Controlling the people; 16,500 more IRS agents; Health insurance companies gone in 2-3 years; the end of America

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." Alexis de Tocqueville “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Winston Churchill 1) Congress Votes to Socialize Health Care in United States (CNSNews.com) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted 219-212 on Sunday night to socialize health care in the United States, making the government the paymaster of, and giving it sweeping regulatory authority over, the U.S. health care industry which represents one-sixth of the U.S. economy. The legislation also enacts a dramatic and unprecedented diminution in the individual liberty of citizens. It does so by mandating that all Americans buy a government-approved health care plan while redistributing wealth on a massive scale by promising annual federal insurance subsidies to all Americans who earn less than 400 percent of the poverty level, which is currently $88,200 for a family of four. The new health-care system the legislation will put in place over the next four years amounts to a massive and mandatory new welfare program that will ensnare middle-class and middle-aged Americans in dependency on the federal government for a vital element of their lives. The health care legislation approved by Congress Sunday gives the administration sweeping power to regulate health insurance companies. These regulations will include instructing insurance companies on what benefits they must provide and what rates they can charge. The mandate that all Americans buy health insurance represents a fundamental change in the relationship between individuals and the federal government in the United States. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this is the first time in the history of the country that the federal government has ever ordered American citizens to buy any good or service. See: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63118 1a) Rep. Dingell: It's taken a long time to 'control the people' Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the Dean of the House of Representatives for being the longest serving member of the body (he was first elected in 1955, succeeding his father, Rep. John Dingell, Sr.), made an amazing admission during a live telephone interview with Detroit WJR News/Talk 760 radio talk show host Paul W. Smith on Smith's show Monday morning, March 22, 2010. The night before, Dingell had been a featured speaker at the Democrat Congressional leadership victory press conference after Obamacare passed the House. In response to a question posed by Smith, Dingell said: “Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.” See: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/rep_dingell_its_taken_a_long_t.html 1b) 16,500 more IRS agents needed to enforce Obamacare New tax mandates and penalties included in Obamacare will cause the greatest expansion of the Internal Revenue Service since World War II, according to a release from Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas. A new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses in the ‘reconciliation’ bill being taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives this weekend. ... Scores of new federal mandates and fifteen different tax increases totaling $400 billion are imposed under the Democratic House bill. In addition to more complicated tax returns, families and small businesses will be forced to reveal further tax information to the IRS, provide proof of ‘government approved’ health care and submit detailed sales information to comply with new excise taxes. See: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/16500-more-IRS-agents-needed-to-enforce-Obamacare-88458137.html 1c) White House, experts: Health care suit will fail TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – The White House says it isn't worried that 13 state attorneys general are suing to overturn the massive health care overhaul, and many legal experts agree the effort is futile. But the lawsuit, filed in federal court seven minutes after President Barack Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill, underscores the divisiveness of the issue and the political rancor that has surrounded it. Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum led the effort to file the suit that claims Congress doesn't have the constitutional right to force people to get health coverage. It also says the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing resources to pay for it. …A 14th state, Virginia, did not join the bigger lawsuit, but filed its own, which other states are also considering. McCollum, a Republican running for governor, has been talking about suing to overturn the bill since December. This month he invited other attorneys general to join him. So far South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Colorado and Louisiana have agreed. All the attorneys general are Republican except James "Buddy" Caldwell of Louisiana, a Democrat, who said he signed on because Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal asked him to and he felt the effort had merit. The lawsuit, filed in Pensacola, asks a judge to declare the bill unconstitutional because "the Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage." …Not so, said Bruce Jacob, a constitutional law professor at Stetson University in Florida, who said the suit seems like a political ploy and is unlikely to succeed. "The federal government certainly can compel people to pay taxes (only by constitutional amendment, comment mine), can compel people to join the Army ," he said. Providing for the national defense is a legitimate role of government cited in the Constitution. Forcing people to buy health insurance is NOT. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100323/ap_on_re_us/us_health_overhaul_lawsuit 1d) Health-Care Changes to Start Taking Effect This Year March 23 (Bloomberg) -- Indoor tanning salons will charge customers a 10 percent tax beginning in July in one of the changes Americans will see as a result of the U.S. health-care overhaul signed into law by President Barack Obama. Insurers will be required by September to begin providing health coverage to kids with pre-existing illnesses and allow parents to keep children younger than 26 on their plans as the clock has begun ticking on many of the law’s provisions. Medicare recipients will receive a $250 rebate for prescription drugs when they reach a coverage gap called the donut hole if the Senate passes and the president signs companion legislation approved March 21 by the U.S. House. …Within 90 days, the law will provide immediate access to high-risk insurance plans for people who can’t get insurance because of a pre-existing medical problem, Harris said. These high-risk pools will be funded by $5 billion in federal grants. …Participants in Medicare, the U.S. government’s health coverage for those 65 and older, are expected get a $250 rebate toward prescription drugs once their benefits run out -- a coverage gap know as the “doughnut hole.” The benefit is part of the package of amendments to the legislation now pending in the Senate. Drugmakers led by New York-based Pfizer Inc. will have to offer discounted drugs to Medicare recipients next year, according to an analysis of the legislation by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Menlo Park, California …Insurers also will have to reveal how much of members’ premiums they spend on medical care, as opposed to executive salaries or other administrative costs. Next year, they’ll owe a rebate to customers if the insurers spend less than 80 percent on benefits for people in individual or small-group plans. This is the provision that will put those “evil insurance companies” out of business. And who will be blamed for this? The insurance companies. See next story. See: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aa32kl.M09T4 1e) Health Insurance companies will be forced out of business in 2-3 years RUSH: Now, we welcome back from "in hiding" in Atlanta Stacy, who works for an insurance company who's been keeping us updated throughout this past year on the fate of her industry should this thing pass. Now it has passed. Give us the lowdown, Stacy. CALLER: Um, we're going to make it two years, three tops. RUSH: Explain why and start at the beginning. CALLER: Okay. For time immemorial, both state and federal regulation -- and also just the industry standard -- has been a 65-45 percentage arrangement: 65 in claims payment and 45 for administration and claims expense. Withholding that you store for, you know, a major catastrophe or something. RUSH: This is to pay your claims? CALLER: No, 65% is to pay the claims. Forty-five percent is for everything else. …CALLER: More often if they think that you're unstable, they'll audit you more often. So what Obama just did an hour and a half ago is make every insurance company in the country financially unstable. Remember, the 15% (sic) that we are left has not only to pay salaries, maintenance, upkeep of buildings; it also has to pay the 40% increased taxes that we've got. I mean, there's just no way. You can't do it (emphasis mine). RUSH: Well, you're getting a little bit ahead of me here. What did Obama sign that changes this 65-45 split? In what way did Obama now sign you into permanent instability? CALLER: The provision in the Senate bill requires that all insurance companies pay 85% of premiums collected every year in claims. RUSH: So the 65 is now 85? CALLER: Exactly. It doesn't matter how much we increase the premium, it won't matter. See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032310/content/01125109.guest.html 1f) In Health Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality: The left admits that redistribution of wealth is the point of Obamacare… For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.

Over most of that period, government policy and market forces have been moving in the same direction, both increasing inequality. The pretax incomes of the wealthy have soared (and so have the incomes of the “poor” and middle class! A rising tide raises all ships! - comment mine) since the late 1970s, while their tax rates have fallen more than rates for the middle class and poor.

