Important Message

The question I am being asked repeatedly these days is, what is going on in Washington? The fact is we, as a free people, are in serious trouble. The current leadership is on a mission to radically alter the America we have known for 234 years. America is being changed as promised but the sad reality is that most Americans who voted for this president had no idea what they were truly casting their vote for.

In the middle of the night on December 21 the Senate passed a health care bill that is unconstitutional and will certainly be challenged almost immediately by Constitutional attorneys. There is no place in our Constitution that mandates the citizens of this country purchase any specific goods or services or be fined by the Federal government. It is true that the States have the right to enforce state laws for the protection of their people, i.e. Auto insurance, but never has this happened on the federal level. This is a travesty of true justice and is illegal to boot. I realize that the far left tries to attack thinking Americans on the basis that we do not want “change”. This is a lie! Most Americans want change in the health care arena but not this change! They accuse us of fear tactics all the while stating that this must be done right now, in this way or we will suffer. This group knows they have a window of opportunity to enact and enforce their socialist agenda and to change America into their godless and perverse model. God forbid!

I want to urge you to log onto this website and read the facts for yourself. In addition please pass this information on and realize it is up to us to act.

http://www.healthcarereform.homestead.com

Sen. Lincoln: Congress Can Force Americans to Buy Health Insurance Because Constitution ‘Charges Congress With the Health’ of the People
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) told CNSNews.com that Congress has the authority to force individual Americans to buy health insurance because the U.S. Constitution “charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people.”? ?The words “health” and “well-being” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that in the entire history of the United States the federal government has never mandated that Americans buy any good or service. Both the House and Senate health care bills, however, include provisions that require all legal residents of the U.S. to purchase health insurance, a provision whose constitutionality has been questioned by, among others, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. ??At a press conference on Capitol Hill, CNSNews.com asked Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Blanche Lincoln the following question: “What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate that individuals have to purchase health insurance?”? ?Lincoln did not answer the question during the press conference but spoke to CNSNews.com in the Dirksen Senate Office Building immediately afterward. CNSNews.com asked her there: ‘You didn’t respond to my constitutionality question during the press conference, and what was your reaction to, your answer to the question?” ? ?“Well, I just think the Constitution charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people,” Lincoln said.? ?CNSNews.com then asked the Senator: “So, what area though? You’re saying the health and well-being. What area, though, does that fall under?”? ?“The health and well-being of the people of the country,” she replied. During the press conference, Landrieu told CNSNews.com she would let “constitutional lawyers on our staff” answer the question of where the Constitution authorizes Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance. “Well, we’re very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I’ll let them answer that,” said Landrieu.? ?“But what I will say is that most certainly it is within Congress’ jurisdiction to come up with a way to have a health insurance funded with shared responsibility, is the way I like to, you know--government has a responsibility, individuals have a responsibility and business has a responsibility,” said Landrieu.????In 1994, when Congress was considering then-President Clinton’s proposal for universal health care, the CBO studied the issue of an individual mandate to purchase health insurance and discovered that the federal government had never in the history of the United States mandated that individuals purchase any good or service.??“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” said the CBO. “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”? ?This July, the CBO said that an attempt to justify a mandate that people buy health insurance by using the Commerce Clause of the Constitution—which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce “among the several states”—raises a “novel issue.”??“Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service,” said the CBO.? ?Sen. Hatch offered an amendment to the health care bill while it was under consideration in the Senate Finance Committee that would have expedited judicial review of the provision that mandates individuals buy health insurance. Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D.-Mont.) ruled that the amendment was not the proper jurisdiction of the committee and did not allow a direct vote on it. Hatch later told CNSNews.com that he believes the provision is unconstitutional.??“If that is held constitutional--for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance--then there is literally nothing that the federal government can’t force us to do,” said Hatch. “Nothing.”? ?As a followup to the interview in the Dirkson Building, CNSNews.com asked Sen. Lincoln’s press secretary specifically which Article and Section of the Constitution the senator was referring to when she said the Constitution charged Congress with the health and well-being of the people. The press secretary did not respond by deadline. ? ?The words “health” and “well-being” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The closest approximations to these words come in the Preamble, which includes the phrase “promote the general welfare,” and Article 1, Section 8, which includes the phrase “provide for the common Defence and General Welfare.” As per the CBO's historical analysis, neither of these phrases has ever been used to justify Congress forcing individual Americans to purchase something.

