad principle of a right to health care.

President Obama and many in Congress are celebrating the passage of this ominous legislation — legislation that forces American citizens into the newly created socialized health care system. Sadly, the costs of this new government program are much higher than we think. Although, the financial cost to taxpayers is substantial, the cost to personal liberty is incalculable.

The issue of homosexuals serving openly in the military is so complex that writing about it seems overwhelming.

First, there is the problem of reconciling both Article 125 of the Military Code of Justice and U.S. Code – Section 654 that strictly prohibit those who engage in homosexual acts or those who state that they are homosexual from serving in the military with the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that serves as a defacto law superseding actual law.

“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” implicitly says homosexuals can serve as long as they don’t openly acknowledge that they are homosexual. That’s like saying that company policy strictly bans the use of company computers to view porn, but employees can view porn as long as they don’t tell anyone. Either it’s permitted or it’s not.

Despite what some advocates of homosexuals serving openly in the military claim, military prohibitions against homosexuals serving in the military no more encourage deceit, than do laws prohibiting stealing encourage deceit. To claim that laws that prohibit certain behaviors encourage deceit is another way of saying people are always going to break laws. In this twisted logic, all laws encourage deceit because those who don’t want to abide by them willfully engage in deceit in order to do what they want without incurring the consequences.

We can’t always prevent lawbreakers from breaking the law, but that unfortunate reality should not compel society to repeal laws. In other words, society ought not repeal laws in order that those who refuse to obey them are freed from the consequences of lawbreaking. The fact that throughout history there have been homosexuals who enlisted in the military in violation of military law that prohibits them from serving should not compel the military to rescind the law.

Removing the prohibition against allowing openly homosexuals from serving in the military will result in a whole host of other problems, among which are the following:

• It will result in discomfort among some soldiers with engaging in private activities like showering with men who admit to being sexually attracted to other men. Yes, throughout history homosexual men have served in the military, but heterosexual men are unlikely to be uncomfortable showering with homosexual men when they don’t know they’re homosexual.
• If military law is changed to allow openly homosexual men and women to serve, there will undoubtedly be an increase in homosexual activity in the military. To argue otherwise is either disingenuous or naïve.
• Coercion between openly homosexual military officers and their subordinates will likely increase.
• Some men may choose not to enlist or re-enlist if they will be compelled to serve with openly homosexual men.
• Romantic affiliations will develop which will likely affect combat decisions.
• The military will eventually have to provide military housing for same sex couples.

(For more on the potential impact of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military, click HERE to read an editorial by Richard H. Black, retired chief of the Army’s Criminal Law Division, who as a marine pilot flew 269 combat missions in Vietnam.)

Political commentator Chris Matthews made yet another silly statement on his Sunday morning program on Feb. 7 when he said that anyone who wants to serve in the military should be allowed to do so. Apparently, neither the mission of the military nor its needs must be allowed to supersede the almighty desires of any particular individual. His statement reflects the troubling thinking of so many Americans who now believe that any good or desirable thing constitutes the object of a right. If they see something they want or something they want to do, many people believe they have a Constitutional right to have it or do it.

Homosexual couples want to participate in the heterosexual institution of marriage, so same sex marriage is now their “right.” Homosexual couples who are designed to be sterile want babies, so having babies is now their “right.” Men who are sexually attracted to other men want to serve in the military, so now serving in the military is their “right.”

Homosexuals, and increasingly “transgenders,” are compelling society through erroneous and unproven ontological assumptions to radically redefine foundational societal institutions. All of their efforts are based on acceptance of the deceit that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to skin color or other immutable conditions that have no behavioral moral implications open to moral assessment.

Homosexuality is not by nature equivalent to skin color, nor is it morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Conservatives especially need to recognize how much they have appropriated the absurd proposition that homosexuality is akin to race, and they need to stop treating it as if it were.

