Posts Tagged ‘Michael Coleman’

THE FIGHT WASN’T LOST IN OHIO; IT OPENED THE PATH TO SUCCESS

November 9, 2011

A bit of advise from Ohio:  Absentee ballot laws would have changed the outcome of this election!  Remember this bit of advise when the thugs come to your state!

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.”    Winston Churchill 

Advertisements

VOTE YES ON ISSUE 2

November 7, 2011

THE STATUS QUO IS UNSUSTAINABLE

Issue 2 gives your local community the tools to better handle its financial situation so that layoffs of police and firefighters can be prevented. 

Issue 2 strengthens our educational system by rewarding good teachers while the bad teachers, who are protected by the unions, are removed from your child’s classroom.

Vote “Yes on 2”  and help build for a better tomorrow!

A LITTLE 101 FOR THE RACIST LIBERAL MOONBATS….

September 17, 2009

 

Republicans have fought for civil liberties for almost 150 years. Abraham Lincoln won the Republican Party nomination in 1860 and was elected president later that year. He introduced measures that resulted in the abolition of slavery, issuing his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and promoting the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which passed Congress before Lincoln’s death and was ratified by the states later in 1865. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 grants citizenship, but not the right to vote, to all native-born Americans. The Republican Party is responsible for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. Thirteenth Amendment, which abolishes slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, the Fifteenth Amendment is one of the major tools which enabled African Americans to more fully participate in democracy. The Fifteenth Amendment states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860’s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950’s and 1960’s. It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. It was Republican President Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. …it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military. Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat “Dixicrat” senators, several of whom were proud segregationists-one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed. August 6, 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor. June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act. November 21, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation. There you have it. What a different country this would be, had not Republicans blocked the agenda of Democrats every step of the way.

Who is the racist bitch now???

The Second Revolution; not of Violence but Pressure!!

August 16, 2009

 

The number to the congressional switchboard is no longer in use… go figure..  Please call the White House at 202-456-1111!

FOR ALL THE LIBERAL CRACK HEAD MOONBATS… CLICK HERE TO TURN ME IN TO THE CEO OF THE UNION STATES OF AMERICA!!    flag@whitehouse.gov

I’VE BEEN TURNED IN OVER AND OVER!!  FREEDOM OF SPEECH STILL LIVES ON!

Meet Ezekiel Emanuel.. The Future of our Health Care!

August 16, 2009
obamacare3
 
Ezekiel J. Emanuel, 1996
 
Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy meet  is there a relationship between defects in our medical ethics and the reason the United States has repeatedly failed to enact universal health coverage?  I will begin to suggest an answer to this question by clarifying the locus of allocating decisions.  The allocation of health care resources can occur on three levels.  The social or, in the economist’s language, the macro level entails the proportion of the gross national product (GNP) allocated to health care.  The patient, or micro, level entails determining which individual patients will receive specific medical services; that is, whether Mrs. White should receive this available liver for transplantation.  Finally, there is an intermediate level called the service or medical level that entails determining what health care services will be guaranteed to each citizen.  These socially guaranteed services have been called “basic” or “essential” medical services or what the President’s Commission designated as “adequate health care.” Clearly, these three levels are connected.  A larger proportion of the GNP going to health care permits coverage of more services. Similarly, as demonstrated by the end-stage renal disease program, providing specific services to a wider range of patients causes upward pressure on the proportion of the GNP going to health care and/or reduces the range of services covered as part of basic medical services.  Despite these connections, these three levels are conceptually distinct.  The fundamental challenge to theories of distributive justice for health care is to develop a principled mechanism for defining what fragment of the vast universe of technically available, effective medical care services is basic and will be guaranteed socially and what services are discretionary and will not be guaranteed socially.  Such an approach accepts a two-tiered health system some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and some discretionary health services.  Within the discretionary tier, some citizens will receive few discretionary services, other richer citizens will receive almost all available services, creating a multiple-tiered system.  Underlying the repeated failure of attempts to provide universal health care coverage in the United States is the failure to develop a principled mechanism for characterizing basic health services.  Americans fear that if society guarantees certain services as “basic,” the range of services guaranteed will expand to include all or almost all available services (except for cosmetic surgery and therapies not yet proven effective or proven ineffective).  So rather than risk the bankruptcy of having nearly every medical service socially guaranteed to all citizens, Americans have been willing to tolerate a system in which the well insured receive a wide range of medical services with some apparently basic services uncovered; Medicare beneficiaries receive fewer services with some discretionary services covered and some services that intuitively seem basic uncovered; Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured persons receive far fewer services.  On this view, the reason the United States has failed to enact universal health coverage is not primarily political or economic; the real reason is ethical it is a failure to provide a philosophically defensible and practical mechanism to distinguish basic from discretionary health care services.  What is the reason for this failure of medical ethics?  There are two opposing explanations. One explanation points to the inherent limits of ethics.  Some philosophers, such as Amy Gutmann and Norman Daniels, argue that we lack sufficiently detailed ethical intuitions and principles to establish priorities among the vast array of health care services.  Every time we try to define basic services our intuitions “run out.”  As Gutmann once wrote: I suspect that no philosophical argument can provide us with a cogent principle by which we can draw a line within the enormous group of goods that can improve health or extend life prospects of individuals . . . The remaining question of establishing a precise level of priorities among health care and other goods is appropriately left to democratic decision making. 
 
