31 March 2010
Regina McKenna, my beloved godmother and my mom's identical twin sister, died today. She is the first of her generation to leave this earth and she will be sorely missed.
30 March 2010
Recently on the Forum began a discussion of clotheslines. Here, in 1956, clotheslines are a normal part of both urban and country life. Even the modern suburbs popping up still have their clotheslines, even though that great American invention, the clothes dryer, is yet another status symbol on the list of ‘must haves’ for any self-respecting middle class homemaker along with the latest Washing machine and Dish washer .
Today, in 2010, the return to the clothesline is no longer for the vintage lover or the Green minded. The recession has lead to many ‘vintage’ ways of doing things out of necessity. Which, surprisingly enough, was the reason they were done originally. Not to recreate a time lost or to set an atmosphere nor to make your ‘carbon-footprint’ (whatever that is-says my 1956 counterpart) smaller. You did it because you HAD to and today, with increasing cost, the need to run that energy sucking appliance, the dryer, has lead to many needing to return to this habit.
Now, as I often believe, Form should follow function, and utility should be beauty’s bedmate. You can slap up any old line, throw some wet clothes over it, and call it a clothesline, but you can also take a very utilitarian object and make it beautiful. And, as there are different esthetics, one person’s idea of ugly is another’s beauty, so luckily there are SO many wonderful way’s to dry your clothes!
This was becoming an increasing view often found only in slums in urban living in 1956. The increasing Laundromats available to the urban dweller made such hanging of clothes become more and more a ‘working class’ act. Today, however, the return to it is increasing and no longer a ‘slum act’.Modern cities are now gaining a ‘vintage’ look due to necessity and need to pinch pennies. As they say, “what goes around comes around”.
If you’re lucky enough to have a nice little suburban plot of land, or even acres in the country, a clothes line can be a permanent beautiful fixture, much like a trellis or arbor.This clothes line is not only sturdy but a beautiful piece of architecture for your yard. I believe, as inside as well as out, that the main element of any design is ‘good bones’. Your yard needs some good architecture to be buitl around and to dicated where to plant and sit and relax. This type of utility combined with beauty is only increased, I believe, by the addition of the clothes. I think even a trailing vine or some lovely roses planted near by, a chair and side table and you have a chore with joy attached. And who doesn’t love the smell of fresh sundried laundry?
Even the old rotary clothes line of the past is making a comeback.I recall pre 1955 when I was an avid TV watcher, I loved watching garden design shows and it seems every other one had the designers tossing out these old reliable work horses. Again, in the time of plenty and spend spend, why not have a flower bed instead of a place to economically dry your clothes. But, as in WWII, when flower beds and lawns became Victory Gardens, so too now are the yards getting a little more utility. And, there is not reason this old stand by can’t be situated in the yard in a considered way, so that there are flowers or better yet herbs (utility) nearby. Especially a lush bed of lavender planted nearby, so the wind carries the scent onto your clothes. It is like natures dryer sheets! This woman has proudly made a space for her dahlias and her laundry, and with a bench to enjoy both!
This is such a simple and basic set up that can be so beautiful and can be easy for any homemaker. A post hold digger and some wooden posts, screws, drill, paint and line and you are in business. You can color it how you like, even plant a vine on one of the posts. HERE is an easy tutorial with costs and supplies list that is helpful.
If you like this set up but don’t want to build or use wood, you can buy good metal versions of these retractable and stationary metal clotheslines. You can find these in the Corner Store HERE. There are even Sweater dryers for the line! HERE.
If you would like to construct your own , there are a few options. Here is a great TUTORIAL on building one.
This dreamy bucolic scene of washing can be yours. In fact, you can see how simply this homemakers line is, simply old tree branches set in the ground. It can be as grand or as simple as you need. This is a simple set up where one side of the line is tied to a tree and the other a post.
Don’t let apartment dwelling get you down, however. They eve have lovely versions that can be mounted to the side of your house on a deck or simply out one window and then the other of your apartment building.
The pulley system is nice as well. You can, as was done here, put it right out your back door or whever it is closest to your laundry room. This means, even in winter, you would not have to worry about walking about in snow. You could even have a summer and a winter setup, one in the yard the other the winter pulley system. They also work great indoors in basements and laundry rooms. For the Pulley clothes line system HERE is a great tutorial. And you can buy the pulley, line all those things HERE. There are also simple retractable type, that you can pull out, use and then put away, if you don’t have the room for lines in the yard all the time.
I actually thought this was a cute modern segment on someone making an ingenious clothes line with simple things.A great use for the extra ‘swim noodles’ that often accumulate at summer time, or buy some for this purpose, as they are not expensive. If you slit on side and insert a wooden dowel the size of the noodle hole, it is great for drying rugs, towels, things you wouldn’t want clothes pin marks on.
I think this is a great little modern video about a woman who made her own clothesline.
And check out today’s Video of the Day on the SITE (on the bottom of the page) from 1958 about the new modern synthetic fabrics and the ease of modern laundry with electric dryers and synthetic fabrics. Interesting parallel to today’s topic, I think.
The more we make little changes that are economical the more we find the ‘side-affects’ are often Green choices and choices that enliven or teach us skills. It might be quicker to pop that load in the dryer, but think of the extra time outside, smelling the air, hearing the birds. Even if it is a cool autumn day, what a better activity than just staring at the computer screen. I wonder, as people begin to see the benefits and tactile pleasures of hanging out one’s clothes, how long before we can get a ‘virtual laundry line’ for or computer or AP for the i-Phone?
Well, it is a lovely day outside, so I am off to dream and plan my own laundry solutions. Tomorrow I will return with some recipes, some photos of Martha’s Vineyard in March and just a good ole’ chat. I shall see you on the Forums, and Happy Homemaking!