After reading about a recent poll that reveals that the opinions of both civilians and younger military personnel are shifting in favor of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military, I found myself wondering why the views are changing so dramatically. Chris Matthews posed that question to his guests MSNBC correspondent Norah O’Donnell, New York Times writer Andrew Sorkin, Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, and Time Magazine assistant editor Michael Duffy, and received surprisingly insubstantial, question-begging answers.

In response to Matthews’ question, “Why have attitudes (on homosexuals serving in the military) changed since Bill Clinton confronted that issue back in ’93?” O’Donnell said “I think there’s greater acceptance.”

Sorkin said, “The world’s changed, but I’m going to say it’s about social networking, it’s about the Internet. I think so many people are so much more open in a whole new way than they’ve ever been, and therefore people who were unaccepting before now see it in a whole different way.”

Kathleen Parker said, “we parents have raised our kids to not be judgmental and to be accepting of gays. We all know more gay people than we used to, or think we didn’t know before.”

Duffy said, “the reason is that our teenagers are just 100 times more tolerant than their parents about everything.”

What these responses brought to mind was one of Jack Handey’s Deep Thoughts: “One day one of my little nephews came up to me and asked if the equator was a real line that went around the Earth, or just an imaginary one. I had to laugh. Laugh and laugh. Because I didn’t know, and I thought that maybe by laughing he would forget what he asked me.”

Parker responded by saying that children have been raised to be less judgmental, which really means that many have switched their judgment from homosexual acts are immoral to the judgment that homosexual acts are moral. Does Parker really want people to stop judging between right and wrong, or does she want people to make moral judgments with which she agrees. Does she want people to be non-judgmental when it comes to racist behavior, or adult consensual incest, or corporate malfeasance?

What none of Matthews guests did was to offer an account of the reasons why society’s judgments are changing, which is the crux of the matter. Has it happened through careful study of the best thinkers writing on the subject of morality, sexuality, the needs of the military, or the place of institutional disapproval in maintaining a healthy society?

Or have other factors and forces altered the judgments of society:

• Have judgments shifted through the relentless spate of images and ideas promulgated through music, films, novels, plays, essays, the news media, advertising, and public education that implicitly and explicitly affirm unproven assumptions about homosexuality?
• Have judgments shifted as a result of the absolute censorship in public schools of the writing of scholars who offer thoughtful, erudite expositions of conservative perspectives on the nature and morality of homosexuality?
• Have public judgments shifted as a result of relentless ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to say publicly that volitional homosexual acts are immoral?
• Have public judgments shifted as theologically orthodox churches cowardly retreated from engaging in this public debate and from equipping their members to engage in it?

The tragic reality is that the affirmation of openly homosexual men and women serving in the military reflects not only society’s acceptance of the fallacious claim that homosexuality is analogous to skin color/race, but also of society’s rejection of any standards regarding sexual morality:

• Marriage has been severed from sex, and from procreation, and from childrearing, and increasingly from “gender.”
• Sex has been severed from marriage, procreation, childrearing, and “gender.” Polyamory-or as polyamorists like to call it, “ethical non-monogamy”-is increasingly visible and likely increasingly practiced.
• Fornication and co-habitation are not merely accepted; they’re expected.
• Homosexuality is everywhere promoted as normal and good.
• Exhibitionism is common on reality shows, primetime comedies and dramas, films, music videos, and college campuses.
• And paraphilias, also known as fetishes, are played for laughs on sitcoms.
• Even lighthearted references to and depictions of incest have appeared in television programs and films.

Why wouldn’t a generation weaned on positive images of sexual perversion and immorality support openly homosexual men and women serving in the military?

What society needs to think seriously about is whether some forms of institutionalized disapproval of sexual immorality through laws or policy serve a good and necessary social function.

Take ACTION:  Contact President Obama, our Illinois U.S. Reps. & Sens., and ask them to NOT allow open homosexuality in our military.