Whatever Became of Free Speech?

American’s are losing one of our most important freedoms…the right to speak our mind and share our convictions in a public forum. I have always believed every citizen has the right to speak regardless of his/her beliefs. That is changing fast! Democrats are determined to silence any and all opposition to their ideology.

In addition, we have the CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) who do all possible to stifle any objective view of Islam that runs counter to their plan of indoctrination. America’s 21st century view of tolerance and political correctness is virtually destroying free speech.

I urge you to stand up and speak out! Let me be clear about this. Islam is NOT a loving, peaceful religion! It is satanic to the core as is every religion that says you can get to God apart from faith in Jesus Christ and the cross! Americans who are people of faith must not be silent not allow ourselves to be intimidated or shouted down by those who hate freedom.

I am posting below just one recent example of this warped view of our freedoms. Come on people…get out of the chair and speak up before it is too late!

Caliphate or Republic?

The observations by Shireen Qudosi below reveal great insight into the competing value systems of Islamists and those of us in the West.

Qudosi writes about the recent “dust-up” in San Diego between ACT! for America’s San Diego chapter and CAIR-San Diego (Council on American-Islamic Relations). In a nutshell:

• CAIR did a presentation at the public library;
  
• ACT! for America’s local chapter asked for and was granted equal ti me to do a presentation;
  
• CAIR then tried to prevent ACT! for America’s local chapter from doing the presentation, and when that failed, demanded ACT! for America include a Muslim representative to provide “equal time” in the ACT! for America presentation.

Pass this along to people you know so they can see for themselves what it is we are up against. Encourage them to log on to www.actforamerica.org and sign up for our email alerts.

“Caliphate or Republic”

How the Exchange Between CAIR and ACT! For America Highlights the Importance of Free Speech and Conservative Values.

By Shireen Qudosi • August 28, 2009

http://qudosi.com/

On July 11, 2009, the San Diego Public Library hosted CAIR=E 2s SD Director Edward Hopida’s presentation on Islam. During the presentation, Mr. Hopida took a moment to list a number of authors whose work he felt should be avoided because (according to him) their authors possessed “no expertise” on Islam and were published because they were exploiting 9-11. The list included Steven Emerson, Hirsi Ali, Noni Darwish, Brigitte Gabriel, Robert Spencer, and an array of other writers whose work is of a controversial nature within the Muslim community.

Whatever one’s opinion may be of these writers, we cannot ignore the grand irony of suggested book banning in a public library - an event that, at the end of the day, was sponsored by tax payers. Hopida’s actions also ignore the efforts dedicated to Islam pre 9-11. His dismissal of Ali, Darwish, and Gabrielle draws attention to a larger problem of the failure of such associations and ‘experts’ to value women as witnesses.

Having attended Hopida’s presentation, San Diego ACT chapter leader Mike Hayutin took it upon himself to offer a counter argument. He approached the San Diego Public Library Director Deborah Barrow and requested the same time and sponsorship to speak of radical Islam. Unlike Hopida, Hayutin was not on a payroll and invested his own time and resources to exercise his belief in balanced representation. The request was initially reluctantly received by Director Barrow, who had likely perceived CAIR as a civil rights group and was unaw are of the controversy surrounding them. However, considerable community pressure and a call from the mayor’s office facilitated Hayutin’s request. Hayutin was finally granted his opportunity to present a two hour presentation on radical elements in Islam.