A Long Post: The Complete List of Obama Statement Expiration Dates
By popular demand, a comprehensive list of expired Obama statements...
HEALTH CARE MANDATES
STATEMENT: “We've got a philosophical difference, which we've debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it. And my belief is, the reason that people don't have it is not because they don't want it but because they can't afford it.” Barack Obama, speaking at a Democratic presidential debate, February 21, 2008.
EXPIRATION DATE: On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the individual mandate into law.
HEALTH CARE NEGOTIATIONS ON C-SPAN
STATEMENT: “These negotiations will be on C-SPAN, and so the public will be part of the conversation and will see the decisions that are being made.” January 20, 2008, and seven other times.
EXPIRATION DATE: Throughout the summer, fall, and winter of 2009 and 2010; when John McCain asked about it during the health care summit February 26, Obama dismissed the issue by declaring, “the campaign is over, John.”
STATEMENT: “No family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase.” (multiple times on the campaign trail)
EXPIRATION DATE: Broken multiple times, including the raised taxes on tobacco, a new tax on indoor tanning salons, but most prominently on February 11, 2010: “President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.”
STATEMENT: Then-Senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is “damaged goods” and has “less credibility” than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005.
EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: “If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”
STATEMENT: “We need tougher border security, and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. . . . That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws.” then-candidate Obama, discussing the need for border security, speaking in Miami on May 23, 2008:
EXPIRATION DATE: March 17, 2010: The Obama administration halted new work on a "virtual fence" on the U.S.-Mexican border, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Tuesday, diverting $50 million in planned economic stimulus funds for the project to other purposes.
STATEMENT: Executive Order stating, "The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order." January 22, 2009.
EXPIRATION DATE: November 19, 2009: "Guantánamo, we had a specific deadline that was missed."
STATEMENT: “Somebody like Khalid Sheik Mohammad is gonna get basically, a full military trial with all the bells and whistles.” September 27, 2006
EXPIRATION DATE: Ongoing. “President Obama is planning to insert himself into the debate about where to try the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, three administration officials said Thursday, signaling a recognition that the administration had mishandled the process and triggered a political backlash. Obama initially had asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to choose the site of the trial in an effort to maintain an independent Justice Department. But the White House has been taken aback by the intense criticism from political opponents and local officials of Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian courtroom in New York.”
STATEMENT: “We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government, and every American will be able to see how and where we spend taxpayer dollars by going to a new website called recovery.gov.” – President Obama, January 28, 2009
EXPIRATION DATE: “More than two months after some of the funds were released, [Recovery.gov] offers little detail on where the money is going… The government [spent] $84 million on a website that doesn't have a search function, when its purpose is to ‘root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government.’” April 2, 2009
Eighteen from his first 100 days:
3. Opposed a Colombian Free Trade Agreement because advocates ignore that "labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis."
17. "Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." Obama is 1-for-11 on this promise so far.
18. A special one on the 100th day, "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do."
And a list from of promises that expired during the campaign:
Monday, November 03, 2008
STATEMENT: “Based on the conversations we’ve had internally as well as external reports, we believe that you can get one to two brigades out a month. At that pace, the forces would be out in approximately 16 months from the time that we began. That would be the time frame that I would be setting up,” Obama to the New York Times, November 1, 2007
EXPIRATION DATE: March 7, 2008: Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power, to the BBC: “You can’t make a commitment in whatever month we’re in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are gonna be like in Jan. 2009. We can’t even tell what Bush is up to in terms of troop pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US senator.”
Also: July 3, 2008: "My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything I've said, was always premised on making sure our troops were safe," Obama told reporters as his campaign plane landed in North Dakota. "And my guiding approach continues to be that we've got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable. And I'm going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold."
STATEMENT: On June 14, Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice called the RNC’s argument that Obama needed to go to Iraq to get a firsthand look "complete garbage."
EXPIRATION DATE: On June 16, Obama announced he would go to Iraq and Afghanistan “so he can see first hand the progress of the wars he would inherit if he's elected president.”
STATEMENT: May 16, 2008: "If John McCain wants to meet me, anywhere, anytime to have a debate about our respective policies in Iraq, Iran, the Middle East or around the world that is a conversation I’m happy to have."
EXPIRATION DATE: June 13, 2008: Obama campaign manager David Plouffe: “Barack Obama offered to meet John McCain at five joint appearances between now and Election Day—the three traditional debates plus a joint town hall on the economy in July [on the Fourth of July] and an in-depth debate on foreign policy in August.”
STATEMENT: “We can, then, more effectively deal with what I consider to be one of the greatest threats to the United States, to Israel, and world peace, and that is Iran,” Obama speaking to American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Chicago, March 5, 2007
EXPIRATION DATE: “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny...They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.” – May 20, 2008
STATEMENT: Question at the YouTube debate, as the video depicted leaders of the countries, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?....."
"I would," Obama answered. July 27, 2007
EXPIRATION DATE: May 10, 2008: Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate: “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”
JEREMIAH WRIGHT/TRINITY UNITED
STATEMENT: "I could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than I could disown my own grandmother."
—Barack Obama, March 18, 2008
EXPIRATION DATE: on April 28, 2008, cut all ties to Wright, declaring, “based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought.”
STATEMENT: Obama said that his church, “Trinity United "embodies the black community in its entirety" and that his church was being caricatured on March 18, 2008.
EXPIRATION DATE: On May 31, 2008, Obama resigned his membership at Trinity United Church.
STATEMENT: Criticism of running mate vetter Jim Johnson loan from Countrywide was "a game" and that his vice-presidential vetting team “aren’t folks who are working for me.” June 10, 2008
EXPIRATION DATE: June 11, 2008, when Obama accepted Johnson's resignation.
STATEMENT: Obama spokesman Bill Burton on October 24, 2007: “To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”
EXPIRATION DATE: June 20, 2008: “Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.”