Members Of The Military Do Not Agree

In December of 1992, even before he began his first term as President, Bill Clinton announced a controversial policy related to the service of homosexuals in the military called, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). At the time, the Clinton administration was seriously lobbying Congress to change federal law which prevented openly homosexual individuals from serving in the United States Armed Forces.

Clinton’s plan was met by furious criticism from political conservatives as well as military members who said such tampering with federal law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) would negatively impact the nation’s ability to defend itself. Clinton moderated and subsequently introduced the aforementioned “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which is still in force today.

On January 27th, 2010, during his first State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said he would seek to overturn DADT in order to allow homosexual men and women to openly serve in the U.S. military. By the way, Obama pledged to do just this during his presidential campaign.

The premise behind DADT is simple, but it has resulted in more confusion, according to many military personnel. Under DADT, openly homosexual individuals are still prohibited from serving in the armed forces. But recruiters and officers are instructed not to ask questions regarding an individual’s sexual orientation and members of the military are supposed to keep their personal sexual habits private.

Obama’s speech proved there is a movement being led by liberal politicians, “gay” activists and some members of the dominant media that want to lift the prohibitions that state homosexuals cannot serve in the military under current law. It must be noted there have been a significant number of individuals discharged from the armed forces because they violated the UCMJ related to their sexual orientation. However, some sources claim the number of discharges that have taken place in recent years, due to the military’s restrictions on open homosexuality, have dropped considerably.

Many current and former members of the military believe the service of openly gay and lesbian military personnel would be detrimental to combat readiness.

“Acceptance of homosexuality would be devastating to the military,” said Cy Huerter, a retired Navy Lt. Commander. “We don’t need perversion of any sexual orientation in the military. The defense of our country is not a social experiment.”

“Frankly, ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ has led to issues which have nothing to do with America’s defense,” said a former military officer who requested anonymity. “If openly gay and lesbian individuals were allowed to serve in the Armed Forces, the possibility for abuse of the Uniform Code of Military Justice would be even greater and that should be plain to see for everyone.”

It would take an act of Congress to change the Uniform Code of Military Justice. However, the will of the American people should trump the desires of Obama and those on the far left who put their self-interest ahead of the nation’s welfare.

A group of pastors and Christian activists in Michigan filed a civil rights lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder over the 2009 “Hate Crimes” law alleging that it violates their civil rights. The complaint filed by the Thomas Moore Law Center states that Christians could now become the target of federal investigations, grand juries and even criminal charges for nothing more than opposing the political agenda of homosexual activists who want to block any criticism of their choices or actions.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include individuals who already have faced accusations by homosexual advocates that they bear responsibility for the actions of others for no other reason than their agreement with a biblical view of homosexuality.

The lawsuit cited the death of Andrew Anthos, a 72-year-old Detroit man allegedly the victim of a ‘hate crime’ because of his ‘sexual orientation.’ In that case, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force ‘blamed Gary Glenn, Director of AFA of Michigan for supposedly causing Anthos’ death. Anthos was also was cited by Michigan U.S. Senator Carl Levin as evidence of the need to extend federal ‘hate crimes’ legislation to include ‘sexual orientation’ as a protected classification.

Police investigations and a medical examiner’s report determined that Anthos died of natural causes rather than an alleged hate crime.

Federal Issue

We’ve been hearing a great deal about federal health care “reform” over the last few months. Certainly one of the most troubling parts of this big-government bill is that the U.S. Senate version would allow the use of federal taxpayer dollars to subsidize abortions.

But, in addition to containing many economically damaging provisions, to say nothing of the moral outrage of federally funding abortions (and possibly sex change operations), this health care “reform” push by the liberal leaders in Congress may very well be unconstitutional.

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, recently published an article drawing attention to a few major constitutional issues with this legislation. The crux of the problem is the bill’s “individual mandate,” not the notorious “public option.”

