Go to the link below and click on it. i hope it works I cant save the video to my computer so this is the best i can do.
http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LnlvdXR1YmUuY29tL3dhdGNoP3Y9UEd1a0x1WHpIMUU=
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
this is an attack of Humana by the OBAMA Administration
Another reason to be scared of Obamacare.
The health insurance company targeted by the Obama administration and a topSenate Democrat properly followed guidance dating back to the Clinton administration and should not be punished, Republicans said Thursday.
House and Senate Republicans have put up a wall of resistance against the decision by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to launch a probe into Humana for sending to its members what Democratic Sen. Max Baucus called "false" information about health care reform legislation.
Senate Republicans on Thursday threatened to block Obama's healthcare-related appointments if the decision is not reversed, and House Republicans called for a hearing on what they described as a politically motivated "gag order." "It's an astonishing overreach," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell,R-Ky., told FOX News on Thursday.
CMS began the probe at the request of Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman of theSenate Finance Committee, over a mailer Baucus claims misled seniors about proposed changes to Medicare. Humana, one of the largest private carriers serving seniors under theMedicare Advantage program, focused its mailer on the potential for cuts to service.
Republicans said Humana's claim was accurate in the first place. But as proof its behavior was above board, they held up a Clinton-era letter from the Department of Health and Human Services offering guidance on mailers sent by insurers to customers. The 1997 letter, written by Center for Health Plans and Providers Director Bruce Fried to a law firm, addressed the question of whether HMOs could tell members about proposed legislation and urge them to express their opinions. The letter concluded that restrictions could violate free speech laws. "While it may be difficult for a reviewer to ascertain whether or not the information about legislation, for example contained in a member's newsletter issued by an HMO, is accurate and without a slant or unrevealed self-interest, we believe that prohibiting such information would violate basic freedom of speech and other constitutional rights of the Medicarebeneficiary as a citizen," the letter reads.
The letter noted that information about members' and HMOs' rights and responsibilities should not be "misrepresented," but the general requirement for such mailers would be an attached disclaimer saying the information has not been reviewed for "accuracy or misrepresentation." Humana attached a nearly identical disclaimer in its mailer. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., ranking member of the House Ways and MeansCommittee, said the letter is proof that CMS was in conflict with its own policy. "This actually reverses a Clinton administration policy that said, actually,seniors have a right to know how their benefits may be affected," Camp toldFOX News.
McConnell and other top Senate Republicans cited the same evidence in their letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Thursday in which they demanded that the "gag order" be lifted. "Now, the Obama administration has reversed this longstanding HHS decision-- in the midst of a critical debate about the future of health care services in our country -- to shut down communication between private companies and America's seniors on an issue that has a direct impact ontheir health care," the letter said. Republicans said the administration essentially was punishing Humana for questioning the plan and firing a warning shot at any other companies that might be thinking of doing the same.
The Department of Health and Human Services on Monday not only targeted Humana, but sent out a broad directive to all Medicare Advantage participants, telling them to "immediately discontinue all such mailings"and remove any such material from their Web sites. Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, said the order went out to about 200 companies Monday night, just as the SenateFinance Committee was about to start debate on its version of health carereform.
"This is an effort to stifle any dissent," he said. "They are silencing opposition to the president's Medicare cuts," said Camp spokesman Sage Eastman. Camp and the other minority members of the House Ways and Means Committee wrote a letter Thursday to Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., urging a hearing in order to "investigate the unusual and potentially politically motivated decision by CMS to eliminate the flow of factual information from private health plans to their enrollees." Humana has donated heavily to both Democratic and Republican lawmakers over the last decade, including McConnell and Camp but also Baucus. Baucus is more heavily funded by health insurance companies like Aetna and BlueCross/Blue Shield.
In its original mailer, Humana expressed concern about proposals to cutMedicare and Medicaid spending by about $500 billion over 10 years,including payments to Medicare Advantage plans worth about $125 billion. "While these programs need to be made more efficient, if the proposed funding cut levels become law, millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable," the mailer reads. It urged seniors to sign up with Humana for regular updates on thelegislation and encouraged them to contact their lawmakers in Washington.
Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf on Thursday agreed that seniors in the Medicare Advantage plans could see reduced benefits under Baucus' legislation. But Baucus said the proposed bill would not cut benefits. "I'm not going to let insurance company profits stand in the way of improving Medicare for seniors," he said in a statement, calling efforts to mislead seniors "wholly unacceptable." Analysts say the Medicare Advantage plans are being paid too much -- about 14 percent more than it costs to care for seniors in traditional Medicare.
Democrats continued to assert that the company had made a false claim and that Republicans were again demonstrating their affinity for the insurance industry. Baucus said the mailer could be a violation of federal regulations. But AARP, which also helps administer Medicare plans in conjunction with United Healthcare, has weighed in on that part of the health care debate as well -- only on the other side. The AARP continues to feature ads on an affiliated Web site defending the Medicare changes. One ad blasts critics for spreading "myths and scaretactics," and claims the reforms will not "hurt" Medicare but "actually strengthen it by eliminating billions of dollars in waste and lowering drug prices." Another AARP article declares, "Controlling the rising costs of Medicare doesn't mean cutting benefits." Eastman said AARP is not being held to the same standard as Humana. "If you're going to silence the critics you need to silence the proponents too," he said. "This clearly smacks of politics."
ARE YOU SCARED YET??? YOU SHOULD BE, THIS COULD BE YOUR MOM OR DAD THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
The health insurance company targeted by the Obama administration and a topSenate Democrat properly followed guidance dating back to the Clinton administration and should not be punished, Republicans said Thursday.
House and Senate Republicans have put up a wall of resistance against the decision by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to launch a probe into Humana for sending to its members what Democratic Sen. Max Baucus called "false" information about health care reform legislation.
Senate Republicans on Thursday threatened to block Obama's healthcare-related appointments if the decision is not reversed, and House Republicans called for a hearing on what they described as a politically motivated "gag order." "It's an astonishing overreach," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell,R-Ky., told FOX News on Thursday.
CMS began the probe at the request of Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman of theSenate Finance Committee, over a mailer Baucus claims misled seniors about proposed changes to Medicare. Humana, one of the largest private carriers serving seniors under theMedicare Advantage program, focused its mailer on the potential for cuts to service.
Republicans said Humana's claim was accurate in the first place. But as proof its behavior was above board, they held up a Clinton-era letter from the Department of Health and Human Services offering guidance on mailers sent by insurers to customers. The 1997 letter, written by Center for Health Plans and Providers Director Bruce Fried to a law firm, addressed the question of whether HMOs could tell members about proposed legislation and urge them to express their opinions. The letter concluded that restrictions could violate free speech laws. "While it may be difficult for a reviewer to ascertain whether or not the information about legislation, for example contained in a member's newsletter issued by an HMO, is accurate and without a slant or unrevealed self-interest, we believe that prohibiting such information would violate basic freedom of speech and other constitutional rights of the Medicarebeneficiary as a citizen," the letter reads.
The letter noted that information about members' and HMOs' rights and responsibilities should not be "misrepresented," but the general requirement for such mailers would be an attached disclaimer saying the information has not been reviewed for "accuracy or misrepresentation." Humana attached a nearly identical disclaimer in its mailer. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., ranking member of the House Ways and MeansCommittee, said the letter is proof that CMS was in conflict with its own policy. "This actually reverses a Clinton administration policy that said, actually,seniors have a right to know how their benefits may be affected," Camp toldFOX News.
McConnell and other top Senate Republicans cited the same evidence in their letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Thursday in which they demanded that the "gag order" be lifted. "Now, the Obama administration has reversed this longstanding HHS decision-- in the midst of a critical debate about the future of health care services in our country -- to shut down communication between private companies and America's seniors on an issue that has a direct impact ontheir health care," the letter said. Republicans said the administration essentially was punishing Humana for questioning the plan and firing a warning shot at any other companies that might be thinking of doing the same.
The Department of Health and Human Services on Monday not only targeted Humana, but sent out a broad directive to all Medicare Advantage participants, telling them to "immediately discontinue all such mailings"and remove any such material from their Web sites. Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, said the order went out to about 200 companies Monday night, just as the SenateFinance Committee was about to start debate on its version of health carereform.