STATEMENT: “I am not a nuclear energy proponent.” Barack Obama, December 30, 2007
EXPIRATION DATE: The above statement actually was the expiration date for his previous position, “I actually think we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix,” expressed on July 23, 2007; the above statement expired when he told Democratic governors he thought it is “worth investigating its further development” on June 20, 2008.
STATEMENT: Tim Russert:: Senator Obama . . . Simple question: Will you, as president, say to Canada and Mexico, "This has not worked for us; we are out"?
Obama: “I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.” February 23, 2008
EXPIRATION DATE: June 18, 2008, Fortune magazine: “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.
Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.
"I'm not a big believer in doing things unilaterally," Obama said. "I'm a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people."
STATEMENT: “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” Also, a Common Cause questionnaire dated November 27, 2007, asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”, Obama checked, “Yes.”
EXPIRATION DATE: June 19, 2008: Obama announced he would not participate in the presidential public financing system.
WORKING OUT A DEAL ON PUBLIC FINANCING
STATEMENT: “What I’ve said is, at the point where I'm the nominee, at the point where it's appropriate, I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody.”Obama to Tim Russert, Febuary 27.
EXPIRATION DATE: When Obama announced his decision to break his public financing pledge June 19, no meeting between the Democratic nominee and McCain had occurred.
STATEMENT: “I probably would not have supported the federal legislation [to overhaul welfare], because I think it had some problems." Obama on the floor of the Illinois Senate, May 31, 1997
EXPIRATION DATE: April 11, 2008: Asked if he would have vetoed the 1996 law, Mr. Obama said, “I won’t second guess President Clinton for signing” it. Obama to the New York Times.
STATEMENT: "Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as president. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.” – campaign spokesman, May 5, 2008
EXPIRATION DATE: June 29, 2008: “I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states… Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks.” — letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club
STATEMENT: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term." – Interview with Relevant magazine, July 1, 2008
EXPIRATION DATE: July 5, 2008: “My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases.” statement to reporters.
DIVISION OF JERUSALEM
STATEMENT: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." — speech before AIPAC, June 4, 2008
EXPIRATION DATE: June 6, 2008: "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with." – an Obama adviser clarifying his remarks to the Jerusalem Post.03/29 10:54 AMShare
29 March 2010
Gerald Warner: It's the Pope's turn to retaliate in Catholic civil war
Premium Article !
Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.Options
Premium Article !
To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.Subscribe
Such an inversion of the truth is not without precedent: the Venerable Pius XII saved 860,000 Jews from the Nazis; but today, thanks to defamation by a German playwright, propagated by "liberal" Catholics, the one individual who did more than anyone on earth to help the Jews is demonised and bracketed with Heinrich Himmler. Now, the Spirit-of-Vatican II groupies are going after Benedict XVI on the child abuse ticket.
"Radical" Catholics are attacking the Vatican, like the chav mobs that sporadically besiege the houses of paediatricians. Our television screens are filled with geriatric ex-Jesuits, feminist nuns, "progressive" theologians and every variety of Lollards and Fifth Monarchy Men. Even their 1960s poster-boy Hans Küng (yes, he is still alive) has emerged from obscurity to throw his pebble at Benedict.
Who was to blame for child sex abuse but precisely the generation of Vatican II revolutionaries who are now wringing their gnarled hands in hypocritical outrage? As the official Irish government report into abuse in the archdiocese of Dublin proves, this orgy of evil was overwhelmingly perpetrated in the post-Vatican II era. During the 1970s and 1980s, when it was at its height, there was only one mortal sin in the Catholic Church: attempting to celebrate or attend the Latin Tridentine Mass.
Contrast the vicious persecution of traditionalist priests and laity with the extravagant indulgence extended to serial child abusers. Today, their chickens have come home to roost. These were the children of Paul VI, of aggiornamento, of the great Renewal: now they must be made to take ownership of their own scandal. It is they who are in denial, not the Pope.
They are being supported by the media, whose agenda is to pressurise the Catholic Church into moral relativism, to withdraw its condemnation of abortion, contraception, divorce, homosexuality, embryo experimentation, ordination of priestesses and every other precept that conflicts with the secularist New World Order.
That will not happen. The fatuity of much of the attack is blatant. Evidently priests abused altar boys because of clerical celibacy. There is no compulsory celibacy in the Church of England, yet vicars and boy scouts have been mainstays of the Sunday tabloids for a century. The Dublin report recorded a ratio of 2.3 boy victims to one girl: the last thing these men wanted was a wife.
The much-hyped Wisconsin scandal, used to traduce Benedict XVI, is another example of forcing the wrong pieces into the jigsaw to fabricate the required picture. The local police investigated Father Murphy in 1974 and refused to believe his accusers. More than 20 years later, when Murphy was dying, his case was referred to the then Cardinal Ratzinger. In 1998 he declined to unfrock the now repentant offender who died four months later.
The Milwaukee district attorney had refused to prosecute Murphy because the statute of limitations had run out; the Vatican faced the same canonical problem. Why are the Milwaukee authorities not blamed instead of the Vatican? Why was Cardinal Ratzinger expected to unravel a case that had baffled the local police 24 years earlier?
Unfrocking would not have deprived Murphy of his priesthood – that is irremovable. It would only have prevented him functioning as a priest, which he was no longer capable of doing.
It is time for the Pope to retaliate. He should adopt the liberals' strategy of not wasting a crisis. The media are howling for the heads of bishops. Very well: give them dozens, even hundreds. This is an opportunity to get rid of every mitred 1960s flower-child obstructing the return of the Tridentine Mass, liturgical reverence and doctrinal orthodoxy. The episcopal gerontocracy, along with the flared-trousered seminary rectors promoting the ordination of social worker priests and blocking genuine vocations, is ripe for a cull. The abuse scandal is only a part of the larger crisis that has engulfed the Church since the Second Vatican Catastrophe – it really is too good to waste.