The “individual mandate” requires Americans to purchase health insurance under penalty of law. Yes, you heard that right. Congress is getting ready to pass a health care “reform” bill that would require you and me to purchase a consumer product.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and his colleagues are trying to use Congress’ legitimate constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to pass the individual mandate. The problem is, however, the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 gives states the absolute authority to regulate health insurance.

That’s why we cannot purchase health insurance across state lines — it’s a federal law — therefore, no interstate commerce of health insurance. And that means Congress does not have the constitutional power to regulate health insurance… let alone mandate that Americans have to purchase health insurance.

There is more — the bill also creates an unconstitutional tax to enforce the unconstitutional individual mandate. Those who do not purchase health insurance will be subject to a penalty tax.

The U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from creating a “direct tax” unless the tax is apportioned among the states according to their population, as determined by census. The proposed tax is not an income tax, because it is not based on income. It’s not an excise tax because the tax is not based on the value of the health insurance policies purchased.

This tax is a “fixed amount based on family size,” which essentially means the tax is levied “per person” — a direct tax. It is therefore, unconstitutional. So not only would you be mandated to purchase health insurance, you’d be punished with an unconstitutional tax as the penalty for disobeying the mandate!

And, according to the Cato Institute, this bill would create perhaps the only criminal offense in our nation’s history that can be committed only by people in a certain income level, because those living below the poverty line are exempt from the mandate.

Thanks to in part to the Tea Party movements and the Town Hall meetings this past summer and fall, the White House has not been able to ramrod this legislation through Congress as President Barack Obama fully expected to do earlier this year. However, it’s going to take a continued, unified grassroots effort to defeat, at the very least, the most offensive parts of this bill, including the abortion funding and the individual mandate. However, nothing less than our constitution and very Republic are at stake.

Late last week, Illinois’ senior U.S. Senator Dick Durbin and Senate Majority Whip for the Democrats admitted that he is “in the dark” about the national health care “reform” bill.

During debate on this issue, U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) asked Durbin, “Should we not at least be informed as to what the proposal is that the Senate Majority Leader is going to propose to the entire Senate?”

Durbin’s answer: “I would say to the senator from Arizona that I am in the dark almost as much as he is, and I am in the leadership.” [Emhasis added]

Durbin explained that during a Democratic caucus, Reid and the small group of senators involved in crafting the bill turned to their fellow Democrats and “basically stood and said, ‘We are sorry, we can’t tell you in detail what was involved.’

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact Illinois Senators’ Durbin and Burris and the Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate to let them know you don’t want the government making your health care decisions, raising your taxes to pay for it and using your tax dollars to pay for abortions. Tell them to vote against a government takeover of health care.

Background

Even though the U.S. Senate’s number-two member doesn’t know what is going on with the health care “reform” bill, U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has warned that the “nuclear option” is being considered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to rush this bill through…This means only 50 senate votes would be needed to pass a healthcare takeover bill that would tax Americans nearly half a billion dollars, while gutting Medicare $464 billion.

What we do know about the Obama/Reid/Pelosi health care “reform” bill is that it would lead to rationed medical care, shuttered hospitals, overburdened doctors and bureaucratic waste. It would:

1) Decrease the quality of our health care. Under government-run health care, a patient would spend less time with their doctor, receive less preventative care and spend more time waiting for important medical procedures.

2) Marginalize the health care of seniors. Under government-run health care, the Greatest Generation will be treated the worst in the health system.

3) Limit our access to health care. Under government-run health care, lines will be longer, waiting will increase and doctor-time will decrease. Additionally, mandated insurance will provide coverage we don’t want and deprive us of coverage we need.

You can also call the congressional switchboard and leave a message with your senators: 1-202-224-3121.

Please forward this to your friends.

Contact Illinois’ U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Roland Burris and urge them to oppose the Senate health care bill, which may be up for a vote within the next day or two.

The U.S. Senate health care “reform” bill, H.R. 3590, will massively expand government’s control over your health care, ration your access to health care, and fund abortions with your tax dollars, to name just a few of the dangerous aspects of this bill — which is 2,074 pages long and will cost taxpayers more than $849 billion over 10 years.