"This is an effort to stifle any dissent," he said. "They are silencing opposition to the president's Medicare cuts," said Camp spokesman Sage Eastman. Camp and the other minority members of the House Ways and Means Committee wrote a letter Thursday to Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., urging a hearing in order to "investigate the unusual and potentially politically motivated decision by CMS to eliminate the flow of factual information from private health plans to their enrollees." Humana has donated heavily to both Democratic and Republican lawmakers over the last decade, including McConnell and Camp but also Baucus. Baucus is more heavily funded by health insurance companies like Aetna and BlueCross/Blue Shield.
In its original mailer, Humana expressed concern about proposals to cutMedicare and Medicaid spending by about $500 billion over 10 years,including payments to Medicare Advantage plans worth about $125 billion. "While these programs need to be made more efficient, if the proposed funding cut levels become law, millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable," the mailer reads. It urged seniors to sign up with Humana for regular updates on thelegislation and encouraged them to contact their lawmakers in Washington.
Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf on Thursday agreed that seniors in the Medicare Advantage plans could see reduced benefits under Baucus' legislation. But Baucus said the proposed bill would not cut benefits. "I'm not going to let insurance company profits stand in the way of improving Medicare for seniors," he said in a statement, calling efforts to mislead seniors "wholly unacceptable." Analysts say the Medicare Advantage plans are being paid too much -- about 14 percent more than it costs to care for seniors in traditional Medicare.
Democrats continued to assert that the company had made a false claim and that Republicans were again demonstrating their affinity for the insurance industry. Baucus said the mailer could be a violation of federal regulations. But AARP, which also helps administer Medicare plans in conjunction with United Healthcare, has weighed in on that part of the health care debate as well -- only on the other side. The AARP continues to feature ads on an affiliated Web site defending the Medicare changes. One ad blasts critics for spreading "myths and scaretactics," and claims the reforms will not "hurt" Medicare but "actually strengthen it by eliminating billions of dollars in waste and lowering drug prices." Another AARP article declares, "Controlling the rising costs of Medicare doesn't mean cutting benefits." Eastman said AARP is not being held to the same standard as Humana. "If you're going to silence the critics you need to silence the proponents too," he said. "This clearly smacks of politics."
ARE YOU SCARED YET??? YOU SHOULD BE, THIS COULD BE YOUR MOM OR DAD THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
HOLY CRAP!!! WAS ANYONE LISTENING TO HER???
This was taken before the election, talk about fulfillment. They told us what they were going to do before the election and the country didn't listen. We are an oil state at heart. Is this what you want our heritage to become? Personally, i know that she would never get elected in our state, but she doesn't have to. All she has to do is go to Washington with the rest of the liberal socialist from California, New York, Massachusetts and the rest of them and they can FORCE US TO PLAY BY THEIR RULES, like it or not!!! I think its time that we as TEXANS reevaluate our place in this country and ask ourselves if we want to follow that path. CAP and SPEND is coming. If you dont know about it, read now!!! Fight this tooth and nail otherwise your monthly electric bill will double... THATS RIGHT... if you pay 200 a month now your going to be paying 400 if this passes. Do we have the power to stop it as one state? I don't know, maybe but do we really care? we have the right as a free state to disagree with that but if it passes we will be forced into servitude even more by this corrupt government. If you don't beleive that they are actively pursuing that agenda, you might want to take another look at the video.