Taken at face value, this moral skepticism is extremely dangerous; it suggests that there can be no principled mechanism to define basic health care services and, therefore, that the efforts to ensure universal access will always founder on the fear that guaranteeing any health care to all citizens means guaranteeing all available services.  It suggests we should just give up on a just allocation of health care resources because we can never succeed. The second explanation holds that the problem with defining basic health services is not a general lapse of ethics, but a specific lapse of liberal political philosophy that informs our political discourse, including the allocation of health care resources. The problem is that priorities among health care services can be established only by invoking a conception of the good, but this is not possible within the frame work of liberal political philosophy.  Liberalism divides moral issues into three spheres: the political, social, and domestic.  It then holds that within the political sphere, laws and policies cannot be justified by appeals to the good.  To justify laws by appealing to the good would violate the principle of neutrality and be coercive, imposing one conception of the good on citizens who do not necessarily affirm that conception of the good.  But without appealing to a conception of the good, it is argued, we can never establish priorities among health care services and define basic medical services.  This is Dan Callahan’s view with which I agree: . .. there can be no full discussion of equality in health care without an equally full discussion of the substantive goods and goals that medicine and health care should pursue … Unless there can be a discussion of the goals of medicine in the future as rich as that of justice and health has been, the latter problem will simply not admit of any meaningful solution.  Fortunately, many, including many liberals, have come to view as mistaken a liberalism with such a strong principle of neutrality and avoidance of public discussion of the good.  Some think the change a result of the critique provided by communitarianism; others see it as a clarification of basic liberal philosophy.  Regardless, a refined view has emerged that begins to create an overlap between liberalism and communitarianism.  This overlap inspires hope for making progress on the just allocation of health care resources.  This refined view distinguishes issues within the political sphere into four types: issues related to constitutional rights and liberties;  issues related to opportunities, including health care and education; issues related to the distribution of wealth such as tax policies; and other political matters that may not be matters of justice but are matters of the common good, such as environmental policies and defense policies.  While there still may be disagreement about the need for a neutral justification for rights and liberties, there is consensus between communitarians and liberals that policies regarding opportunities, wealth, and matters of the common good can only be justified by appeal to a particular conception of the good.  As Rawls has put it: Public reason does not apply to all political questions but only to those involving what we may call “constitutional essentials.” More expansively, Brian Barry has written: Examples of issues that fall outside [the principle of neutrality include] two distinct kinds of items.  One set of items (tax and property laws) contains matters that are in principle within the realm of “justice as fairness” but are subject to reasonable disagreement about the implications of justice … The other set… contains issues that in the nature of the case cannot be resolved without giving priority to one conception of the good over others . . . There is no room for a complaint of discrimination simply on the ground that the policy by its nature suits those with one conception of the good more than it suits those with some different one.  This is unavoidable.  Thus, it seems there is a growing agreement between liberals, communitarians, and others that many political matters, including matters of justice and specifically, the just allocation of health care resources–can be addressed only by invoking a particular conception of the good.  We may go even further. Without overstating it (and without fully defending it) not only is there a consensus about the need for a conception of the good, there may even be a consensus about the particular conception of the good that should inform policies on these nonconstitutional political issues.  Communitarians endorse civic republicanism and a growing number of liberals endorse some version of deliberative democracy.  Both envision a need for citizens who are independent and responsibile and for public forums that present citizens with opportunities to enter into public deliberations on social policies.  This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources.  Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic.  Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.  An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.  A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsycho- logical services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.  Clearly, more needs to be done to elucidate what specific health care services are basic; however, the overlap between liberalism and communitarianism points to a way of introducing the good back into medical ethics and devising a principled way of distinguishing basic from discretionary health care services. Perhaps using this progress in political philosophy we can begin to address Dan’s challenge, begin to discuss the goods and goals of medicine.
 
 
 
OH MY GOD, WELCOME TO OBAMACARE!  IT’S TIME TO ORDER THE BACK UP GENERATOR FOR GRANDMA! 