Take ACTION: Call Senators’ Durbin and Burris and let them know you don’t want the government making your health care decisions, raising your taxes to pay for it and using your tax dollars to pay for abortions. Tell them to vote against bringing the bill to the floor.

Sen. Durbin
(202) 224-2152 – Washington D.C.
(312) 353-4952 – Chicago
(217) 492-4062 – Springfield
(618) 998-8812 – Marion

Sen. Burris
(202) 224-2854 – Washington D.C.
(312) 886-3506 – Chicago
(217) 492-5089 – Springfield
(618) 529-7471 – Carbondale

Government Control of Health Care
The U.S. Senate bill will create a “public option” for government health insurance and impose government controls on private insurance and health care providers — critical steps in the direction of universal, government-run health care under which government bureaucrats and standards, not your doctor, will determine what health care is appropriate for you. And it will raise taxes by billions of dollars to ruinous levels to pay for it all.

Taxpayer Funding of Abortion
The bill will also result in “abortion on demand” coverage in the government run health care plans. National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said the Senate bill language “would result in coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs.” He said the bill authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to require coverage of “any and all abortions” throughout the public option program.

“This would be federal government funding of abortion, no matter how hard they try to disguise it,” Johnson commented, adding that the bill also creates tax-supported subsidies to purchase private health plans that will cover abortion on demand.

This week, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on the nomination of Judge David Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Seventh Circuit Court is based at the Dirksen Federal Building in Chicago. It is one of thirteen United States courts of appeals, composed of eleven judges. Once appointed as a federal judge, they hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from office.

Hamilton, a former ACLU board member, has issued rulings that allow prayer in state legislatures to Allah but not Jesus and protected sex offenders from giving updated information including email addresses and online logins to authorities. He even inappropriately obstructed a law requiring informed consent regarding abortion in Indiana for years until overturned and rebuked. These actions and rulings were all reversed by the Seventh Circuit Court.

Illinois’ U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Roland Burris must hear from us. While our two liberal Senators will probably confirm all of President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees, including Hamilton, please take a moment to ask them to stand for truth and vote against ACLU activist Judge David Hamilton.

Sen. Durbin
(202) 224-2152 – Washington D.C.
(312) 353-4952 – Chicago
(217) 492-4062 – Springfield
(618) 998-8812 – Marion

Sen. Burris
(202) 224-2854 – Washington D.C.
(312) 886-3506 – Chicago
(217) 492-5089 – Springfield
(618) 529-7471 – Carbondale

The Disturbing Record of Judge David Hamilton, Barack Obama’s nominee:

• Hamilton Ruled it’s Illegal to Pray in Jesus’ Name, But perfectly OK to Pray in Allah’s Name in Indiana State Legislature – a decision which was later OVERTURNED by the same Appeals Court to which Obama is now nominating Hamilton.
• Hamilton Ruled to Hasten the Abortion of Unborn Children. That Ruling Too was OVERTURNED
• Now Obama Wants to Reward Hamilton by Promoting Him to the SAME COURT That Overruled Him!
• Hamilton: REBUKED by 7th Circuit Court for Repeatedly “Abusing His Discretion”
• Hamilton Rated “Not Qualified” by American Bar Association when first nominated
• Hamilton is a former FUNDRAISER for ACORN
• In 1994, the 7th Circuit rebuked Judge Hamilton for denying a Rabbi the right to display a Menorah as part of an Indianapolis holiday display.
• He also is one of the most lenient judges in America when it comes to crime and criminals.
• In United States v. Rinehart, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 19498 (S.D. Ind. Feb 2, 2007), Judge Hamilton used his opinion to request clemency for a police officer who pled guilty to two counts of child pornography. The 32 year old officer had engaged in “consensual” sex with two teenagers and videotaped his activities.
• In United States v. Woolsey, 535 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2008), the Seventh Circuit faulted Judge Hamilton for disregarding an earlier conviction in order to avoid imposing a life sentence on a repeat offender.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Fransico) recently introduced her “new and improved” plan to facilitate a government takeover of the health care system. This 1,900+ page bill is nearly twice as long as the one proposed earlier this year that prompted the outrage at rallies and town halls across the country.