That’s because their tax rates started out extraordinarily high! The top 20% of the population pays 80% of the income taxes in this country! And the lowest 40% of the population pays no income tax at all! Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/24leonhardt.html 1g) Sebelius: Goal is to Reduce Profits RUSH: More vindication for El Rushbo and all of us. Yesterday afternoon on MSNBC, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, on the drug companies... SEBELIUS: Well, the drug companies will have their profits reduced by close to $90 billion over the lifetime of this bill. That's part of the strategy moving forward. RUSH: So their goal-- their goal! -- is to reduce drug company profits. Bye-bye, research and development on any new drugs. Bye-bye, American empire. See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032410/content/01125110.guest.html 1h) New CNN Poll: 59% Oppose Obamacare A new CNN Opinion Research poll, conducted over the weekend as the House debated Obamacare, finds that 59 percent of Americans now stand opposed to the health care legislation in Congress. Just 39 percent of the poll’s 1,030 respondents said they favored the bill. …• 62 percent say the amount they pay for medical care will increase. • 47 percent think they’ll be worse off when it becomes law. • 70 percent believe the federal budget deficit will go up — contrary to repeated claims from Democrats. • 56 percent view Obamacare as creating too much government involvement in health care. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/22/new-cnn-poll-59-oppose-obamacare/ 1i) CNN poll: Majority disapprove of Obama for first time Washington (CNN) – For the first time, a CNN poll has found that a majority of Americans disapprove of President Obama's job performance. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday, 51 percent of respondents disapprove of Obama's job performance and 46 percent approve of it. …In fact, health care was the policy area that drew the second highest negative rating, with 58 percent registering disapproval. The highest negative rating was 62 percent for his handling of the federal deficit. …On the economy overall, 54 percent disapprove of his work and 43 percent approve. See: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/cnn-poll-majority-disapprove-of-obama-for-first-time 2) Banks on verge of losing student lending business WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care success has an intended side effect: Attached to the fast-track package of health care fixes is an overhaul of college assistance programs that would cost private lenders billions of dollars in college loans. Industry lobbyists have watched helplessly as Democrats and the Obama administration this week appear on the verge of shifting student lending from private banks to the federal government. …"The education secretary is the new banker of the year," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., himself a former education secretary. Republicans offered amendments Wednesday to weaken or kill the student loan bill. But any change to the expedited measure would send it back to the House, and Democrats have vowed to kill any amendment. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_student_loans 3) The End of American Empire? RUSH: This morning on Squawk Box Europe, CNBC, David Murrin, cofounder of Emergent Asset Management, is the guest, and the anchor said, "David, you've just written a book here called Breaking the Code of History: A Map for the Future. So if we've been here before, David, as I think you argue, what goes on after this?" MURRIN: I think sometimes long term history impacts the now and we're in it like a schism, like two tectonic plates that suddenly shift after a hundred years of energy building up. And that's really the end of the western Christian empire. It's bigger than the British empire, the American empire. It's the sum of all the Christian empires for nearly 900 years. And America is the last one. And when the last one changes and declines, which it's in, it will be very rapid, it's the end of the whole system. RUSH: I've never heard it put that way. The Christian empire, America is the largest part it and is the last one, and when the last one changes and declines, which it's in, so the American empire is in decline. And this is partly because of the health care bill. So he added this. MURRIN: At the same time the system that rises challenges far quicker as it moves into the vacuum created by the old system, and that's the east. The surprise will be the rate of that change. And we view the new administration in America as new hope. Unfortunately, if you look at historical precedents of underclass and the mechanisms of an underclass actually coming to the fore demographically, it is not new hope, it's the beginning of the end. And we're seeing that very quickly take place (emphasis mine). See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032410/content/01125112.guest.html 4) ACORN disbanding because of money woes, scandal CHICAGO – The once mighty community activist group ACORN announced Monday it is folding amid falling revenues — six months after video footage emerged showing some of its workers giving tax tips to conservative activists posing as a pimp and prostitute. "It's really declining revenue in the face of a series of attacks from partisan operatives and right-wing activists that have taken away our ability to raise the resources we need," ACORN spokesman Kevin Whelan said. Several of its largest affiliates, including ACORN New York and ACORN California, broke away this year and changed their names in a bid to ditch the tarnished image of their parent organization and restore revenue that ran dry in the wake of the video scandal. …ACORN's board decided to close remaining state affiliates and field offices by April 1 because of falling revenues, with some national operations will continue operating for at least several weeks before shutting for good, Whelan said Monday. For years, ACORN could draw on 400,000 members to lobby for liberal causes, such as raising the minimum wage or adopting universal health care. ACORN was arguably most successful at registering hundreds of thousands of low-income voters, though that mission was dogged by fraud allegations, including that some workers submitted forms signed by 'Mickey Mouse' or other cartoon characters. Watch out! Prediction: This organization will re-surface with a new name and new branding. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100322/ap_on_re_us/us_acorn_closing_down 5) Treaty to cut US-Russia nukes; signing in 2 weeks WASHINGTON – The U.S. and Russia reached a breakthrough agreement Wednesday for a historic treaty to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the former Cold War rivals, the most significant pact in a generation and an important milestone in the decades-long quest to lower the risk of global nuclear war. After long and trying negotiations, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are to sign the treaty in two weeks in Prague, once final technical details are worked out, officials in Washington and Moscow said. The accord is expected to cut the number of long-range nuclear weapons held by each side to about 1,500, and it raises hopes for further disarmament in the years ahead. …Though the State Department said the two countries were still working out unspecified final technical details, spokesman Mark Toner said there had been discussions with the Czech government about holding a signing ceremony in Prague — where Obama last April declared his vision of a nuclear-free world. Fantastic! We can all sing “Kum ba ya” while China, Iran, and North Korea increase their nuclear arsenals! See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100325/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_russia_nuclear 6) Israel approves new building in east Jerusalem JERUSALEM – The Jerusalem municipality has approved 20 new apartments for Jews in an Arab neighborhood of east Jerusalem, the city said Wednesday, in a move that could stir a new diplomatic crisis with the United States just as Israel's leader is in Washington on a fence-mending visit. The announcement marked the second time this month that Israel has announced new construction in the disputed section of the holy city during face-to-face meetings between top U.S. and Israeli officials. …The U.S. views Israeli building in east Jerusalem, the part of the city claimed by Palestinians as their future capital, as disruptive to Mideast peacemaking. Israel, which captured east Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast war (which Israel did not start, comment mine), insists the city cannot be divided and says it has the right to build anywhere. And it does. Israel is the only country in the world whose borders are subject to “peacemaking”. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians 7) Glenn Beck: What Is 'Social Justice'? Long, but of fundamental importance… Everything we see pushed down the throats of the American people right now — TARP, the stimulus, health care, immigration reform, bailouts, cap-and-trade — they all have one thing in common: Their PR campaigns contain two words: "social justice." You've probably heard it a lot lately: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I think that there is a strong tradition of social justice in the Catholic Church that had a profound influence on me. OBAMA: I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague Ted Kennedy.... "What we face," he wrote, "Is above all a moral issue. At stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice." VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: So the measure here is what can we do with the major initiatives in the areas of the economy — economic recovery — jobs, education, housing, health care, are all designed to advance social justice. …I'm glad to see Time suddenly cares about God... or am I? The other "news" from The New York Times was that I recommended leaving church if those churches help the poor. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those pesky, meddling "journalists"! I'm not sure why I would expect the media to start searching for the truth now, when they've never let it get in the way before. The truth is this: The term "social justice" has been completely perverted and hijacked by progressives. It doesn't mean simply "help the poor" to them. It does to some people, but not to radical progressives. And now, just for The New York Times and everyone else who thinks I hate poor people — I know your attention span is about 20 or 30 seconds, but try and pay attention — we'll set the record straight for you here on social justice. The kind I am talking about vs. the kind that they are talking about. Ready? Here's my definition of social justice: Forced redistribution of wealth with a hostility toward individual property rights, under the guise of charity and/or justice. On my radio program, I said if your church is promoting Jeremiah Wright-type "social or economic justice," you should run from it or at least get educated on what progressives mean by this. …Churches that preach his type of "social justice" are what I was referring to when I said "run." This kind of social justice being preached in Rev. Wright-style churches not only resembles what many of these radical progressive and socialist and communist groups preach today, it is what they preach: Government forcibly taking wealth and spreading it around — leveling the playing field, so there's no "economic inequality." …Remember, we are talking about the extreme left. Does Moral Majority come to mind? What about the Christian Coalition? They were enemy No. 1 to the left. Why is it that the extreme left is talking about social justice and moral responsibilities? The left understands that if there is a wall you can't get around, then go through the cracks like a mist — infect it and use it for yourself. So it's interesting to me that we are now being taught by social justice extreme leftist preachers about your Christian duty to have a big government or a big government program. And all of the issues are being framed around morality. …Notice what they all have in common: Taking from one and giving to another. The second half of that equation — giving to another — is charity. But then President Obama's spiritual adviser says this: (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) REV. JIM WALLIS: We have to be very clear about this. Voluntary, faith-based initiatives with no resources, no resources to make any serious difference in poverty reduction, is not adequate. That's a charity that falls far short of biblical justice. (END AUDIO CLIP) Voluntary charity doesn't go far enough? Give to the poor by taking from the rich? Unfortunately that means theft (emphasis mine). See: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/38320/

