Posts Tagged ‘President Obama’

You thought Obama-Care was bad; wait until you hear about Obama-Ed!

9th District Republicans are delighted to announce that 

Lindsey Burke, Education Policy Expert

from the renowned Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC

will address our public forum on Obama-Ed

WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2012

7 PM, doors open at 6:30

Bloomfield Twp Offices Auditorium
4200 Telegraph Rd, Bloomfield Hills
(south of Long Lake, west side of Telegraph)

Come learn from this foremost education policy expert how the Obama Administration is over-reaching its authority to impose nationalized standards and curriculum for K-12. Join us to hear about the costs to our state and to educational liberty posed by national common core standards and tests; learn why state leaders should reject this federal over-reach!

What will this mean for the future of education…for the future of America?

For more information, click here.

The following is an open letter Lou Pritchett, former vice-president of Proctor and Gamble,
wrote to President Barak Obama.

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike
 any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure,
I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive
 Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no
 visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth
 Growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience,
and thus
 don’t understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to
 publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America’
 crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style
 country where the government sector dominates
instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system
 with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly 
capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose
 that lays the golden egg which provides the
highest standard of
 living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics
 against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from
 challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.



You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider
 oppposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both
omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass
on everything
 you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the
 Limbaugh’s, Hannitys, O’Reillys and Becks who offer opposing,
 Conservative points of view.



You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
 probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

~Lou Pritchett~

 

Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of this much-circulated “open letter” quoted above: 

 I did write the ‘you scare me’ letter. I sent it to the New York Times, but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the Internet and, according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.

This letter certainly is a very succinct statement of what hard-working Americans feel concerning President Obama and his policies.

From the Heritage Foundation’s blog, The Foundry.

Rare is the occasion when the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court gather to hear three days of arguments, and rarer still is when it is for a case like Obamacare — one that cuts to the core of the Constitution and whose outcome could fundamentally alter the role of the federal government and its power over the people. But today the Court will do just that when it open its doors and begins weighing the arguments on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s seminal health care law.

Were the American people to vote on the issue, they would fall decidedly against Obamacare, as recent polls have shown. But for the Court, the decision is not as cut and dried as an up or down vote, but one that involves the interplay of a series of issues raised by those who are challenging Obamacare — more than half the States of the Union and a collection of interested organizations and private parties — and those brought by the Obama Administration, which is defending the law. And they come to the Supreme Court after conflicting appellate court rulings which have left undecided the question of whether Obamacare is permissible under the Constitution.

The central issue before the Court is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause to impose the individual mandate on the American people, forcing them to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

If the Court holds that Congress was outside the bounds of its authority, it can strike down the individual mandate, leaving the justices to then decide whether all or part of Obamacare should fall along with it.

If the Court upholds the mandate, America will be in the same position it finds itself today — facing a law that vests untold power and resources in the hands of the federal government, that transfers health care decision making from individuals to unelected bureaucrats, and that increases costs while decreasing access. In short, America’s health care crisis will get worse, not better, and future generations will be left paying the tab. What’s more, if the Court allows the individual mandate to stand, it will unhook Congress from its Constitutional leash, empowering it to regulate commerce and individual behavior in new ways never before imaginable.

There are other issues, too, besides the individual mandate. Even before the Court reaches that subject, it must broach the issue of the Anti-Injunction Act, a 145-year-old federal tax law which could bar the Court from evenhearing a challenge to the individual mandate. Under that law, one cannot sue over a tax until they have paid it. If the penalty for violating Obamacare’s individual mandate is considered a tax under that law, then the challenge could not be brought at this time since the penalty has not yet taken effect. Obamacare’s challengers and even the Obama Administration agree that the Anti-Injunction Act shouldn’t prevent the Court from hearing the case, but the issue will still be heard, and some think that the Court could rely on the Act as a way of avoiding having to answer the question of whether the mandate is constitutional.

If the Court finds the Anti-Injunction Act doesn’t apply, it will move on to the individual mandate. Its decision on that issue brings with it a whole other set of problems — namely, if the Court finds that the mandate is unconstitutional, it must next decide the issue of severability — whether Obamacare will operate as Congress intended if it is stripped of the mandate, or whether all or parts of the law must be struck down with the mandate. If the Court finds that the mandate is severable, the Court can strike it down and leave it up to Congress to clean up what’s left, or, as the Obama administration has recommended, it can strike down the mandate and related provisions of the law that depend on it. Finally, if the justices find that the mandate is not severable, then it will throw out all of Obamacare, and it will again be up to Congress to enact real market-based health care reforms that bring down costs while increasing access to care.