The new bill, titled “The Affordable Health Care for America Act” (H.R. 3962), has been scheduled to go to the House floor for a few hours of debate. A vote could come soon after debate concludes.

Take ACTION: Send an email or a fax to your U.S. Representative now by clicking HERE. Ask him or her to vote against H.R. 3962, the healthcare “reform” bill!

Please also lift this issue up in prayer.

Background

We believe that the government option, if it passes, will be the “camel’s nose under the tent” that will eventually work to put private insurers out of business and then lead to a fully-nationalized, single-payer system within 15 years, which President Barack Obama has said is his clear preference.

Among some of the bill’s troubling provisions are the following:

Page 94-Section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government

Page 110-Section 222(e) requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan-and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions

Page 111-Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee”) to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase -and would likely require all Americans to subsidize and purchase plans that cover any abortion

Page 211-Section 321 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage

Page 225-Section 330 permits — but does not require — Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care

Page 255-Section 345 includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill (while the bill includes a requirement for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a similar requirement to verify applicants’ identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits)

Page 297-Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health insurance — the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000

Page 313-Section 512 imposes an 8 percent “tax on jobs” for firms that cannot afford to purchase health coverage; (according to an analysis by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions “at substantial risk of unemployment”

Page 336-Section 551 imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar “surcharge,” more than half of which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed by President Obama’s senior economic advisor, such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs

Page 520-Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors’ existing coverage

Page 733-Section 1401 establishes a new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research; the bill includes no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on cost grounds, similar to Britain’s National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than $35,000

Page 1174-Section 1802(b) includes provisions entitled “TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES” to fund comparative effectiveness research

Please take a moment to contact your Congressman today and ask him or her to vote against this health care takeover bill.

Read more:

• AARP’s tacit endorsement of Medicare cuts line its pockets, but shortchanges seniors (Chicago Tribune)
• Decision day for health care in the House (World Magazine)
• The Pelosi Plan (The Weekly Standard)

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) may push for a vote on so-called healthcare “reform” legislation in U.S. House of Representatives this week.

The bill, H.R. 3962, known as the Affordable Health Care for America Act, is more than 1900 pages long, stands nearly 9 inches tall and weighs 19 pounds. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports the cost of the plan at a whopping $1.055 trillion over the next ten years. We are digging ourselves deeper into debt and passing it on to our children and future generations.

Moreover, this plan will authorize tax dollars to fund elective abortions.

Take ACTION: Send an email or a fax to your U.S. Representative now. Ask him or her to vote against H.R. 3962, the healthcare “reform” bill! Contact your U.S. Representative and tell him/her you oppose government run healthcare! Tell them you will be watching how they vote. Furthermore, tell them that you oppose any healthcare bill that would use your tax dollars to pay for abortions. Healthcare should be about saving lives, not destroying them.

Please take the time to watch this 3 minute video and call to action from U.S. Represenative Mike Pence (R-Fort Wayne).

Abortion is not healthcare!
This legislation would provide a public option, like Medicare, that authorizes government funded elective abortions. All amendments introduced in committee to remove the abortion funding have, thus far, been defeated.

When President Barack Obama was campaigning in 2007, he told Planned Parenthood that one of his priorities would be to include abortion in a public plan. His address to Planned Parenthood is available on YouTube.com HERE.

Speaker Pelosi plans to rush the healthcare reform bill, H.R. 3962, through the House this week, possibly on Thursday or Friday, November 5th or 6th.

If you feel strongly about this, then call and e-mail your Congressman several times this week at both their local and Washington, D.C. offices.