28 March 2010
Thaddeus McCotter: “So This Is What Change Looks Like”Written by LogisticsMonster Breaking, Obamacare, Video Mar 23, 2010
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter’s remarks concerning the passage of Obamacare:
So this is what change looks like. If he were here, Mr. Speaker, in this time of momentous national distress, I would remind the President of the United States that he is not the leader of a party or an ideology; he is the leader of our country—one founded, not to emulate others, but to inspire the world.
As families lose their jobs, their homes, and their dreams for their children; as our troops fight and sacrifice in foreign fields for our liberty and security, President Obama’s obsessive-compulsive pursuit of an abominable government takeover of health care has defied the public’s objections, despoiled this, “The People’s House,” and further alienated Americans from their representative government.
As President Obama’s campaign mantra of “hope and change” has degenerated into “tax and hate,” reputable surveys prior to this vote report: the public overwhelmingly thinks that the U.S. Government is broken. Only 21 percent of the public thinks it is being governed with its consent. Only 26 percent of the public trusts the Federal Government most of the time or always; 56 percent of Americans think the Federal Government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedom of ordinary citizens; 70 percent believe the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors; and 71 percent of Americans think the Federal Government is a special interest.
In the wake of this health care debate’s despicable, dysfunctional process and product, it is clear: The most dangerous special interest is Big Government and President Obama is its lobbyist.
In contrast to Americans’ faith in themselves, every major piece of legislation proffered by the President and his Democratic Congress expands and empowers Big Government at the expense of the people. Possessed of a smug, cynical, patronizing view of Americans as dependents desiring State benefits, this arrogant administration and its enablers have defied the American people and bi-partisan opposition in Congress to unilaterally jam through a trillion-dollar government takeover of health care.
Why? For so many Americans, the answer is that this President and his Democratic Congress think they are smarter than you; want to run your life; and want to make government your ruler, not your servant.
Such hubris threatens not only our health care system but it tears the social fabric and political contract of our Nation. Instead of working for a more perfect Union, the President’s ideological obstinacy exacerbated the disorder and divisions within our Nation, and wrought a crisis of consent—one that puts America’s exceptional experiment in human freedom and self-government on the precipice of implosion.
To do so the President has the power, but not the right. Thus he has merely scored a Pyrrhic victory over the American people. Ultimately, his government-run medicine scheme will be repealed and replaced with free- market, patient-centered wellness, because America’s strength and salvation remains her free people, not a person.
And this November, America’s sovereign citizens will remind the President and his Democratic Congress that We the People do not work for government; the government works for us.
No, the President and his Democratic Congress will not break us beneath Big Government. Devoted to our freedom and a more perfect Union, we will keep the faith, trust the public, calm the times, and heal our country.
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), the great conservative thinker and orator, delivered these remarks following the Democratic takeover of the health care industry:
Representative McCotter on the democratic takeover of the health care industry:
“So this is what change looks like? I would remind the president that he is not the leader of a party or ideology. He is the leader of our country, one founded not to humiliate others but to inspire the world. As families lose their jobs, their homes and their dreams for their children; as our troops fight and sacrifice in foreign fields for our liberty and security, President Obama’s obsessive-compulsive pursuit of an abominable government takeover of health care has defied the public’s objections and spoiled this House and further alienated Americans from their representative government. As President Obama’s campaign mantra of hope and change has degenerated into tax and hate…”
25 March 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Before the discovery of the parliamentary issues, Democrats defeated more than two dozen Republican amendments or other proposals aimed at derailing the legislation or making changes that would delay it by forcing an additional vote in the House.
Senate Democrats had been hoping to defeat all of the amendments proposed by Republicans and to prevail on parliamentary challenges so that they could approve the measure and send it to President Obama for his signature. But the bill must comply with complex budget reconciliation rules, and Republicans identified some flaws.
The Hill says that Democrats Evan Bayh of Indiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Nelson of Nebraska strayed frequently from their party during Wednesday night’s voting. Bayh, who is retiring, crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans 10 times. Lincoln, who faces a tough re-election race, supported Republicans eight times. Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia also bucked his party three times.
Nelson, who has come under fire from his conservative base in Nebraska for his support of the healthcare reform effort, supported the GOP the most—on 20 out of 29 votes as of the 2:55AM adjournment.
Senator Gregg: Protect Medicare Savings
Senator McCain: Remove Sweetheart Deals
Senator Crapo: No Tax Hikes for Families Earning Under $250,000
Senator Enzi: Strike the Employer Mandate
Senator Barrasso: Requires Legislation Not Increase Premiums
Senator Grassley: Requires President, Congress Enroll in Exchange
Senator Alexander: Reduce Student Loan Interest Rate
Senator LeMieux: Members On Medicaid
Senator Coburn: Bars Sex Offenders from Receiving E.D. Drugs
Senator Hutchison: State Opt Out
Senator Hatch: Block Medicare Advantage Cuts
Senator Collins: Waive Employer Mandate Tax
Senator Thune: Strike CLASS Act
Senator Cornyn: Remove New Taxes on Investments
Senator Hatch: Protect Wounded Soldiers from Medical Device Tax
Senator Inhofe: Protect Pediatrics and Disabled from Medical Device Tax
Senator Crapo: Protect Cancer Patients from Medical Device Tax
Senators Roberts, Inhofe, Brown, Crapo: Strike Medical Device Tax
Senator Burr: Tricare and Veterans Health Programs
Senator Roberts: Rationing
Senator Roberts: Critical Access Hospitals
Senator Vitter: Repeals Democrats' Health Care Bill
“Tyrants have always some slight shade of virtue; they support the laws before destroying them.”—Voltaire
Read more: http://nosheepleshere.blogspot.com/2010/03/flaws-in-obamacare-force-new-house-vote.html#ixzz0jCt3Ax2l
24 March 2010
Why Are We Traditional Catholics?