Stupid Stupak; Health "care" bill passes - representative government dies; Don't let your daughter join Girl Scouts

1) Congress clears historic health care bill WASHINGTON – Summoned to success by President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled Congress approved historic legislation Sunday night extending health care to tens of millions of uninsured Americans and cracking down on insurance company abuses, a climactic chapter in the century-long quest for near universal coverage. Widely viewed as dead two months ago, the Senate-passed bill cleared the House on a 219-212 vote, with Republicans unanimous in opposition. Congressional officials said they expected Obama to sign the bill as early as Tuesday. A second measure — making changes in the first — was lined up for passage later in the evening. It would then go to the Senate, where Democratic leaders said they had the votes to pass it. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100322/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

1a) More on this from Fox News, a few hours earlier…

…President Obama will have to sign the Senate bill into law before any "fixes" bill goes to the Senate under fast-track rules that would enable Democrats to pass it without facing a Republican filibuster. Democrats control 59 of the Senate's 100 seats, one vote shy of the number needed to overcome bill-killing filibusters from a united GOP. But senators have given no guarantees they will pass the fixes, which are strictly the wishes of House Democrats. …Seeing the writing on the wall, Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., managing the time for Republicans as the ranking member on the House Rules Committee, repeatedly asked for a clock check during debate on the rules to be employed for passing the legislation. That was followed by a parade of Republicans seeking to "revise and extend" their remarks, a privilege aimed at allowing them to add their statements to the Congressional Record while also showing the GOP's unified opposition. The parade came shortly after Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, the leader of a bloc of pro-life Democrats said he would accept an executive order by President Obama reaffirming his commitment to existing law banning federal funding for abortion except in rape, incest and dangers to the life of the mother. The decision to go with the president's executive order -- which Stupak hinted was moot since House lawmakers had the 216 votes needed for passage -- was met with anger by pro-life Republicans, who said acceptance of the president's word was tantamount to a pro-choice vote (emphasis mine). "From a pro-life prospective, I find absolutely no comfort in this executive order. This puts the fate of the unborn in the hands of the most pro-abortion president in history (emphasis mine)," said Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa. …As debate began, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., called the bill the "mother of all unfunded mandates." …Republicans remain resolutely opposed to the legislation and warned they will make Democrats pay dearly in the fall elections if the fiercely debated measure becomes law. "The American people don't want this to pass. The Republicans don't want this to pass. There will be no Republican votes for this bill," Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House's second-ranking Republican, told ABC. See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/21/dems-predict-historic-health-care-vote/ 1b) Stupid Stupak: Stupak Sells Out For Executive Order That Could Be Rescinded Anytime Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) has announced his small group of Democrat pro-life voters are swinging their votes to support Obamacare. His reasoning is based on an Obama Executive Order that will supposedly keep the new health care bill from paying for abortions. Pro-life groups have warned that this move is smoke and mirrors and that the Executive Order is not enough. The Susan B. Anthony list explains: 1. An executive order can be rescinded any time. President Obama could reverse it next week, next month, or next year. Should another pro-abortion president be elected in the future, it could be rescinded on inauguration day. 2. An executive order will not prevent insurance companies that provide abortion from participating in the exchanges. 3. Abortion funding in the health care legislation can be only be removed using the legislative process. An executive order not only doesn’t fix the problem, it isn’t needed to fix the problem, and could not stand a legal challenge. If Democrats are serious about protecting taxpayers from funding abortion in the health care bill, they must use the legislative process to fix the problem. Barring unseen events, this should give Democrats enough votes to vote in the Senate health care bill. Stupak, who has been viciously attacked by the Left will now become their hero. With the latest Fox News poll showing only 30% of Americans supporting this bill, has representative government just died (emphasis mine)? See: http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/stupak-sells-out-for?xg_source=activity 1c) Obamacare threatens U.S. future Liberals have long dreamed of putting the government in charge of America’s health insurance industry. Each time they tried, the American people have stood up and rejected a government takeover of health care. …Undecided Democrats are being promised campaign perks and lucrative committee assignments. They are being threatened with decreased fund-raising support, primary opponents and the loss of committee chairmanships. President Barack Obama has even lobbied members one-on-one aboard Air Force One. By now, most Americans know the dirty details of Obamacare. It raises taxes. It will force Americans to pay for other people's abortions. It will put the government in charge of more than 18 percent of our private sector economy. It may provide benefits to up to 6.1 million illegal immigrants. It diminishes liberty and gives government more power. Most egregiously, it is not constitutional. . The Congressional Budget Office weighed in on an individual mandate to buy health insurance in 1994. The CBO stated: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.” …We can expect lawsuits across the country challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare — if it passes. The Virginia General Assembly has already passed legislation prohibiting the federal government from forcing Virginians to purchase government-approved health insurance. Other states are sure to follow suit should the bill pass — setting up legal battles that will further drag out the debate. See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34697.html 1d) Protester disrupts House, yells 'Kill the Bill' WASHINGTON (AP) - A Democratic lawmaker says a protester stood up in the House gallery, yelled "Kill the bill" and was cheered by Republicans. Angry demonstrators opposed to the health care bill gathered outside the Capitol on Sunday. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts says that one stood up in the House gallery and shouted, "Kill the bill. The people don't want this." As the man was yelling and ushers tried to escort him out, several Republicans stood up on the House floor and cheered. Said Frank: "I've never seen this—for the Republicans to stand up and cheer the guy on." Frank called the Republicans "clowns." The cheering could be heard from outside the chamber. See: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EJ67000&show_article=1 2) Daily Presidential Tracking Poll The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16. As the House prepares to vote on the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats, just 41% of voters favor the plan while 54% are opposed. Those figures include 26% who Strongly Favor the plan and 45% who are Strongly Opposed. Most voters believe it will raise the cost of health care and reduce the quality of care. Still, nearly two-out-of-three voters believe it is at least somewhat likely to pass and become law. …Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove. See: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll 3) Leftists are taking over the world…French left beats Sarkozy's party in regional vote PARIS – The long-flailing French left made a big-time comeback Sunday, crushing Nicolas Sarkozy's conservatives in regional elections colored by voters' economic worries — and informally kicking off the 2012 presidential race. Cheers resounded from Socialist Party headquarters as leftists swept races from the French Riviera to Paris. With 97 percent of ballots counted, the Socialists and their allies won 54 percent of the vote nationwide, while Sarkozy's UMP party had 35.3 percent, according to the Interior Ministry. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100321/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_france_elections 4) Earth will reel...Iceland fears 2nd, even larger volcanic eruption REYKJAVIK, Iceland – A volcano in southern Iceland has erupted for the first time in almost 200 years, raising concerns that it could trigger a larger and potentially more dangerous eruption at a volatile volcano nearby. …Nonetheless, officials sent phone messages to 450 people between the farming village of Hvolsvollur and the fishing village of Vik, some 100 miles (160 kilometers) southeast of the capital, Reykjavik, urging them to evacuate immediately. A state of emergency was declared although there were no immediate reports of injuries or damage. Evacuation centers were set up near the town of Hella, but many people returned to their homes later Sunday. The most immediate threat was to livestock because of the caustic gases the eruption released. Imagine that. Nature emitting its own toxic gases! See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_iceland_volcano 5) AGAIN! City orders Bible study closed Municipal rule also says praying family could be banned 'church' meeting A southern California city has ordered a Friday night Bible study involving about a dozen people to shut down its meetings by Good Friday or members could face financial sanctions. Or they could apply to purchase an expensive permit from the city government. The new case is similar to a dispute last week in Gilbert, Ariz., and another last year in San Diego County. Now, in Rancho Cucamonga, legal experts defending Bible study members say the city is targeting a Bible study for banishment, and officials say they are "not budging." In the previous cases, San Diego County officials apologized after a code enforcement officer tried to shut down a Bible study, and in Gilbert, officials told WND last week they were working on a change in a zoning requirement that had been interpreted by staff members to ban Bible studies from residences. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=128825 6) Girl Scouts hiding secret sex agenda? Accusations fly over U.N. meeting, Planned Parenthood 'hot' girl handout A witness who attended the 54th session of United Nations' Commission on the Status of Women has unleashed a firestorm of controversy after reporting copies of Planned Parenthood's teen-sex promoting guide, "Healthy, Happy and Hot," were provided for Girl Scouts in attendance. The Girl Scouts organization, in turn, has issued a denial statement, distancing itself from any involvement in "family planning," despite clear evidence to the contrary. Sharon Slater of Family Watch International and Stand for the Family was at the New York City event when organizers ushered all adults – save for one from each of seven sponsoring organizations – out of the room for a "girls only workshop" that the Girl Scouts of the USA reports 30-35 teenage girls attended. Slater told WND when the doors opened at the conclusion of the workshop, she went back in and found the "Hot" brochure among various materials made available on the back table. The guide itself, produced by the International Planned Parenthood Federation for young people with HIV, depicts both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, contains graphic details on "exploring" sexuality and encourages casual sex in many forms. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=129757

Constitution butchers prevail; Fox (Dodd) in the henhouse; A rift with Israel; Glenn Beck Hates Jesus?