I have a question for my fellow TEXANS
OK, so i have this friend that is from Tennessee, he's a great guy, thinks the way i do about politics and such, but... He likes to give me a hard time about the fact that I just bought 6 M4 style carbine rifles and 2 more that fire AK47 rounds but look like the M4. (those 2 are made by armalite at armalite.com called the AR10, if your interested) Oh yeah, he bought one of those from me by the way. Anyway back to my point here. He keeps saying things like, "Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are going to come and take your guns because you don't need them for protection that's why the government is here, then take your land away and say you don't deserve all that land because you worked for it. We are going to give it to this guy who doesn't have anything and doesn't want to work." My response to that was simple, I personally don't think she or Harry would get past Midland or Odessa before somebody introduced her to a tall tree and a short rope. We are Texans and we grew up with guns and land and freedom and no tree hugging, terrorist loving, socialist, left wing radical from CALIFORNIA(pffh) is going to come here or go to Washington and legislate our rights away without some serious back lash. Now please don't get me wrong, I am in no way advocating violence against our duly elected officials, however, WE IN TEXAS DID NOT ELECT HER OR HARRY "BALLS" REID. So why should we have to follow their crazy left wing radical ideas? Let's see how well that has worked for Mrs Pelosi so far... Cali has one of the highest state taxes in the country yet operates with a 43 billion dollar deficit this year and had to take bailout money from the fed. Texas has no state taxes yet somehow managed to have a 9 billion dollar surplus last year. hmmmm. Makes you wonder who's right doesn't it. If I operated my bank account with a 100.00 dollar deficit for any amount of time I would be severely penalized by my creditors and I sure as hell can't borrow money to pay off debt, I've tried that, but they say no because they say I don't have enough collateral... I think its because they don't want me to get out of debt that soon because the banks lose money when I pay them off early. So my question is simple... How far up your drive way would Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid get if you knew that they were coming to take away what you earned to give it to someone in a different state that didn't work and didn't want to? I look forward to seeing these responses.
Talk about spending!!??!!
SO What would say if I were to tell you that in the last month in this one Brigade that I am assigned to we spent in the neighborhood of 20 million dollars of your money to improve infrastructure of IRAQ? I'm not talking about things that we damaged during the war, i mean things like building or repairing water treatment facilities, schools, roads, court houses, buying front loaders and graders and over 400K on computers and trainers to teach the kids how to use them. the reason that i mention this is because our federal government is sending all of this money, your money, over here instead of in our own country on the exact same things that need improvement when we could be helping the Iraqis with this by making them use their own revenue from oil and international trade. i am not sure that our founding fathers meant that we should go and impose our own way of life on other people when they founded this country. I believe that they meant for us to stand up and show the world that a free society can work and let the rest of the world choose it's own path. imposing one countries beliefs and values on another is called imperialism and if I am not mistaken is the reason for the American revolution about 234 years ago. don't get me wrong, i believe in helping people stand on there own but the key to that is teaching them how and showing them what worked for us. not spending our own money to do it for them. I'm just saying, ya know. feel free to comment
so here is something that a friend of mine put on her myspace and i happen to agree with. think about this for a moment and then think about what this country, and our state, was founded on. hard work earns good rewards. do for yourself and help when you can. don't expect anybody to do anything for you that you can do for yourself. that's how I was raised and that is what I was aught here in the Great state of TEXAS. so take a look below and feel free to comment.
Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem). What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. So, here is my Question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass ? doing drugs, while I work. . . Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? I guess we could title that program, Urine or You're Out'.Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it ...
Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem). What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. So, here is my Question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass ? doing drugs, while I work. . . Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? I guess we could title that program, Urine or You're Out'.Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it ...
Is Mr Obama really an American??? I'm just asking
This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. Name: Barry Soetoro
Religion: ..... Islam
Nationality: ..... Indonesian How did little INDONESIAN, Barry Soetoro, (A.K.A. Barack Obama) get around the issue of nationality to become president?
Someone who tells lies is a L __ __ r?
PART 2:
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College .Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school.
The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.
The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking.
Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim.
The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as president.
When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue.Britain 's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K.In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey .This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualifications to serve as president.Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending.
This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records.Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still on-going but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.LET OTHER PEOPLE KNOW THIS NEWS THE MEDIA WON'T LET IT BE KNOWN!
NEITHER ONE OF THE OBAMA PAIR HAD TIME TO GET A REAL JOB AND WORK FOR A PAY CHECK. WE PAID THE BALANCE ON THEIR EDUCATION AND TRAVEL.
Religion: ..... Islam
Nationality: ..... Indonesian How did little INDONESIAN, Barry Soetoro, (A.K.A. Barack Obama) get around the issue of nationality to become president?
Someone who tells lies is a L __ __ r?
PART 2:
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College .Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school.
The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.
The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking.
Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim.
The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as president.
When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue.Britain 's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K.In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey .This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualifications to serve as president.Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending.
This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records.Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still on-going but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.LET OTHER PEOPLE KNOW THIS NEWS THE MEDIA WON'T LET IT BE KNOWN!