(One Mother’s Open Letter to Her Grown Children)
(www.RemnantNewspaper.com Posted 3/22/10) Editor, The Remnant: Thank you for your article "SOS: Millions of Catholics Overboard" by Samuel Frankel, Esq (1/31/10 issue of The Remnant) I could just imagine countless readers of The Remnant, thinking with a very sad sigh: "Yes, that is exactly the way it is in my family."
In response to my own frustration, I prepared a statement for my grown children who were raised in the post-Vatican II church, having been born in the mid-1960's. After floundering in the Novus Ordo churches for many years, my husband and I discovered, by the grace of God, the Catholic Faith was alive and well in a neighborhood SSPX Chapel. By this time, our adult children were suffering from poor catechetics, diluted doctrines, pabulum sermons and undemanding Catholicism. Totally ignorant of the pre-Vatican II church, our return to "Tradition" was confusing and bewildering for them.
Where do you begin to explain the relief and joy we felt to recapture the faith of our youth? It would take hours of discussion with their undivided attention (no small task!). In desperation, I prepared the attached "document", which may be helpful to your readers.
This statement has spurred our children to ask many questions and has opened their eyes to the many abuses they are witnessing in the local parish. It is our hope and prayer that this spark of inquisitiveness will eventually help them find their home– the Traditional Catholic faith. Thank you for your consideration.
East Patchogue, New York
As your parents we have a responsibility and duty to transmit to you the truth of our Traditional Catholic beliefs. We are not a “new” religion in conflict with the Catholic faith. We belong to a relatively small group of faithful whose purpose is to worship according to ancient liturgies and preserve for future generations the immemorial Tridentine Mass. Because you were raised in the shadow of Vatican II, a Council called by Pope John XXIII and continued by Pope Paul VI, which ended in 1965, some of the words we have already used are not familiar to you. It is our hope and prayer that after reading this, you will have at least a brief outline of the events that led to the Catholic Church as you know it and will plant a seed for future exploration.
THE NEW ORDER MASS: WHERE DID IT COME FROM?
When Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council in l960, almost every bishop in the world was puzzled. Vatican Councils historically are only called when the Church is in some desperate need or is fighting a very serious heresy (a widespread attack on a dogma of faith, i.e., Mary was not the Mother of God). But this was a time when the Catholic Church seemed to be in her glory. We had an abundance of priests and nuns. Seminaries were full. Catholic schools were overflowing. It was not uncommon that attendance at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was standing room only. Almost every Saturday, there were lines for Confession.
So why call a council? Pope John was warned by some Bishops that in their midst were some (not many) liberal Bishops who would use the council to “modernize” the Church. Previous Popes, especially Pope St. Pius X, had warned that the Church must never be “modern”. She must be unchangeable because what is modern in 1940 will not be modern in 1960 and what is modern in 1960 will not be modern in 1980. By remaining FOREVER unchangeable, you are always relevant. Pope John promised it would be a PASTORAL Council and not DOCTRINAL or DOGMATIC so that the Deposit of Faith (our beliefs) and the liturgy of the Mass will not change. It has been said that before he died, he saw the council change in a direction he was unable to stop and thus welcomed death knowing the council would die with him. Unfortunately, it was re-opened by Pope Paul VI, his successor, who invited 6 Protestant clergy to act as “observers”. Behind the scenes, these “observers” were allowed much more input and became unofficial participants. Thus, the Roman Catholic Mass could become “Protestantized.” At the end of the council, one of the Protestant ministers is quoted as saying: “This is the best council the Protestants ever had!”
It is not our intention to give you a step by step history of Vatican II. However, you should know that when the council closed, the wheels were in motion like a train at full speed. In the driver’s seat were the “modernist” bishops who’d used the council like a vehicle to take it to their own destination—a more “modern” church, open to innovation, causing weakening of faith and much confusion. Pope Paul VI seeing the end result of Vatican II said in no uncertain terms: “THE SMOKE OF SATAN HAS ENTERED THE CHURCH!”
If you read the documents of Vatican II (most Catholics have not), there is nothing in them to justify the numerous changes made in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It did not forbid the Mass to be celebrated in Latin. It did not call for the removal of altars to be replaced by tables. It did not call for the removal of Communion rails where the congregation KNELT to receive Holy Communion. It did not allow Eucharistic Ministers or altar girls. It did not allow Communion received in the hand. It did not allow most of the changes made to our liturgical ceremonies and devotions. Unsuspecting priests and pastors, who may never have had an opportunity to read the documents, merely followed orders from bishops who knowingly or unknowingly were puppets of liberal, modern bishops at the helm.
All of this did not happen overnight. The changes were subtle. If you put a frog in boiling water, it will jump out. If you put a frog in cool water and slowly raise the temperature, it will boil to death. Some older priests who would not accept the changes, left or retired. Conservative, orthodox nuns left the convent. The new modern ones gladly shed their habits and bought suits, making them undistinguishable from the rest of society. Most people, confused by it all, did not question the changes. Holy Mother Church would not deceive us or lead us astray. Some just followed in obedience, but many lost the faith.
Was the Catholic Church before Vatican II perfect? No, she is made up of people, and people make mistakes. Even priests and nuns are not immune to sin. But the church was our moral compass and there was no moral issue in the world that was not firmly addressed from the pulpit. Our churches were built to inspire awe and devotion. Every parish had weekly Novenas and Benediction with great attendance. A woman would not dare walk into a church without a head covering and a modest dress—never pants. Men wore dress shirts—never T-shirts or shorts.
