Patients First: Americans for Prosperity

President Obama is using every tool at his disposal – TV, online video, Twitter, Facebook – to get the word out about his vision for health care. The Left is responding with throngs of supportive e-mails. You must answer them now! Help spread the message online through your social networks! Share the “Hands Off My Healthcare” petition on Facebook.

Patients First is running TV ads targeting key senators. Check out one of the ads here. We must unite to prevent Washington from taking control of our health care! Take action by contacting your members of Congress directly through the Patients First website and tell them you oppose government-run health care.

Advertisements
Published in: on July 11, 2009 at 9:39 pm  Leave a Comment  

Energy Bill Riddled with Problems

The fact that a 300-page amendment to the cap-and-trade energy bill was added at 3am on the morning of the vote, shows that 1) there’s a lot of information to go through when regulating CO2 and energy  2) some politicians want quick, impulsive votes and 3) they will use sneaky tactics to get their legislation passed.  I would like to ask how many of the 435 Representatives read all 300 pages of the amendment, much less the original bill itself.  Admittedly, I have not read the entire bill either, only excerpts as well as analysis from political commentators and news agencies.  But it is not the content itself that I’m concerned with, it is what the content is based on that matters most.

What troubles me is that a scientific/economic report by EPA analyst Alan Carlin urging for more research was ignored by the EPA.  You see, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued it’s findings in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) back in 2005, and it is this document upon which the energy bill and the EPA’s support was based.  Carlin’s report debated many of the findings of the AR4.  However, he was silenced and asked not to speak of his findings.  (Click here.)

Also, the AR4 was released in 2005.  According to an internet search of articles related to ‘general circulation model’ (which is what computer models that project global warming are called), almost half a million documents have been released since the IPCC report.  Thats half a million pieces of information related to climate change that the IPCC was not privy to when it came out with the AR4.  So that means the billed that passed the House is going off of climate data from 4 years ago.  Technologies and science rapidly advance as we learn better and more accurate ways to accumulate and process data.   Shouldn’t such a large overhauling of our environmental policies and regulations receive as much information as is available?  According to the IPCC website, the AR5 is currently in the outlining stage and will not be released till 2014.  So if Congress just can’t wait 5 more years, then at least use data from the past 5 years to construct a more timely and informative piece of legislation.

Did the Congress rush to judgment on a issue which is hotly debated and still up for interpretation?  Yes.  Did they do so for the country’s benefit or their own?  Only time will tell.

 

Thank you to Thomas Fuller and Examiner.com for covering this developing story in much more detail.

Published in: on June 27, 2009 at 1:54 pm  Leave a Comment  

All This Energy in the Wrong Direction

With an almost 80-seat majority, Democrats barely passed the President’s cap-and-trade energy bill: 219-212.

I think it’s telling of our political system when a representative receives numerous phone calls from constituents, “And it’s disproportionately vote ‘no.'” Yet he votes ‘yes’ anyway, because he believes it was special interest groups who generated the “negative feedback.” (See the story on CNN.com)

Number one, when do politicians bemoan hearing from and often giving into special interests? Number two, couldn’t all those calls be from people who just happen to care what happens in Washington and don’t want a bad bill to pass the House?

Some would like to do more. Some would like to do less,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said in advance of the final vote. “But we have reached a compromise … and it is a compromise that can pass this House, pass that Senate, be signed by the president and become law and make progress.”
That seemed unlikely, judging from Reid’s cautiously worded statement. “The bill is not perfect,” it said, but rather “a good product” for the Senate to begin working on.

“Some would like to do more. Some would like to do less,” says House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.  “But we have reached a compromise … and it is a compromise that can pass this House, pass that Senate, be signed by the president and become law and make progress.”

Well, now it’s up to the Senate to reconstruct this cap-and-trade fiasco into something that will be good for this country. Even Harry Reid has some reservations, “The bill is not perfect,” but rather “a good product” for the Senate to begin working on.  Maybe they will actually listen to their constituents and choose to represent those who sent them to Washington…

Who knows? It could happen…

Published in: on June 26, 2009 at 11:47 am  Comments (1)  
Tags:

Potty Break

Now there have been a lot of jokes as well as commentary and analysis on Larry Craig and what he did or did not do.  People have played partisan politics, like this is somehow indicative of the entire Republican party.  Well, it doesn’t matter whether it’s Bill Clinton in the oval office with an intern or Larry Craig in the bathroom stall with an undercover cop, it is a simple combination of lust and poor judgement — and no one party has the corner market on either of these attributes.  You will find a multitude of examples of hypocrisy, greed, power-grabbing, stupidity, and indiscretion on both sides of the aisles.

At this point, however, Larry Craig’s political career and influence are finished.  Bill Clinton, on the other hand, despite being impeached in the House for technically lying under oath, is still highly regarded and could possibly be the nation’s First Husband to President Hillary Clinton.

So why is there such disparity in outcome between these two instances? 

To me the biggest difference is the issue of homosexuality.  Clinton’s affair involved a young woman, while Craig is alleged to have solicited sex with another man.  As much headway has been made by the homosexual community to become more “normalized” in society, there is still a greater outrage to sexual offenses when they involve same-sex partners.  Compare George Michael’s consequences and career since his incident in the bathroom stall to Hugh Grant’s continued popularity since his romp with a prostitute.  Though they are both just as selfish and lustful, the homosexual act is scrutinized with far more shock and condemnation and has more drastically affected the performer’s career than its heterosexual counterpart.  

The second point I want to make or question I want to ask is: Why is what Larry Craig did illegal?  From what I understand there was no public exposure, no money exchanged and no sex acts performed.  So what was the crime?  Simply using hand signals to ask if someone is interested in having sex?  Now while I can certainly see the moral issue with that, I fail to see a legal issue.  I truly know very little of this law, which seems to be in most states in one form or another.

In talking with my friends, I found out that one of them was arrested when an undercover cop asked if he wanted to go back to his place and my friend responded sarcastically with something like, “Depends on what you have in mind…”   So does that mean simply meeting someone and wanting to have sex is a crime?  This seems to make as much sense as those sodomy laws that were in the news several years ago.  I think government has to walk a fine line when legislating morality.  If laws begin to be made that can dictate moral and religious actions that I may happen to agree with, what is to stop legislators from enacting such laws I don’t agree with?  It is especially hard to enforce such laws when they involve two consenting adults in the privacy of their homes.

Now getting back to Larry Craig and Bill Clinton.  Did they make an error in judgment?  Sure they did, but neither of them deserve to be stripped of their political office for that one action alone — unless the people vote them out.  Remember: someone is innocent till proven guilty, there is a democratic process in place of voting some one in or out of office, and most importantly we should all exhibit an attitude of grace and forgiveness towards those who are really no better or worse than we are ourselves.

“There but for the grace of God go I…”

Published in: on September 4, 2007 at 12:38 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,