His appearance however was not appreciated by CAIR, which filed a complaint letter and submitted a one-sided press release on their disapproval of Mr. Hayutin’s presentation, as well as his association with ACT, which Hopida labeled as peddling stereotypes by labeling Islam as incompatible with the West. Somehow, in midst of all this bashing, he seemed to forgotten CAIR’s own dodgy associations. CAIR also contacted the library and insisted they put a “Muslim expert” on the podium with Hayutin, rather than Hayutin hosting the event on his (as Hopida did).

The alternate seminar, accurately entitled “Caliphate or Republic”, offering an alternate view to Hopida’s original presentation, took place August 15th from 2-4 pm at the San Diego Public Library. The auditorium was packed and a healthy debate ensued, mixed with both hard core conservatives and local Muslims attempting to make the case for Islam. For the most part the Muslim representation was quite positive, and I had the opportunity to speak with a few of them post event. However, my advice to them is two-fold: 1) Don’t ambush the speaker; it makes you look desperate, and 2) if you get the chance to speak, present a solid counter argument rather than promoting your Muslim bake sale or food drive; no one is going to come to your bake sale if they still think you’re a terrorist.

All in all the event went smoothly, brought together a diverse mix that still at the end of the day agreed to disagree on most issues. A standing room only crowd also indicates an audience the library may have been overlooking. The presentation and the subsequent talks that carried on well past the event, reflected the delicate system of equality in America where both sides have a right to the soap box, to assemble freely and have their case be heard – to have a tolerant ear even if not a sympathetic ear.

However, in light of the struggle for local resident Mike Hayutin to secure the podium, and in light of Reuters picking up CAIR’s press release and passing it as ‘legitimate’ news (with no attempt to contact the other party), the clear issue is the increasing fragility of our right to free speech and the increasing subjectivity of news agencies.

The business of subjective information from authority sources doesn’t just rest with the media. When asked why Mr. Hayutin took an interest in radical Islam, he noted attending a local university panel on yet another chapter on the entanglement between Palestine and Israel. The panel, hosted by three well-respected professors and attended by hordes of students, was (according to Hayutin) completely bias in nature and presented the case in a most politically appeasing pro-Palestine format with absolutely no counter argument. Appalled and concerned for the lack of balanced information, Hayutin took it upon himself to be a source of alternate information.

Meanwhile, Hopida’s attempts to regulate free speech at a public forum is another demonstration of Muslim interest groups attempting to regulate what can and cannot constitute as valuable discussion. In short, anything that is subjectively offensive is considered insensitive and racist. As the track record shows, particularly among such Islamists, if it doesn’t favor a marginal Muslim agenda and if it in fact challenges Islamism in any context, it cannot be extended any measure of freedom. As we have seen time and time again, through protests, petitions and outright violence, if an act is critical of any element in Islam, it is not tolerated.

In San Diego, via hundreds of angry So Cal residents and at the behest of the mayor, free speech prevailed…today. However, one must stop and consider the environment we would be in were this a Caliphate in which no alternate view was tolerated. This is not such a far fetch considering the contortionist movements by law makers (both in the states and in Europe) to extend discriminatory version of ‘equality’ to Muslims – acts that immediately segregate communities and outrightly discrim inate against non-Muslims.

Lawmakers insist on cultural and religious sensitivity, but since when did anything get achieved through sensitivity and mass mollycoddling?

So what is one to do when faced with a very real wolf but with no one hearing your cries? You start with those who are willing to listen. Start with think-tanks who don’t believe news should be fictional story telling, with well-networked lobbies, and the few remaining academics that are not easily swayed by university politics. Connect with a political party that appreciates the issue and doesn’t grey-wash threats as paranoia of hazy near-forgotten days of 9/11 – a recent past that somehow has been shuffled so far back in history that it’s cataloged with myths of minotaurs, mermaids and other fantastical creatures; a reality that has been been butchered by perception into a non-reality.

However, if as a society we continue to stomp and stampede, with banners of equality rattling in air, we ensure the inevitable forfeit of freedoms that are the touchstone of not just the Republicans or the Democratic ideals, but are the sacrament of what it means to be American.