1) The House vote on the Slaughter Solution: Update: Constitution-butchers prevail, 222-203 Update 2:13pm Eastern. Ok, the vote is happening right now. House GOP source: “House voting NOW. A ‘yes’ vote on the previous question is a vote to authorize Speaker Pelosi to use the Slaughter Solution to ram ObamaCare through the House without an up-or-down vote. A ‘no’ vote on the PQ [previous question] is a vote against the Slaughter Solution. ” Update 2:26pm Eastern. Final vote 222-203 with six not voting. Remember in November. See: http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/18/the-house-vote-on-barring-the-slaughter-solution-waiting/ 1a) Dems defeat GOP effort to force separate vote on Senate health bill: …All Republican lawmakers who voted opposed the measure, which had the effect of ending the GOP’s effort to force a vote. They were joined by 28 Democrats, who broke with party members on the vote. 222 Democrats supported the measure, though, meaning enough to proceed. Three members of both parties did not vote. Republicans had hoped for the separate vote to get Democratic lawmakers on record on the Senate bill, which includes some provisions on abortion, excise taxes, and other issues that House lawmakers find distasteful. As this stand[s], Democrats plan a vote on a rule on Sunday that would make changes to the Senate-passed bill while deeming the original legislation to have passed the House. See: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/87683-dems-defeat-gop-effort-to-force-separate-vote-on-senate-health-bill 1b) Bachmann: We Won't Obey 'Illegitimate' Health Care Bill Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is going a step beyond simply pledging to fight efforts to pass the health care bill -- she's openly pronouncing that people should personally declare it unconstitutional and defy it, depending on how it ends up getting passed. At a rally at the Minnesota State Capitol on Saturday, Bachmann declared illegitimate the potential route that House Democrats could take to pass the health care bill. She was specifically railing against a parliamentary tactic by which the House could skip voting on the Senate bill by declaring it passed as part of the reconciliation bill. Bachmann pronounced this to be taxation without representation. "They have just started a revolution -- and they did it (emphasis mine)," said Bachmann. "But mark my words, the American people aren't gonna take this lying down," Bachmann later said. "We aren't gonna play their game, we're not gonna pay their taxes. They want us to pay for this? Because we don't have to. We don't have to. We don't have to follow a bill that isn't law. That's not the American way, and that's not what we're going to do." Bachmann continued. "Because it's one-party rule now in Washington, D.C. Their Chicago tactics, their Chicago friends, twisting Democrats' arms, threatening their own team members with ethics charges and a submission. This handful of people thinks they can enforce their will on 300 million Americans? They're not gonna do that. This is dictatorial, what they are doing (emphasis mine). We are not compelled to follow a non-law just because Obama and Pelosi tells us we have to. …This approach goes beyond the conventional nullification position, which argues that states should have the power to interpose themselves against the federal government. In this case, Bachmann is calling for a individuals to commit civil disobedience against the law -- which should be very interesting to watch, if it really does come to that, and a sitting member of Congress leads citizens in breaking the law (emphasis mine). Michele Bachmann, you are a true patriot. See: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/bachmann-were-not-going-to-obey-health-care-law----we-dont-have-to-video.php 1c) Mark Levin: We will sue over health-care trick Action prepared to be filed 'the moment the House acts' A lawsuit has been prepared by the Landmark Legal Foundation to be filed as soon as – and if – members of the U.S. House use a trick that has been dubbed the "Slaughter rule" to advance President Obama's vision of socialized health care in the United States. The action was announced today by Mark R. Levin, the president of the foundation, who said the use of the so-called "deem and pass," "self-executing," or "Slaughter rule" to enact H.R. 3590 would result in an immediate legal challenge. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=128773 1d) Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan BOISE, Idaho – Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance. Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states. …"The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,' " he told reporters. "But I'll tell you what, you get 36 states, that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass (emphasis mine)." Last week, Virginia legislators passed a measure similar to Idaho's new law, but Otter was the first state chief executive to sign such a bill, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, which created model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group promotes limited government. "Congress is planning to force an unconstitutional mandate on the states," said Christie Herrera, the group's health task force director. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100318/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_states 1e) Nearly One-Third of Doctors Could Leave Medicine if Health-Care Reform Bill Passes, According to Survey Reported in New England Journal of Medicine (CNSNews.com) - Nearly one-third of all practicing physicians may leave the medical profession if President Obama signs current versions of health-care reform legislation into law, according to a survey published in the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. The survey, which was conducted by the Medicus Firm, a leading physician search and consulting firm based in Atlanta and Dallas, found that a majority of physicians said health-care reform would cause the quality of American medical care to “deteriorate” and it could be the “final straw” that sends a sizeable number of doctors out of medicine. More than 29 percent (29.2) percent of the nearly 1,200 doctors who responded to the survey said they would quit the profession or retire early if health reform legislation becomes law. If a public option were included in the legislation, as several liberal Senators have indicated they would like, the number would jump to 45.7 percent (emphasis mine). See: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62812 1f) Cahill bashes state -- and national -- health care reform law State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, an independent candidate for governor, today offered a wide-ranging and scathing criticism of the state’s universal health care law, saying it is bankrupting Massachusetts and will do the same nationally, if a similar plan is passed in Congress (emphasis mine).  "If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years (emphasis mine),” Cahill said in a press conference in his office. See: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/03/cahill_bashes_s.html 1g) Limbaugh prompts healthcare calls, ties up House phone lines House phone lines were nearing capacity on Tuesday as conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh encouraged fans to call in their objections on healthcare legislation. The House e-mail system was also deluged in what the House’s technology office called “a very significant spike” in traffic. The office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) sent out a system-wide advisory to member offices at 2 p.m. Tuesday, warning them of the dramatic increase in traffic. “Our phone system is nearing capacity,” said Jeff Ventura, spokesman for the CAO. “It got critical enough whereby we notified all systems’ administrators throughout the House that the phone systems are overloading.” …While Ventura said the CAO didn’t have specific numbers of how many calls the House was receiving, he did say that it would have to be “an extraordinary volume” in order for it to clog the system. See: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/87123-healthcare-calls-deluge-house-phone-lines 1h) Clinic: Woman championed by Obama eligible for aid CLEVELAND – A woman championed as the Obama administration's emblem for health care reform does not have to choose between her home and her health, according to officials at the Ohio hospital where she is being treated. With a self-reported annual income of about $6,000, Natoma Canfield is a prime candidate for financial aid in the form of Medicaid — the federal health care program for low-income and disabled people — or charitable assistance. And the Cleveland Clinic said it has no intention of putting out a lien on Canfield's house — or letting the billing process interfere with her treatment. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_he_me/us_health_care_ohio_woman 2) The takeover continues…Dodd unveils sweeping financial regulation plan WASHINGTON – A new Democratic Senate bill to tame the financial markets would give the government new powers to break up firms that threaten the economy, force the industry to pay for its failures and create an independent consumer watchdog within the Federal Reserve. …The bill would create a powerful nine-member Financial Stability Oversight Council, chaired by the treasury secretary, to look out for the systemwide health of the financial sector and to stop financial firms from becoming "too big to fail." The council could place large, interconnected financial institutions under the supervision of the Federal Reserve. And it would have the authority to approve the breakup of large complex companies if they pose a threat to the nation's financial system. Dodd drafting new financial regulation! How ironic! That’s like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. …Like the House bill, Dodd's proposal would create a mechanism to shut down large, failing firms, with shareholders and unsecured creditors bearing the losses. Management also would be removed. The costs of such a shutdown would be covered by a $50 billion fund financed by the largest financial firms. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100315/ap_on_bi_ge/us_financial_overhaul 3) U.S., U.K. Move Closer to Losing Rating, Moody’s Says March 15 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and the U.K. have moved “substantially” closer to losing their AAA credit ratings as the cost of servicing their debt rose, according to Moody’s Investors Service. The governments of the two economies must balance bringing down their debt burdens without damaging growth by removing fiscal stimulus too quickly, Pierre Cailleteau, managing director of sovereign risk at Moody’s in London, said in a telephone interview. Under the ratings company’s so-called baseline scenario, the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K., and will be the biggest spender from 2011 to 2013, Moody’s said today in a report. “We expect the situation to further deteriorate in terms of the key ratings metrics before they start stabilizing,” Cailleteau said. “This story is not going to stop at the end of the year. There is inertia in the deterioration of credit metrics.” See: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=a0a8xAghPS8I 3a) Moody's fears social unrest as AAA states implement austerity plans: The world's five biggest AAA-rated states are all at risk of soaring debt costs and will have to implement austerity plans that threaten "social cohnesion", according to a report on sovereign debt by Moody's. The US rating agency said the US, the UK, Germany, France, and Spain are walking a tightrope as they try to bring public finances under control without nipping recovery in the bud. It warned of "substantial execution risk" in withdrawal of stimulus. "Growth alone will not resolve an increasingly complicated debt equation. Preserving debt affordability at levels consistent with AAA ratings will invariably require fiscal adjustments of a magnitude that, in some cases, will test social cohesion," said Pierre Cailleteau, the chief author. "We are not talking about revolution, but the severity of the crisis will force governments to make painful choices that expose weaknesses in society," he said. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7450468/Moodys-fears-social-unrest-as-AAA-states-implement-austerity-plans.html 4) PROMISES, PROMISES: Is gov't more open with Obama? WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal agencies haven't lived up to President Barack Obama's promise of a more open government, increasing their use of legal exemptions to keep records secret during his first year in office. An Associated Press review of Freedom of Information Act reports filed by 17 major agencies found that the use of nearly every one of the law's nine exemptions to withhold information from the public rose in fiscal year 2009, which ended last October. Among the most frequently used exemptions: one that lets the government hide records that detail its internal decision-making. …Major agencies cited that exemption at least 70,779 times during the 2009 budget year, up from 47,395 times during President George W. Bush's final full budget year, according to annual FOIA reports filed by federal agencies. Obama was president for nine months in the 2009 period. See: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100316/D9EFLQB80.html 5) 5th state exempts guns. Is Washington noticing? A fifth state – South Dakota – has decided that guns made, sold and used within its borders no longer are subject to the whims of the federal government through its rule-making arm in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and two supporters of the growing groundswell say they hope Washington soon will be taking note. South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds has signed into law his state's version of a Firearms Freedom Act that first was launched in Montana. It already is law there, in Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming, which took the unusual step of specifying criminal penalties – including both fines and jail time – for federal agents attempting to enforce a federal law on a "personal firearm" in the Cowboy State. According to a report in the Dakota Voice, the new South Dakota law addresses the "rights of states which have been carelessly trampled by the federal government for decades." "As the federal government has radically overstepped is constitutional limitations in the past year or so, an explosion of states have begun reasserting their rights not only with regard to firearms, but also in shielding themselves against government health care, cap-and-trade global-warming taxes, and more," the report said. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=128035 6) US Israel criticism ignites firestorm in Congress WASHINGTON – The Obama administration's fierce denunciation of Israel last week has ignited a firestorm in Congress and among powerful pro-Israel interest groups who say the criticism of America's top Mideast ally was misplaced. Since the controversy erupted, a bipartisan parade of influential lawmakers and interest groups has taken aim at the administration's decision to publicly condemn Israel for its announcement of new Jewish housing in east Jerusalem while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting on Tuesday and then openly vent bitter frustration on Friday. …"It's hard to see how spending a weekend condemning Israel for a zoning decision in its capital city amounts to a positive step towards peace (emphasis mine - NO KIDDING!)," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. He complained that the administration was attacking a "staunch ally and friend" when it should be focusing on the threat posed by Iran's nuclear problem. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100316/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_mideast_israel 7) US, Russia clash over startup of Iran nuke plant MOSCOW – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and her Russian counterpart clashed openly Thursday over the planned launch this summer of Iran's first, Russian-built nuclear power plant, highlighting a split in views over how to steer Iran away from nuclear weapons. Clinton did not criticize the long-delayed project directly but said the Obama administration is opposed to the timing of the nuclear plant's startup. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced the summer startup plans on Thursday, shortly after Clinton arrived for a two-day visit. …Putin's announcement adds another complication to the already long list of issues on which Clinton and her Russian hosts don't agree. Clinton is seeing Putin on Friday. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100319/ap_on_re_eu/eu_clinton_russia 8) Why Does Glenn Beck Hate Jesus? When Glenn Beck told listeners of his radio show on March 2 that they should "run as fast as you can" from any church that preached "social or economic justice" because those were code words for Communism and Nazism, he probably thought he was tweaking a few crunchy religious liberals who didn't listen to the show anyway. Instead he managed to outrage Christians in most mainline Protestant denominations, African-American congregations, Hispanic churches, and Catholics--who first heard the term "social justice" in papal encyclicals and have a little something in their tradition called "Catholic social teaching." (Not to mention the teaching of a certain fellow from Nazareth who was always blathering on about justice...) Love the tone of THIS article. The author apparently forgot that it was JUDAS who was always blathering on about giving to the poor…oh, and the author also forgot about those pesky commandments about not stealing or coveting…but GOOOO Glenn Beck! He also managed to bring the National Council of Churches--once a powerful umbrella organization for Christian churches--out from hibernation, in the form of a withering response from leader Peg Chemberlin. Progressive evangelical leader Jim Wallis, taking a page from his conservative counterparts, is calling for Christians to boycott Beck's shows. Not on your life, Jim Wallis! Like I said previously, this social justice crap is A CANCER in the Church. See: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/14/why-does-glenn-beck-hate-jesus/ 9) Banished! City forbids Bible studies in homes The city of Gilbert, Ariz., has ordered a group of seven adults to stop gathering for Bible studies in a private home because such meetings are forbidden by the city's zoning codes. The issue was brought to a head when city officials wrote a letter to a pastor and his wife informing them they had 10 days to quit having the meetings in their private home. The ban, however, prompted a response from the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed an appeal with the city as the first step in its campaign to overturn a provision it describes as illegal. "The interpretation and enforcement of the town's code is clearly unconstitutional, " said Daniel Blomberg, a member of the litigation team for ADF. "It bans 200,000 Gilbert residents from meeting in their private homes for organized religious purposes – an activity encouraged in the Bible, practiced for thousands of years, and protected by the First Amendment." See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127793