When The Giant Wakes; The Revolution Begins..

August 11, 2009

 

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.
Thomas Paine

Americans have the right to attend town hall meetings without being labeled “un-American”.  Pelosi, I thought it was a right under the 1st Amendment to peaceably assemble and petition?  Pelosi, it is you that is “un-American”.

 

THE FACE OF SOCIALISM

August 4, 2009

thejoker

 

Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson had a few things to say about this picture:  

“Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery, it is mean-spirited and dangerous.”

“We have issued a public challenge to the person or group that put up the poster to come forth and publicly tell why they have used this offensive depiction to ridicule President Obama.”

Earl Ofari Hutchinson wasn’t upset at all when the moonbats posted the same picture of President George W Bush!!  What comes around; goes around! 

We The People 1 – Socialist Moonbats 0!

OBAMACARE STOPS TODAY!

July 26, 2009

 

 

President Obama and Congressional Democrats make their government-run health care scheme sound like it is the solution to America’s health care problems. Far from it. President Obama and Congressional Democrats are trying to hide the side effects of their massive health care experiment which includes higher health care costs, enormous tax increases on families and small businesses and would cause millions of Americans to lose their private health care coverage. The Democrats’ experiment with America’s health care system is a risk America cannot afford.

Candidate Obama promised change. President Obama is actually conducting a grand experiment—with our economy, with our country and now with our health care. If President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are successful, they will turn our nation into something that we will hardly recognize.

President Obama’s experimentations began with our economy.

He experimented with a budget-busting stimulus plan intended to reduce unemployment. That experiment cost us $780 billion, and unemployment continues to rise. He experimented with banks and auto companies. As a result, taxpayers are on the hook for tens of billions of dollars, and the president still doesn’t have a plan to end this experiment and get these companies off the government dole.

When President Obama addressed a credit crisis, a struggling economy, a housing bust, bankrupt auto companies, Wall Street failures…whatever the problem was, Americans saw him spending, and spending, and spending more. Today, the president’s experiments have left America in more debt than at any other time in our nation’s history. And he keeps rushing his experiments through Congress so fast, so soon, that we haven’t had a moment to think if they would really work – or instead have a devastating impact on all of us for years to come.

Now the president is proposing even more debt, more risk and more experimentation. Next on his list is a risky trillion dollar experiment with our health care. President Obama and Congressional Democrats want to control health care with a government-run system that will determine your care, your treatments, your medicines, even what doctor you can see. If they get it wrong, the consequences would last for generations. But Congress is rushing to pass this risky experiment in just two months.

The Barack Obama experiment with America is a risk our country cannot afford. It is simply too much, too fast, too soon.

Slow down, Mr. President. We can’t afford to get health care wrong.

http://barackobamaexperiment.com/

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Is Paid In Full

July 1, 2009

Meltdown Autos

 

Daily Newscaster
September 28, 2008

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) warns the American people about Constitutional enemies of the Republic and the fraudulent trillion(s) dollar bailout…

“My message to the American people don’t let Congress seal this deal. High financial crimes have been committed.”

“The normal legislative process has been shelved. Only a few insiders are doing the dealing, sounds like insider trading to me. These criminals have so much political power than can shut down the normal legislative process of the highest law making body of this land.”

“We are Constitutionally sworn to protect and defend this Republic against all enemies foreign and domestic. And my friends there are enemies.”

“The people pushing this deal are the very ones who are responsible for the implosion on Wall Street. They were fraudulent then and they are fraudulent now.”

Now 10 months later, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), who was originally undecided about Cap & Trade, suddenly supports the biggest tax increase in history.  Maybe it’s because she was able to sneak her $3.26 billion dollar amendment in after 3:00 am on June 26th.  The Kaptur amendment authorizes the Secretary of Energy to authorize a Power Marketing Authority with $3.26 billion in additional lending authority.  I am not sure what that is but I am sure that Rep. Marcy Kaptur is a hypocrite and should not be reelected!  

Its shocking that only a couple months ago, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) raised $4,928, spent $17,906 and had $942,598.00 on hand.  Maybe it does PAY to vote for Cap & Trade!

 

THE LETTER

June 17, 2009

Proud American

 

What can you do to speak up against the now accelerating growth of big government? It can be as simple as writing a letter, like Janet from Arizona did. She wrote the letter Glenn Beck ended up reading on the air that expressed her frustration with what the dopes in Washington are doing.

She writes an open letter to our nation’s leadership: I’m a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you’re willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I’m not a racist. This isn’t to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don’t you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don’t you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don’t trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we’ll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let’s have it. Let’s say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let’s just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I’m busy. I’m busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don’t want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we’re morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we’re so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn’t ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don’t care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/26742/