There is another issue, too, tied to Obamacare, and that has to do with Congress’s decision to impose new requirements on states forcing them to expand the Medicaid program and abide by the federal government’s conditions, leaving them to shoulder much of the costs while operating Medicaid according to Washington’s whims. If the states don’t comply, they could lose all Medicaid funding, putting them in an untenable position in which both their autonomy and their sovereignty collapse under Obamacare’s weight. It is up to the Court to decide whether Congress overstepped its bounds.

America waits for the Supreme Court to weigh the facts and the law, to consider the precedents and the policy, and to issue a decision that will have implications far into the future. Will Congress be limited by the Constitution, or will its authority expand beyond the limits that the Founders intended? Will Americans’ liberties stand? Will Obamacare fall? No matter the outcome of the Court’s ruling in June, Congress can and should act now to repeal Obamacare and rid the land of this intolerable act.

Read the original article on the Heritage Foundation’s blog here.

President Obama to Focus on U.S. Military Presence in Australia

The plan would like involve beefing up U.S. Naval operations and give troops access to Australian facilities. The cost of the initiative is unclear, and no one’s saying if these troop reassignments are Jobs Created or Saved. Some are especially critical of the move as the Defense department is facing steep cuts, and even more if the Congressional so-called super committee fails to reached a deal next week.

Back on October 21st President Obama made it clear that US Troops would be leaving IRAQ in 2012. Obama’s statement put an end to months of wrangling over whether the U.S. would maintain a force in Iraq beyond 2011. He never mentioned the tense and ultimately fruitless negotiations with Iraq over whether to keep several thousand U.S. forces in Iraq as a training force and a hedge against meddling from Iran or other outside forces.

An official Press Release from Candice Miller’s office.

Miller, King Statement on Obama Administration Decision to Limit Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws

August 19, 2011 3:13 PM

Harrison Township, MI – Today, U.S. Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, and Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, issued the following statement in response to the Obama Administration’s Thursday announcement that it would limit enforcement of federal immigration laws:

“This new non-enforcement policy announced by the Obama Administration is a blatant attempt to grant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal aliens in this country, and is totally unacceptable.

“In reality, this decision to vastly expand the exercise of ‘prosecutorial discretion’ in enforcing our federal immigration laws means that the Administration will now be, in a huge number of cases, simply ignoring those laws.

“The President and members of his Administration must enforce this nation’s laws, just as they have sworn in their oaths of office to do.

“On July 25th, in a speech to the National Council of La Raza, the President himself said, ‘I know some people want to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own…but that’s not how our system works…That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.’ Apparently the President’s understanding of how our system of government works has changed since last month.”

Previously, the Obama Administration decided it will no longer defend the federal law that says marriage can exist only between a man and a woman.

This Press Release, jointly released by Representatives Miller and King, is in response to actions taken by Obama’s administration, summarized by Stephen Dinan writing at The Washington Times.

Our readers were previously alerted to this possibility  Proposed Legislation Concerning Immigration Policy~ The “HALT” Act.

Contact Representative Miller in support of her statement at (D.C. Office–(202) 225-2106  or Shelby Twp Office– (586) 997-5010

Commentary from Dave Janda –  surgeon, author, and radio host

Friends,

Today The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling that Obama Care is Unconstitutional.  The administration was reportedly “shocked”…… not me and not you.  The reason why Obama, his minions, and his supporters are “stunned and shocked”….. is very simple…… they NEVER read either The Stimulus Bill which contained the first part of Obama Care ( the rationing and enforcement boards) or the second part of Obama Care…. The Health Care Bill.  They rubber stamped what was given to them from The Tides Foundation….. just what Soros and The Global Elite and the TelePrompTer told them to do.  If they had read both parts, they would have come to the same conclusion I reached in February 2009….. ” this legislation strips more Freedom and Liberty from EVERY American than any other piece of legislation in Our country’s history.”  So let’s see what “The Great Communicator ” and his TelePrompTer do now….. push for an expedited verdict by the Supreme Court or try and delay the hearing of the case by The Supremes….. my guess….. it’s “rope a dope time.”  The Attorney Generals of the 26 states should be congratulated on pursuing the case that ultimately lead to today’s decision.   In Michigan, former A.G.,  Mike Cox, was the force behind Michigan’s involvement.  It was an honor to work with Mike on his opposition and involvement in the case.  Unfortunately, the new Michigan A.G., Bill Schuette, has not been responsive to input or advice from those of us on the health care front line …. luckily other insightful A.G.’s from the other states are more than happy to get input and advice.  I believe those A.G.’s willing to get help from the front lines will win the war in The Supreme Court.

Dave Janda

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/appeals-court-finds-obamacare-mandate-individual-health-insurance-unconstitutional

Dr. Dave Janda was our guest speaker at a Romeo Area Tea Party meeting in April “09, shortly after the health care bill passed.  Click to watch the videos from his meeting, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Dr. Janda–Operation Freedom

David continues to inform and educate us in his new career(Hobby?) as a talk show host.