Passing a bill without voting on it; Gov. dependency grows; riots in Greece; Biden and Israel

1) Morning Bell: Obamacare at Any Cost …With no votes piling up, and “yes” votes materializing, the Democratic plans to shove Obamacare down the throats of the American people are becoming more and more desperate. This Monday, the House Budget Committee will begin markup on the new reconciliation bill even though actual legislative text does not exist for it yet. The Democrats plan to pass a shell of a bill through the appropriate committees so that the Rules Committee can then substitute the bill that is being drafted completely behind closed doors by the White House and Senate and Democrat leaders. Politico reports that despite the Parliamentarian’s initial verbal ruling, they will press on with their Slaughter Rule plan to pass the Senate bill without voting on it. NRO’s Yuval Levin quips: “Democratic leaders should be asking themselves just how they have gotten to the point that their strategy is to amend a law that doesn’t exist yet by passing a bill without voting on it (emphasis mine).” But President Obama’s progressive base is way past rational thought when it comes to health care. They want it passed at any cost. And as George Will pointed out yesterday, the very essence of progressivism sublimates the democratic process to the rule of experts in Washington. No one can say if this bill will finally pass, but if it does, it is abundantly clear that our republican form of government will be permanently damaged by it. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/12/morning-bell-obamacare-at-any-cost 2) Bush's union transparency rules retracted under Obama The Obama administration promised increased transparency in government but has rolled back rules proposed by the Bush administration that expanded the financial disclosure statements required of labor unions and their leaders. Since President Obama took office, the Labor Department has rescinded or delayed three sets of rules proposed by the George W. Bush administration that would have required unions and their leaders to more specifically detail their finances, according to a review of records by The Washington Times. The rules were rolled back while the Obama administration was seeking more stringent regulation of corporate America, including banks, insurance companies, health care providers and publicly traded companies. …Former Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao, one of the architects of the expanded Bush rules, said the Obama administration is "making a mockery of the regulations" and is giving "preferential treatment" to the unions. "This administration is not enforcing laws on union transparency and democracy," Ms. Chao told The Times. "They are telling unions that they don't have to comply." See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/11/bushs-union-transparency-rules-retracted-under-oba/ 3) Obama’s Second Circuit Nominee Another Radical? Judge Robert N. Chatigny -- President Obama’s new nominee for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- ruled against a state sex offender registry while in a District Court, and as judge also scolded and threatened a lawyer, whose client consented to execution while on death row, with negligence for his client. In 2001, Judge Chatigny declared public access to the Connecticut state sex offender registry to be unconstitutional, violating the due-process rights of offenders to prove in a hearing that they were not dangerous before they were listed publicly as sex offenders. His controversial decision was eventually overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 9-0 vote. According to a previous HUMAN EVENTS report by Fred Lucas, Judge Chatigny also sentenced a man who traded child pornography online to six months in prison, when guidelines called for a sentence of 15 to 21 months. See: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35965 4) Roberts: Scene at State of Union `very troubling' TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama's State of the Union address was "very troubling" and the annual speech has "degenerated to a political pep rally." Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case. Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions. "So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. "The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling." See: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gyvfRvSPtr5INaLpoyt0_bd8V0AwD9EBCSAG0 5) Government Dependency Grows As “Non-paying” Taxpayers Hits Record Level The Tax Foundation recently released its annual report on the number of tax returns filed that have no tax liability, and the study shows a record number of “nonpayers” in 2008. Taxpayers become “non-payers” when credits and deductions wipe out any income tax they owe. According to the Tax Foundation report, of the more than 142 million returns filed in 2008, almost 52 million have no tax liability. That means more than 36 percent of tax filers paid no income taxes in 2008 – a new record high. This was a steep increase over 2007 when fewer than 33 percent of filers paid no taxes. As the table below shows, the growth of non-payers is a long-term trend that has been accelerating in recent years. For instance, 21 percent of taxpayers were non-payers in 1990. The amount of income that a family can earn and still be non-payers is also alarming. In 2010, a family of four can earn up to $51,000 and still pay no income taxes. Not only do a record number of taxpayer’s pay no taxes, but many of them actually receive cash payments through the tax code because of refundable credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit. According to the Tax Foundation, cash payments from these two credits alone totaled over $70 billion. President Obama’s policies will add to the numbers of non-payers and the amount of income redistributed because he wants to expand and add even more refundable credits. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/11/government-dependency-grows-as-non-paying-taxpayers-hits-record-level 6) How Risky is Driving a Toyota? …But just how dangerous was it to drive around in a recalled Toyota? Statistically speaking, not very says Carnegie Mellon Professor and risk expert Paul Fischbeck. He calculated the unintended acceleration increased the risk of driving only 2 percent. To put this in perspective Fischbeck said, “Walking a mile is 19 times or 1,900 percent more dangerous than driving a mile in a recalled Toyota. Driving while using a cell phone would increase risk much more than the chance of having a stuck accelerator. The stuck accelerator problem does make driving riskier and needs to be fixed. But at the same time, the increased risk is very small.” So when Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood responded to the Toyota recalls by saying, “stop driving it”, hopefully he didn’t mean to walk instead. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/11/how-risky-is-driving-a-toyota 7) Greece rocked by riots as up to 60,000 people take to streets to protest against government Street clashes broke out between rioting youths and police in central Athens today as tens of thousands demonstrated during a nationwide strike against the cash-strapped government. Hundreds of masked and hooded youths punched and kicked motorcycle police, knocking several off their bikes, as police responded with volleys of tear gas and stun grenades. The violence spread after the end of the march to a nearby square, where police faced off with stone-throwing anarchists and suffocating clouds of tear gas sent patrons scurrying from open-air cafes. …Organisers said some 60,000 people took part in the protest. But an unofficial police estimate set the crowd at around 20,000 - including those that took part in a separate, peaceful march earlier Thursday. Police do not issue official crowd estimates for demonstrations. Thursday's strike - the second in a week - brought the country to a virtual standstill, grounding all flights and bringing public transport to a halt. See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1257243/Greek-riots-Up-60-000-people-streets-protest-government.html 8) Netanyahu: I thought apology to Biden was sufficient Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he thought his apology to Joe Biden over the ill-timed announcement of east Jerusalem construction was sufficient and believed the matter was closed Speaking to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, Netanyahu said he believed the apology was adequate especially as it was personally coordinated with Biden himself. The PM's remarks came several hours after he was harshly reprimanded on the phone by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Following the crisis vis-à-vis the US Administration, Netanyahu decided to convene the forum of top seven government ministers Saturday night to discuss the issue. In his conversation with Italy's and Germany's leaders, Netanyahu emphasized that Israel's construction policy in Jerusalem has not changed from what it was under previous governments (emphasis mine). You mean like, building in THEIR OWN LAND?!?!!? He added that any peace initiative ever proposed by Israel or the US always stipulated that Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem, such as Gilo, Ramot, and Ramat Shlomo, will remain under Israeli sovereignty. See: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3862046,00.html 8a) Are America and Israel drifting apart? The Post asked former officials and policy experts whether there is a divide between the Obama administration and the Jewish state. Below are responses from Elliott Abrams, David Makovsky, Aaron David Miller, Danielle Pletka, and Hussein Agha and Robert Malley. ELLIOTT ABRAMS Senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations The current friction in U.S.-Israel relations has one source: the mishandling of those relations by the Obama administration. Poll data show that Israel is as popular as ever among Americans. Strategically we face the same enemies -- such as terrorism and the Iranian regime -- a fact that is not lost on Americans who know we have one single reliable, democratic ally in the Middle East. …On settlements, the Obama administration demanded a 100 percent construction freeze, including in Jerusalem, something never required before even by the Palestinians as a precondition for negotiations. This stance cornered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who could demand no less, and led the U.S. administration last week to "condemn" the announcement of plans for Israeli construction that is years away. The verb "condemn" is customarily reserved by U.S. officials for acts of murder and terrorism -- not acts of housing (emphasis mine). See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031203570.