NEITHER ONE OF THE OBAMA PAIR HAD TIME TO GET A REAL JOB AND WORK FOR A PAY CHECK. WE PAID THE BALANCE ON THEIR EDUCATION AND TRAVEL.
THE FUTURE OF OUR STATE
Hi this is something new for me, I have always been politically wary and vocal about it, however, this is the first time that I have put those thoughts in writing.Why is it that every time we turn on MSNBC or CBS or CNN we hear about how great the president and our Democratic Congress are doing but when PRESIDENT Bush was in office all we heard was negative? Was he really doing that bad of a job? and is Mr. Obama really that great? well let's put a few things into perspective and then you can decide. 1. Did either President Bush ever sit in a domestic terrorists home to plan his political future? No, but Mr Obama did. he sat in Bill Ayers' home in chicago to plan his campaigns more than one time, he did it multiple times.2. Did either President Bush ever have close political and real estate ties wwith a known criminal and embezzeler? No, but Mr Obama did. Tony Resko is serving time in a federal prison for it and he and Mr. Obama bought joining pieces of property and then Mr Resko sold his portion of that property to Mr Obama for pennies on the dollar. 3. Did President Bush ever even consider hiring an individual into his inner circle of advisors that was a self avowed Communist and proud of that? No, but Mr Obama did when he hired Van Jones as the GREEN JOBS CZAR. Speaking of Czar's if i know my history correctly that is the Russian name for King. Am I the only one that sees a problem here?4. How many tax cheats did President Bush hire and /or appoint as cabinet members within his administration? ZERO, but Mr Obama has appointed or tried to appoint at least 6 that I can remember.5. Did President Bush ever try to legistate away our rights as Amercans to bear arms? No, but Mr. Obama and the democratic congress are. Why is that? Well lets think about this logically for just a minute. According to the Second Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and I am writing DIRECTLY from that document that is right in front of me, "A WELL REGULATED MALITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."Well lets ask ourselves one question. If the government has a permanent standing army, why would the founders of this country and authors of this document put that ammendment in our founding document? Well Thomas Jefferson believed and stated that in order to insure that the government should not oppress the people but instead answer to them, the people shall have the right to defend themselves against the government. That the people, not the government have the power of self regulation. In other words, our founding fathers wanted to insure that WE THE PEOPLE would never become oppressed or forced into servitude again so they gave us our only defense against our own government if that became necessary. So I ask you why is the current administration trying to disarm this country?6. Speaking of Ammendments to the constitution, let's take a look at the First Ammendment for just a moment. Again I will write this directly from the document sitting on my desk. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.Well after reading that and then seeing the Second ammendment, the right to keep and bear arms, it starts to look a bit clearer to me. I don't know maybe I'm off base but it sounds like our founding fathers said in a nut shell, "Look guys, we voted you in, you work for us, and if we have a problem with how your doing things we're gonna let you know about it. Oh by the way, to make sure you can't shut us up read the second ammendment because if you try to shut us up we will just forcibly remove you from office because we gave ourselves the right to do so."Now I am not saying that President Bush was perfect or right about everything. I freaking HATED the fact that he authorized bailout money on his way out the door. What happened to free enterprise and capitolism and the strong survive and the weak fall by the wayside. And since when did people get rewarded for screwing up? I mean if I were to lose half a billion dollars in my job I would go to jail not get a bonus. why did we reward these guys with money yet the ones that were doing a great job got no recognition for it.Our economy is no better off than it would have been had those banks failed and their assets bought up by the banks that were strong. but now, they are under the direct supervision and control of a government that has dozens of advisors that openly believe in a Marxist society.. Those of us in Texas have never and will never believe in that way of olife because we are a proud people that believes that you get what you earn and you earn what you deserve. Why do I have to pay for some guy or girl to sit at home and fill out job applications that they never intend to submit but is a requirement for them to pick up their weekly check. A check that is paid for by our tax money. I think that this is going to be a long discussion and a blog worth writing. I have to go for now but I will be back on later. check back with me and tell me what you think. when i return I'm not sure where this discussion will go but I'm sure it will be interesting. For now just remember that SAM HOUSTON and STEPHEN F. AUSTIN did not intend for our rights as TEXANS to be legislated away by someone who has never been here except for a campaign stop or not at all. THINK ABOUT IT.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)