“So you worship, so you will believe. So you believe, so you will worship.” The way we worship reflects our belief. Receiving Holy Communion without being in the State of Grace means it is not that important to you. Going to church dressed like you are going to the beach also means there is nothing all that special going on. When anyone could administer or touch the Sacred Host, the belief in the Real Presence is weakened, and in many cases, lost. When the Novus Ordo Mass became the rule, the faith of the people started to die.
Does this mean that everyone who attends the Novus Ordo Mass is not holy? Does this mean that every Novus Ordo clergy is sinful and disbelieving? ABSOLUTELY NOT! What it does mean is that these very special people who have maintained their sanctity and treasure their faith deserve the true worship in the Traditional Latin Mass.
WHAT IS THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS?
The Traditional Latin Mass is that rite of Mass through which the Roman Catholic Church has worshipped God for centuries, offering to God the Father the sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary for the redemption of mankind. Ancient church documents show that this rite was precisely offered word-for-word by the Popes and clergy even before 600 AD. Tradition tells us that this rite was used substantially unchanged for centuries before that time.
In 1570, Pope St. Pius V in a document called “Quo Primum” proclaimed that this was the Mass to be celebrated for all time, even to eternity. He warned that changing the Mass would destroy the Church and the faith of the people. He very clearly stated that anyone, including a Pope, who would alter the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass would be putting his own salvation in severe jeopardy and would “incur the wrath of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul”. Starting with his Papacy, every Bishop had to take a solemn oath against “modernism” (changing the Faith to conform to the times).
Why Latin? Before Vatican II, no matter where you traveled, when you entered a Catholic Church you knew the Mass celebrated there was exactly the same throughout the world. Latin is a dead language. It is not used in conversation. Therefore, words are never taken away, added, or meanings changed. For example, the word “gay” used to mean happy. Today it has a totally different meaning. Words cannot change like this in a “dead” language. Faithful Catholics followed the Mass with their missals written in their own language. Those who did not use a missal still felt part of the celebration, standing, kneeling or sitting with the congregation and sensing the sacrality of the Holy Liturgy. A French priest who knew no English could offer Mass on Long Island without the parishioners knowing he could not speak their language.
In contrast, when we attended New Order Masses in our travels today, we never knew what the priest was going to do or how he was going to do it. Many masses we attended seemed very foreign, irreverent and sometimes strange. Novelty is the rule of the day. Unity is gone. Each Bishop became his own authority in his own diocese and priests in his parish experimenting as they willed.
The Traditional Latin Mass CANNOT be forbidden by any Pope and it has NEVER been forbidden. On July 7, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued a motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” “liberating” the Traditional Latin Mass and stating with authority as Vicar of Christ on earth that this Mass never was and never can be abrogated. Most Bishops have tried to ignore this decree, but many priests, thankfully, are now rediscovering the beauty of the Tridentine Mass.
THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X
By the grace of God, one of the Bishops who was an active participant in the Second Vatican Council became horrified when he realized that once the New Order Mass could come into common use, the Faith would die. His name is Marcel Lefebvre. He was ordained a priest in l929 and served as a Missionary in Africa. He became aware of the direction the liberal Bishops were taking the Church. In l970, with the approval of the Vatican, he founded the Society of St. Pius X and, with a handful of dedicated priests, vowed to preserve for us, our children and our grandchildren the “Mass of All Time”. In spite of much persecution from within the Church, he held fast and would not surrender his belief that the Latin Mass must forever be preserved for the salvation of all mankind. Knowing he would not live forever, he begged Pope John Paul II to give him a date when he could consecrate four of his priests as Bishops, so that they, in turn, could ordain priests. The act of ordination was never forbidden, but it became more and more clear to Archbishop Lefebvre that forces in the Vatican were determined to destroy the Society by leaving them with no Bishop after his death. After being denied a specific date time again and being left with no choice, Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the expressed mandate from the Pope. In spite of this Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops were never formally excommunicated. This act was to preserve the faith, not destroy it. It has never been disputed, even in Rome, that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained and that the Sacraments are validly administered.
The Society is not fully united with Rome but the case for Tradition is being presented to the Holy Father at this moment by Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X. The Catholic Church did not begin with Vatican II and no one on earth has the right to condemn or destroy everything before it. The Society of St. Pius X acknowledges Our Holy Father as head of the Catholic Church. Prayers are said for him at every Mass.
(N.B. – On January 21, 2009, in response to a Rosary Crusade of almost 3 million rosaries, Pope Benedict XVI lifted to so-called “excommunication” of the four bishops of St. Pius X.)
THEOLOGY BEHIND THE LATIN MASS VS. NOVUS ORDO
The Catholic Church has always spoken of the Mass as a “Sacrifice” It is an INFALLIBLE TEACHING (without error) that Christ left a visible Sacrament to His Church in which the sacrifice of Calvary is re-presented for all eternity in an unbloody manner.
The Novus Ordo Mass is presented as the “Lord’s Supper”, a banquet meal shared by the community. This is why the Altar of Sacrifice has been changed to a table. While the Last Supper is definitely part of the Liturgy, it cannot be separated from the Cross and Calvary. I know this is very difficult to understand. Suffice it to say, that when the MEANING of the Mass was distorted, many errors and abuses crept into the Church.