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 9) Calif. Megachurch Seeks Dismissal from PC(USA) A Presbyterian megachurch will begin a series of town hall meetings this weekend as the congregation moves toward severing ties with their denominational family. Community Presbyterian Church in Danville, Calif., already initiated the process to be dismissed from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). It will use the next six months for discussions and prayer as it discerns its future path. The megachurch began evaluating the future theological direction of the PC(USA) 16 months ago, recognizing that current trends in the denomination did not align with their core beliefs. …"Biblical Authority is the primary issue," the church explained. "Over the years, increasingly unique interpretations of Scripture has had a ripple affect and has called into question foundational Christian beliefs such as the Lordship of Christ, the place of Scripture in church discipline, Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation and Biblical teaching on marriage." …Dozens of churches have left the PC(USA), citing the denomination's liberal direction on scriptural authority and homosexuality. Most recently, the 2008 General Assembly, the denomination's highest governing body, approved a proposal to delete from its constitution a requirement that clergy live in "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between and a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness." The measure, however, failed to receive the required majority approval from the 173 presbyteries. See: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100227/presbyterian-megachurch-moves-forward-with-cutting-ties/index.html …Along those same lines, here are some excerpts from a letter that my husband and I wrote to our own Church: 9a) Letter to Blanchard Alliance Church: Re: Obama, Evil, and the Church's Role …But during his message, Pastor Ron mentioned Chinese Christian missionaries to Israel who advise other Christians not to pray against China’s communist dictatorship because persecution causes the Church to flourish. Immediately my mind went to the verse, “Shall I do evil that good may result? May it never be!” I (Jeanette Ward) thought of the prayer that delivered Peter from the jailer’s cell. I thought of God’s anger at his people when He wanted to set them free, but instead they wished to return to slavery in Egypt; apparently longing for the “community” that they shared making bricks for the Egyptian Pharaoh. While I was still pondering these things, Pastor Ron continued, “I tire of Christians railing against the Obama administration. This attitude is not compatible with the character of Jesus Christ.” I began thinking about the things that Jesus did and said that perhaps Pastor Ron would say “aren’t compatible with” Jesus’ character: Overturning the money changers tables in the temple? “Railing” against the Pharisees as “white-washed tombs full of dead men‘s bones“, “sons of hell“, “hypocrites“, “blind guides“, “like their father, the devil”, “blind fools”, “snakes”, and “brood of vipers”? Saying “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” and “let him who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one“? Calling Herod a “fox”? Isn’t our Jesus the one whose eyes are a burning fire—who will clear His threshing floor and burn the chaff with unquenchable fire? I thought of John the Baptist, who publicly “railed against” Herod (a political leader) for having his brother’s wife, and was beheaded for it. Ought not we to oppose publicly someone who advocates murdering millions of unborn babies in the name of “healthcare”, and forces Christians to pay for it? Who encourages “what is vile to be celebrated among men” - with his support of open homosexuality in the military and otherwise? Who tramples on the rule of law as laid out so painstakingly by our CHRISTIAN forebears? I thought of Elijah with Ahab and Jezebel. Was it incompatible with the character of God, and by extension of Christ, to publicly oppose them? Elijah apparently did not believe so. And would it be wrong for the people of Israel, filled with righteous fervor for the law of God, to rise up and speak out against King Manassah when he caused his children to pass through fire? I thought about all the times David (who was called “a man after God’s own heart”) prayed against evil men and had some “railing” things to say about them, like: - “My prayer is ever against the deeds of evildoers” - “Let the wicked fall into their own nets, while I pass by in safety” - “Oh that you would slay the wicked, Oh God” - “Do I not hate those who hate You, Oh Lord?” - “I have nothing but hatred from them, I count them my enemies.” - “I hate those who cling to worthless idols” - “I hate double-minded men, but I love your law” - “When he is tried, let him be found guilty, and may his prayers condemn him.” …In Pastor Ron’s own words- -We tire of Christian leaders who refuse to acknowledge evil when it is right in front of them; who live with their heads either so far under the ground, or so high in the clouds that they pretend that nothing in the news or in the political arena can ever affect them. -We tire of Christian leaders who consider it their duty to publicly criticize fellow Christians who would expose evil rather than to support and join them in the struggle. -We tire of Christian leaders who twist or cherry pick Scripture in order to support a popular religious caricature of Christ that is perceived to be more socially acceptable. -We tire of Christian leaders who do not recognize that they live in one of the most God blessed nations in all human history; a nation founded on liberty - perhaps the most foundational of all values to God. -We tire of Christian leaders that do not wake each day thankful that God placed them in this free and prosperous nation where they can preach the gospel freely and send missionaries all around the world however they choose. No other nation in history has ever come close to the generosity of America. But instead of celebrating the blessings of God, and recognizing the sacrifice of all those who secured those blessings; the leaders seem to pretend that they somehow live outside this country- in some mythical, heavenly country. They then rush to point out all the perceived failures of their country that don’t measure up to their utopian ideal. This frees them to wash their hands from any responsibility for this filthy country, lest they become defiled by it. “It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man” and “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil”. If Blanchard Alliance Church ever closes its doors, America will not notice; but if America descends into despotism (Obama’s utopia), Blanchard will go down with it. But just like the Chinese missionaries, perhaps they wanted to go back to Egypt anyway. We’ve discussed this particular sermon and similar issues with both pastors at Blanchard, and have been told that we need to “agree to disagree”, as if these are trivial issues and not foundational differences. Being able to recognize good from evil is foundational. "Are you a teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?" The character of Christ was one that was 100% concerned with what the Father was doing. "the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner." And "I and the Father are one". The Father (the author of the Law) was very concerned with good and evil and never tip toed around these politically incorrect issues; neither did His prophets or His Son. The reason that many Christians in your congregation "rail" against the Obama administration is that they actually read their Bible and can discern good from evil. They see evil and they expose it, so that others may not be ignorant of it and vote for it. It’s not that they don’t believe God is sovereign, but they don’t use that as an excuse abdicate their Christian responsibility to shine a light and to be salt to the world. I suppose it would be wrong, according to your teaching, to speak out against the Antichrist, since he is a political leader. Will you have no problem taking the mark of the beast so as not to offend the other Christians in line? -Besides, since God is sovereign, he’ll surely miraculously deliver you from having to make that difficult choice, right? Hosea 4:6 “My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children.” Our hearts break looking out at the lost sheep in your congregation as they listen Sunday after Sunday to sermons that confuse and mislead about what the Bible really says concerning the true nature of God the Father and the character of His Son Jesus Christ. An increasing number of “evangelicals” don't know what the Bible says, don't read their Bible, and are not encouraged to do so. There is an increasing fear and/or frustration among church leaders with those Christians that actually read the whole Bible and interpret it for themselves. These “unruly Christians” cannot be as easily blown about by every false doctrinal wind. Regarding whether Christians are to talk about politics or not, consider that over 80% of the Old Testament deals with nations, kings, and peoples; and judges them all as either good or evil. In essence, all it does is speak about politics. In the New Testament, consider that the Pharisees and the Sadducees were as much political parties as religious sects. The fascist Pharisees and the socialist Sadducees not to mention the puppet King Herod brought forth Jesus’ harshest words (completely “incompatible with His character“). His answer to all of them was freedom: liberty. This is not freedom from responsibility, but freedom to be responsible. In conclusion, consider: Ezekiel 13:10-15,22: “Because they lead my people astray, saying, Peace, when there is no peace, and because, when a flimsy wall is built, they cover it with whitewash, therefore tell those who cover it with whitewash that it is going to fall. Rain will come in torrents, and I will send hailstones hurtling down, and violent winds will burst forth. When the wall collapses, will people not ask you, Where is the whitewash you covered it with? 'Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: In my wrath I will unleash a violent wind, and in my anger hailstones and torrents of rain will fall with destructive fury. I will tear down the wall you have covered with whitewash and will level it to the ground so that its foundation will be laid bare. When it falls, you will be destroyed in it; and you will know that I am the LORD. So I will spend my wrath against the wall and against those who covered it with whitewash. I will say to you, The wall is gone and so are those who whitewashed it, those prophets of Israel who prophesied to Jerusalem and saw visions of peace for her when there was no peace, declares the Sovereign LORD. ' …“Because with lies you have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and you have strengthened the hands of the wicked, so that he does not turn from his wicked way to save his life.” See: http://christianconservativeresistance.blogspot.com/2010/02/letter-to-blanchard-alliance-church-re.html