Every Sunday from 3-5 PM, WAAM Talk 1600 AM turns on the bright lights and fires up it’s own Operating Room.

He’s still our “Weapon of Mass Instruction.”

Click to visit his website to find out more about his radio show, Operation Freedom.

Obama Care Individual Mandate Unsuccessful

Obama Care Individual Mandate Unsuccessful

Speaking of Friends of the Romeo Area Tea Party, another Favorite RATP Speaker, Chris Kobus, weighs in on the issue on his blog.

VICTORY! (For Now): 11th Circuit Rules ObamaCare UNCONSTITUTIONAL! <<Click to follow link to his blog.

“Yes, Virginia, there is a  Sane Constitutional Judge.” 

Virginia, your little friends are wrong.  They have been affected by the skepticsm of our politically-correct, elitist,  tossing-aside-traditional-values  age.  They cannot believe except what they perceive, or wish.  They think that nothing can be which is not fair and tolerant in their little minds.”

My apologies to Francis P. Church and his editorial affirming a child’s belief in Santa Claus, published in The New York Sun in 1897.  (Click here to read more ). 

Recently, many in our country have begun feeling that our Constitution, including many of the principles our Founding Fathers put down on paper, is outdated or just plain uncaring.  For example– Individual Responsibility.  Instead of a family member providing for their own family, and making medical and financial choices, this now falls to (or was grabbed by) the government, according to the divisive Healthcare legislation recently passed.  The infamous Obamacare replaces personal  responsibility with  the Individual Mandate. 

In two states, challenges to the Overreach of Obamacare have been successful.  In Virginia, a favorable ruling from a U.S. District Court, followed by success at the ballot box in Missouri.  Will the Individual Mandate  be found unconstitutional, and will this be the death of the unpopular new law?

Writing for MyHeritage.org, Amanda J. Reinecker tackles the question of whether these recent state-level events are the end, or beginning of a battle, and who appears to be winning.

Read It At…

Romeo Area Tea Party has invited Phyllis Schlafly to speak

at our Friday, July 23 Meeting.

Counting down 14 days until her visit, we will feature something new each day.

Day  7 6

I Like…

                   …the Eagle Forum Challenge — “Have House Meetings”.

Phyllis explains the strategy Barak Obama used to advance his agenda in Congress.  On the Eagle Forum web site she offers a plan, with resources posted and download-able.  Presenting the “Need For” and the “How To “, Mrs. Schlafly calls us to action and provides Discussion Topics such as “U.S. Sovereignty vs Globalism” and “Judicial Attacks on our Culture”.  The complete text of her new book The Supremacists: The Tyranny Of Judges And How To Stop It  is posted there online also.  

Phyllis Schlafly equips us with solid, timely information to fight effectively. 

We are honored to have Phyllis as our featured speaker at our meeting

Friday, July 23rd, 2010 at 7 PM

at Capital Banquet Center, 12350 31 Mile Road, Washington, MI 48905 (map)

Romeo Area Tea Party has invited Phyllis Schlafly to speak

at our Friday, July 23 Meeting.

Counting down 14 days until her visit, we will feature something new each day.

Day 10 9

I Like…

      …Phyllis’ timely information warning us about Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.  Through articles, books, archived radio interviews, alerts and EF’s Court Watch, Mrs. Schlafly contrasts the differences between two competing theories…

           Reconstructionist constitutional theory diametrically opposes Constitutionalist constitutional theory; and we must understand these theories in order to evaluate adequately, not only judicial nominations, but the entire range of policies and actions concerning the Constitution and the courts. Questions of constitutional theories have permeated, not just American law, but American culture in general. Therefore, all patriots need at least a cursory understanding of the opposing constitutional theories in today’s Culture War. Three very broad and fundamental issues divide Constitutionalists from Reconstructionists. We shall summarize the three issues and then offer a view of the advocates of each theory concerning these issues.” 

Click here to read all of article 

 

Plan to meet Mrs. Schlafly at our Friday, July 23,2010 RATP meeting 

Capital Banquet Center  –7PM

You’ve heard these myths about the cause of the  Budget Deficit, over and over.  Why do untruths like these gain acceptance??   (Because) they’re repeated constantly.

The Heritage Foundation’s lead budget analyst, Brian Riedl lays out the claims and identifies the “real source of the problem”. 

Finding a solution to growing deficits requires first correctly diagnosing their cause. Both recent and future budget deficits have been blamed largely on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and to a lesser extent on the war on terrorism, but the data contradict these myths. In reality…

    Read It At…  

Click above to read "The Three Biggest Myths About Tax Cuts and the Budget Deficit" at The Heritage Foundation Web Site

 

About The Heritage Foundation…

 

      Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.