BY THE FRUITS YOU WILL KNOW THEM
What are the fruits of Vatican II? The Council Fathers predicted a “new springtime” for the Church. Here we are more than 40 years later and the Catholic Church is in the “dead of winter”. Priests and nuns abandoned their vocations by the tens of thousands. Seminarians decreased by 90% (1965-2002). Teaching sisters decreased 93%. In l958, 74% of Catholics in the USA attended Mass regularly. In 2002, the number dropped to 17%. Catholic churches and schools are closing rapidly throughout the United States, while Traditional churches, schools and seminaries are expanding. A survey of New Order Catholics revealed that more than 80% no longer believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. In order to fill empty seminaries, men with homosexual tendencies (and some active homosexuals) were allowed into the priesthood (previously FORBIDDEN). This resulted in many thousands of scarred victims who are still suffering today. Bishops turned their heads and now the Church is billions of dollars in debt, resulting in the selling of more church properties. Beautiful marble altars were wrecked and discarded in landfills or tossed into rivers. Crucifixes were replaced by ugly, meaningless banners. The Tabernacle where the Consecrated Sacred Hosts were kept at the center of the Altar were moved to the side or totally hidden away. Beautiful statues of Our Lord, Our Blessed Mother and the saints were banished in dark, dusty basements. Stained glass windows depicting the life of Our Lord, Our Blessed Mother and the Saints have been replaced with color geometric designs, depicting absolutely nothing. By canon law, the vessels used during Mass are to be made of precious metal (silver, gold). Totally disregarding this directive, cheap pottery and glass are used, with everyone and anyone handling them.
I remember when the church choir, accompanied by the organist, brought tears to my eyes as they sang “Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus.” Leave the guitars and drums at home! I could go on and on, but you have the picture. Holiness and sanctity are rapidly fading away! That is why it just isn’t important any more. That is why most Catholics who receive Holy Communion have not been to confession in years and it just doesn’t matter. Sin is not an issue. No one likes using that word – especially many, many priests in the pulpit. Our friends, our children, our Catholic people are being fed stones where once they were given bread.
We have re-discovered a treasure we thought was lost. Unfortunately, you never knew the treasure existed. This is why you may find it so difficult to understand why we feel so blessed to have St. Michael the Archangel Church in our neighborhood. If we did not educate you, we would be at great fault. What you do with this information is up to you. We hope and pray that this has given you food for thought. If you have any questions or wish further discussion, we would be happy to provide you with any additional information. Otherwise, there is no more to be said.
Archbishop Lefebvre, as his life on earth was coming to an end, expressed the simple but profoundly beautiful sentiment that “he was handing down what he had been given (the gift of faith)”
You cannot hand down what you do not have. We have found it again and wish now to hand it down to you, our children, according to our sacred duty before God as Catholic parents.
The new healthcare plan has been brought to us by...Catholics?
I was sickened to see Catholic Joe Biden standing next to the most pro-abortion President in the history of the country signing the biggest expansion of abortion since Roe.
We'd all fought the bill for so long but when Catholic Bart Stupak relented to Catholic Nancy Pelosi I knew that the healthcare bill was going through. I couldn't imagine how Stupak could not know that the healthcare plan funded abortion, especially after the Catholic HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius acknowledged it in an interview.
The bill had gained some extra momentum after 60 Catholic nuns endorsed the plan.
And then here's the list of Catholic congressman who voted "yes" on Obamacare, according to Catholic Advocate.
■Representative Ann Kirkpatrick (D, AZ-01) YES
■Representative Ed Pastor (D, AZ-04) YES
■Representative Harry E. Mitchell (D, AZ-05) YES
■Representative Raul M. Grijalva (D, AZ-07) YES
■Representative Mike Thompson (D, CA-01) YES
■Representative George Miller (D, CA-07) YES
■Representative Nancy Pelosi (D, CA-08) YES
■Representative Jerry McNerney (D, CA-11) YES
■Representative Anna Eshoo (D, CA-14) YES
■Representative Dennis A. Cardoza (D, CA-18) YES
■Representative Jim Costa (D, CA-20) YES
■Representative Xavier Becerra (D, CA-31) YES
■Representative Diane E. Watson (D, CA-33) YES
■Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard (D, CA-34) YES
■Representative Grace F. Napolitano (D, CA-38) YES
■Representative Linda T. Sanchez (D, CA-39) YES
■Representative Joe Baca (D, CA-43) YES
■Representative Loretta Sanchez (D, CA-47) YES
■Representative John T. Salazar (D, CO-03) YES
■Representative Betsy Markey (D, CO-04) YES
■Representative John B. Larson (D, CT-01) YES
■Representative Joe Courtney (D, CT-02) YES
■Representative Rosa L. DeLauro (D, CT-03) YES
■Representative Luis V. Gutierrez (D, IL-04) YES
■Representative Jerry F. Costello (D, IL-12) YES
■Representative Phil Hare (D, IL-17) YES
■Representative Peter J. Visclosky (D, IN-01) YES
■Representative Joe Donnelly (D, IN-02) YES
■Representative Brad Ellsworth (D, IN-08) YES
■Representative Michael H. Michaud (D, ME-02) YES
■Representative Richard E. Neal (D, MA-02) YES
■Representative James P. McGovern (D, MA-03) YES
■Representative Ed Markey (D, MA-07) YES
■Representative Michael E. Capuano (D, MA-08) YES
■Representative William D. Delahunt (D, MA-10) YES
■Representative Bart Stupak (D, MI-01) YES
■Representative Dale E. Kildee (D, MI-05) YES
■Representative John D. Dingell (D, MI-15) YES
■Representative Betty McCollum (D, MN-04) YES
■Representative James L. Oberstar (D, MN-08) YES
■Representative William Lacy Clay (D, MO-01) YES
■Representative Carol Shea-Porter (D, NH-01) YES
■Representative Frank Pallone (D, NJ-06) YES
■Representative Bill Pascrell (D, NJ-08) YES
■Representative Albio Sires (D, NJ-13) YES
■Representative Ben Ray Lujan (D, NM-03) YES
■Representative Tim Bishop (D, NY-01) YES
■Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D, NY-04) YES
■Representative Joseph Crowley (D, NY-07) YES
■Representative Nydia M. Velazquez (D, NY-12) YES
■Representative Charles B. Rangel (D, NY-15) YES
■Representative Jose E. Serrano (D, NY-16) YES
■Representative John J. Hall (D, NY-19) YES
■Representative Paul Tonko (D, NY-21) YES
■Representative Maurice D. Hinchey (D, NY-22) YES
■Representative Dan Maffei (D, NY-25) YES
■Representative Brian Higgins (D, NY-27) YES
■Representative Steve Driehaus (D, OH-01) YES
■Representative Charles A. Wilson (D, OH-06) YES
■Representative Marcy Kaptur (D, OH-09) YES
■Representative Dennis J. Kucinich (D, OH-10) YES
■Representative Mary Jo Kilroy (D, OH-15) YES
■Representative John Boccieri (D, OH-16) YES
■Representative Tim Ryan (D, OH-17) YES
■Representative Peter DeFazio (D, OR-04) YES
■Representative Robert Brady (D, PA-01) YES
■Representative Kathy Dahlkemper (D, PA-03) YES
■Representative Joe Sestak (D, PA-07) YES
■Representative Patrick J. Murphy (D, PA-8) YES
■Representative Chris Carney (D, PA-10) YES
■Representative Paul Kanjorski (D, PA-11) YES
■Representative Michael F. Doyle (D, PA-14) YES
■Representative Patrick J. Kennedy (D, RI-01) YES
■Representative James R. Langevin (D, RI-02) YES
■Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D, TX-15) YES
■Representative Silvestre Reyes (D, TX-16) YES
■Representative Charlie Gonzalez (D, TX-20) YES
■Representative Ciro D. Rodriguez (D, TX-23) YES
■Representative Henry Cuellar (D, TX-28) YES
■Representative Peter Welch (D, VT-At-Large) YES
■Representative Tom Perriello (D, VA-05) YES
■Representative James P. Moran (D, VA-08) YES
■Representative Gerald E. Connolly (D, VA-11) YES
■Representative David R. Obey (D, WI-07) YES
There is something very wrong with Catholicism in America when Catholics play such a large role in passing anti-life and anti-conscience legislation. Catholic politicians need to be reminded that you don't leave Christ at the Capitol steps. They need to be reminded that the issue of life is not negotiable. And Catholic voters need to elect politicians who understand that evil exists and fight with all they have against enshrining evil into law. They must remember that the terms public servant and Catholic are not mutually exclusive.
Catholic voters need to take their responsibility seriously and stop electing politicians who say one thing and do another.
Update: Lipinski and Lynch, both of whom voted NO, have been removed from the list. I was looking at a different vote so thanks to the commenters for the heads up.
23 March 2010
Round One of the Socialized Federalized Medicine-Man fight is over.
As soon as President Obama signs on the dotted line, Round Two will be initiated with a herd of raging bull Attorney Generals (AG) from around the country; all in a charge at the red cape of the constitutionality of congress to mandate the purchase of health insurance by individual citizens.
It’s a set up guys. Obama and his brain trust are out in front on this one. They put the ‘thou-shalt-purchase’ clause in the bill deliberately knowing every freedom-loving, red-blooded Republican AG would charge. They intend to have the Republican’s object to this in bit-and-pieces instead of a full frontal attack that the ENTIRE Bill is unconstitutional.
We Republicans bit the bait real good, but, it was a Trojans horse covered with shiny stuff like the abortion debate; deliberately set to get our attention. While all along, ‘Obamanistas’ fully expect that the Supreme Court will strike down the parts that mandate a person will buy insurance or they will pay through the nose to BigFed one way or another. There are bigger problems ahead, so save some ammo.
We had a saying when I was in the desert in the first Gulf War, ‘It’s not just the mouse that ran through the tent you need to worry about – it’s the viper that’s chasing the mouse you better be afraid of.’
When the Supreme Court decision is finally made – with the anticipated ruling, the bumper sticker "I Heart Socialized Medicine" liberal crowd will pull out the already prepared Round Three plan: Public Option in tandem with the Federal Government picking up the tab incrementally to offset the loss.
"But, what else can we do? We can’t leave people without health care can we?"
Liberals will sob as the complete implementation of socialized; taxpayer health care is implemented with Under New Management Federal Clinic signs being put up over the old Mayo Clinic signs, and hospitals across the country, et.al.
It’s part of the plan. For example, do you believe that Obama just wrote that Executive Order about Federal Funding of Abortions in the eleventh hour before the vote? That thing was written months ago and held to the last minute to make it look like some kind of ‘real’ concession to the hold-outs.
The liberal guys are not some lightweights. They have a plan while we Republicans do a Saint Vitus Dance jerking around the details and nickel-and-diming our attacks that should have been coordinated years ago. It’s not like the Democrats didn’t start this with Clinton Care in the early 1990s.
Anyway, it’s critical that we need to understand their game and focus on a way to repeal this bill and counter it with workable market approaches to health care with the doctors providing that care and the patients at the center of gravity:
(1) States should implement; as difficult as it is, meaningful health care reform for its citizens at the appropriate level of government. Health Care is a real problem.If we thought the nightmare of the Federal ‘No Child Left Behind’ program was hard to deal with, just wait for General Hospital USA . Hold your ears and don’t dance to the liberal’s song.
(2) States should intervene and represent any citizens of their state that the Federal Government decides to fine for failure to purchase insurance.
(3) States should facilitate competition in health care providers and health care facilities, and increase the number of students entering medical and nursing schools.
(4) Republicans better send ‘Constitutional Gun-Fighters’ and thinkers to Congress.
(5) States should band together – repeal the 17th Amendment, and take their Senators back. This action will give the states a place at the table in Washington and put teeth into State Sovereignty again.
Katherine Jenerette, Iraq War Veteran, Charleston-area Tea Party activist and Mom is running for Congress, South Carolina CD 1, Jenerette.com