Louise Slaughter slaughters the Constitution; Yes, it will cover abortion; VA rejects mandatory health coverage

I’m baaaack! Did you miss me? 1) Louise Slaughter slaughters the Constitution: House Democrats looking at 'Slaughter Solution' to pass Obamacare without a vote on Senate bill Would House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow House Democratic leaders try to cram the Senate version of Obamacare through the House without actually having a recorded vote on the bill? Not only is the answer yes, they would, they have figured out a way to do it, according to National Journal's Congress Daily: "House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday. "Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version. "Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. 'Once the CBO gives us the score, we'll spring right on it,' she said." Each bill that comes before the House for a vote on final passage must be given a rule that determines things like whether the minority would be able to offer amendments to it from the floor. In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House "deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself (emphasis mine). As Michele Bachmann said on the Don Wade and Roma radio show today, this is the post-modern approach to law-making. Would that rationale fly with the public? Is it logical? Of course not. But remember, these folks have persuaded themselves that a majority of the American people really want Obamacare. A blog post on House Minority Leader John Boehner's blog described the approach as a "twisted scheme." See: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/House-Democrats-looking-at-Slaughter-Solution-to-pass-Obamacare-without-a-vote-on-Senate-bill-87267402.html#ixzz0hsaEHIUI 1a) Ruling Kills an Option for Moving Health Bill The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday. The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said. House Democratic leaders have been searching for a way to ensure that any move they make to approve the Senate-passed $871 billion health care reform bill is followed by Senate action on a reconciliation package of adjustments to the original bill. One idea is to have the House and Senate act on reconciliation prior to House action on the Senate’s original health care bill. Information Republicans say they have received from the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office eliminates that option. House Democratic leaders last week began looking at crafting a legislative rule that would allow the House to approve the Senate health care bill, but not forward it to Obama for his signature until the Senate clears the reconciliation package. See: http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/44110-1.html 1b) It's official now: ObamaCare will fund abortions if it passes House Democrats have given up on fixing the Senate ObamaCare bill's abortion problem, the Associated Press reports: Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said Thursday that the leadership will try to secure the necessary 216 votes to pass the bill without reworking the divisive abortion provision. The Senate version of health care reform would loosen current rules about federal money going to pay for abortions. The House version did not, and as a result a number of pro-life Democrats supported it. Because abortion cannot be fixed through an accompanying reconciliation bill, it looks like pro-life Democrats are out of luck with three bad options. They will either kill ObamaCare with their "no" votes, go back on their word and disappoint constituents by voting "yes," or else watch it become law without their support. See: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/ObamaCare-abortion-language-wont-be-changed-87383302.html 1c) Dems look to health vote without abortion foes WASHINGTON – House Democratic leaders Thursday abandoned a long struggle to strike a compromise on abortion in their ranks, gambling that they can secure the support for President Barack Obama's sweeping health care legislation with showdown votes looming as early as next week. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100312/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul 1d) Va OKs 1st bill banning mandated health coverage RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia's General Assembly became the first in the nation Wednesday to approve legislation that bucks any attempt by President Barack Obama and Congress to implement a national health care overhaul in individual states. The Republican-ruled House of Delegates, with wide Democratic support, voted 80-17 without debate for the largely symbolic step aimed at the Democratic-backed reforms pushed by Obama and stalled in Congress. The vote sends the measure to Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell who intends to sign it. Thirty-four other state legislatures have either filed or proposed similar measures — statutes or constitutional amendments — rejecting health insurance mandates, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council. See: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9OEnA3WRa_MXGFO83ta6RE9CQUgD9EC1HKG0 2) GOP loses bid for ethics probe of Dem leaders WASHINGTON – House Democrats on Thursday stopped a Republican bid to force an investigation of Democratic leaders aimed at determining whether they covered up sexual harassment allegations against ex-Rep. Eric Massa. Even in failure, Republicans planted questions about when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi learned about allegations from Massa's employees that he sexually harassed male staff members. The freshman New York Democrat resigned Monday amid a slew of conflicting statements in which he confirmed and denied that he groped staff members and argued that none of the contact was sexual. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100312/ap_on_go_co/us_massa_republicans 2a) Morning Must Reads -- Massa investigation a ticklish situation for Pelosi It seemed at first that House Democrats had acted swiftly to deal with the charges against tickle-fight fan Rep. Eric Massa, avoiding one the central problems that dogged the GOP in the 2006 election year: trying to protect Rep. Mark Foley who was pawing at the boy pages. But now the House leadership is caught in a bit of a bind – on the day that the Ethics Committee dropped the investigation into Massa’s alleged sexual harassment of his male aides (the Foley probe went on for weeks after he left Congress and produced a damning report about him and his protectors) it is also revealed that the House speaker’s office knew about Massa’s unusual sense of congressional decorum last fall, but took no action. It lends some credence to the theory that Massa’s antics only became an issue once Democrats were rounding up votes for the final health care vote. Massa voted n on the grounds that the bill was insufficiently liberal and was a prime target for leaders looking for switchers. See: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Morning-Must-Reads----Massa-investigation-a-ticklish-situation-for-Pelosi--87335887.html 3) Activist judge rules ACORN has a right to your money Back in December, U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon in New York issued a temporary injunction preventing Congress from cutting off funding to ACORN. She has now ruled that injunction will be permanent. So no matter how grossly illegal the activities an organization is engaged in, they apparently have a constitutional right to your money if an unelected federal judge says so. Matthew Vadum runs down the consequences of the ruling: If Gershon's absurd ruling remains undisturbed it will mean every parasitic leftist group in the country will have due process rights in the appropriations process. At worst, Congress will not be able to cut off any group for any reason. At best, Congress will have to jump through hoops in order to de-fund any group. The rights of tax eaters will become paramount to the rights of taxpayers. …The ruling also appears to mean that ACORN and other leftist activist groups are eligible for up to $3.99 billion in federal funding included in President Obama's $3.83 trillion fiscal 2011 budget blueprint. The $3.99 billion comes from a congressional slush fund known as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) $48.5 billion fiscal 2011 budget. CDBG grants, which are awarded to states and localities, flow indirectly to ACORN and similar groups that compete at the state and local level for grants. Get ready for more federal ACORN dollars to start flowing -- just in time for the 2012 elections. See: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Activist-judge-rules-ACORN-has-a-right-to-your-money-87348892.html 3a) Obama Justice Dept. shut down FBI's ACORN investigation Judicial Watch has unearthed some explosive new ACORN documents that, according to a press release, show the Obama Justice Department quashed an FBI investigation of ACORN. It started when the Republican Registrars of Voters of Stamford and Bridgeport, Connecticut -- Lucy Corelli and Joseph Borges -- filed a complaint with the FBI during the 2008 election season: According to Corelli, on August 1, 2008, her office received 1,200 ACORN voter registration cards from the Secretary of State’s office. Over 300 of these cards were rejected because of “duplicates, underage, illegible and invalid addresses,” which “put a tremendous strain on our office staff and caused endless work hours at taxpayers’ expense.” Corelli claimed the total cost of the extra work caused by ACORN corruption was $20,000. Likewise, Borges contended that: “The organization ACORN during the summer of 2008 conducted a registration drive which has produced over 100 rejections due to incomplete forms and individuals who are not citizens…” Among the examples cited by Borges was a seven-year old child who was registered to vote by ACORN through the use of a forged signature and a fake birth certificate claiming she was 27-years old. The FBI and Department of Justice opened an investigation into the the charges. But according to documents Judical Watch obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, the Obama Justice Department "while noting that ACORN had engaged in 'questionable hiring and training practices,' closed down the investigation in March 2009, claiming ACORN broke no laws." Of course, as Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made a point of telling me on the phone, it is illegal to knowingly submit false voter registrations so the Justice Department's claim that ACORN didn't violate any laws is highly dubious. …Between all of these documents -- which Judical Watch is making public -- we have a shot at piecing together a comprehensive, systemic look at ACORN corruption. If it looks as bad as it appears and can be substantiated by documentation, the fact that ACORN has not been seriously investigated by the feds will be a damning indictment of the White House. See: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-Justice-Dept-shut-down-ACORN-investigation-87360097.html 4) This year's Obama budget spends more in each of the next ten years than the last one President Obama promised a turn toward fiscal discipline in his State of the Union Address. But his new budget doesn't just plan on more deficit spending for a year, followed by austerity. Rather, it actually increases deficits in each of the next ten years over what he'd planned for in last year's budget. When he released his new budget proposal on February 1, President Barack Obama asserted that the government "simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences; as if waste doesn't matter; as if the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like Monopoly money; as if we can ignore this challenge for another generation." Yet the President's new budget does exactly that-- raising taxes by $3 trillion and federal spending by $1.6 trillion over the next ten years. See: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/This-years-Obama-budget-spends-more-in-each-of-the-next-ten-years-than-the-last-one-87335642.html

5) N.J. Gov. Chris Christie plans privatization of as many as 2,000 state jobs

TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie Thursday will create a commission to privatize as many as 2,000 state jobs beginning next January, officials said tonight.

As he grapples with an $11 billion deficit in the budget he will present on Tuesday, Christie is also considering invoking the Disaster Control Act to suspend Civil Service rules to make it easier for him to lay off higher paid workers, according to two administration officials. See: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/nj_gov_chris_christie_to_annou.html 6) Another state to feds: Take your gun regs and stuff 'em Local governments in massive revolt against rules ordered by Washington Utah has become the third state to adopt a law exempting guns and ammunition made, sold and used in the state from massive federal regulations under the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and supporters say about 30 more states have some sort of plan for their own exemptions in the works. Officials in Utah say they expect a lawsuit over their direct challenge to Washington if the federal government succeeds in its current case against Montana's law. Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, who has spearheaded the Montana law, now describes himself as a sort of "godfather" to the national campaign. He confirmed Montana, Tennessee and Utah have enacted such laws. See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127490 7) Fed. appeals court upholds 'under God' in pledge SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs. …Judge Carlos Bea, who was appointed by Bush in 2003, wrote for the majority in Thursday's 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded," he said. Bea noted that schools do not require students to recite the pledge, which was amended to include the words "under God" by a 1954 federal law. Members of Congress at the time said they wanted to set the United States apart from "godless communists." See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100312/ap_on_re_us/us_god_and_government 8) Victoria Jackson: "There's A Communist Living in the White House!!" See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWi182CMJY8