+ Transgender Charged With Raping 10-Year-Old Girl In Bathroom

October 20, 2017

Transgender Charged With Raping 10-Year-Old Girl In Bathroom

Miguel Martinez, who identifies as a woman, went on trial this past Monday in Billings, Wyoming, for allegedly luring a 10-year-old  girl into a bathroom on March 23 of this year. He allegedly grope her breasts and genitals and then raped her. Martinez is a biological male but identifies him as a female named Michelle.

The Casper Star Tribune reports:

Police officers found Martinez passed out on a couch in a home in Evansville. Martinez was extremely intoxicated and hard to wake up, according to the documents. Officers drove Martinez to the Casper Police Department for an interview.

Martinez became “noticeably hostile and defensive” when a detective began asking about the girl’s allegations. Martinez said that the girl had been “talking crap” earlier that day and denied being a child molester. Martinez said the accusations were a “publicity stunt” before refusing to speak further with the detective.

This is an example of a growing number of cases of assaults by transgendered men allowed access to women’s restrooms. The Daily Wire reported on five such cases.

The left/progressives deny that this would happen or, in a fit of moral depravity that is despicable, assert that girls and women molested and raped is the price to pay to accomplish “inclusivity” and “equality.”



+ Democrats: The Party of Slavery & Victimization

December 1, 2015

The comments about obesity are uniformed and prejudicial, but it works as an analogy for the Democrats.



U.S. Government Seeks Yet Another Power Grab

January 18, 2012

?CALL TO ACTION

The video below discusses the Senate version of the House’s Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). In the Senate the bill is called the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). SOPA has gotten more attention than PIPA because it was moving faster in the legislative process. But PIPA is just as dangerous, and now it is moving faster.

PIPA would give the government new powers to block Americans’ access websites that corporations don’t like. The bill lets corporations and the US government censor entire websites and cut sites off from advertising, payments and donations.

This legislation will stifle free speech and innovation, and even threaten popular web services like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook.

The bill is scheduled for a test vote in the Senate on Jan. 24th: We need to act now to let our lawmakers know just how terrible it is. Will you fill out the form above to ask your lawmakers to oppose the legislation and support a filibuster?

This is a “sweet deal” for the Entertainment Industry. The industry will no longer have to deal with the complications of laws already on the books to protect their intellectual property. ?Instead, these bills give more power to the government. As we all know, history has proven that government cannot be trusted with power. This is why our Founding Fathers, in their great wisdom, constructed a Constitution to limit government power and to protect citizens from the rights that only God can grant (see the Declaration of Independence, which progressives also ignore).

“>PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from hefuture”>Center For Rights on Vimeo.

Here is a cute song about this issue:

?

Articles on issue:

To help in understanding the bills before Congress and why they are so dangerous, click here.

?Contact your Congressman and Senators to express your views on this critical issue:

Contact My?Representative

Contact My Senators

?

It is YOUR Internet



Obama’s Pet Revolutionary

June 11, 2010

Obama not only fails to bring change to Washington but continues the tired old ideas of Chicago thuggery to the political scene.

In addition to this, Obama also brings to the White House revolutionaries who hate America such as those who avow Mao, Marx, socialism, and even communism. How do these people even get a security clearance?

Obama’s own radical teeth were cut on his buddies like Bill Ayers and crowd. In the mid-1970s a FBI agent successfully infiltrated the terrorist group, the Weather Underground. In 1982 this FBI agent released the following statement to the public (though I bet none of you heard about this). The transcript of the FBI Agent’s statement is first, followed by audio recording of the Agent making the statement.

This former FBI agent in 1982 exposed what he heard while sitting in a room full of Weather Underground leaders, including Bill Ayers:

I brought up the subject of what’s going to happen after we take over the government. You know, we become responsible then for administrating, you know, 250 million people. And there was no answers. No one had given any thought to economics, how are you going to clothe and feed these people. The only thing that I could get was that they expected that the Cubans and the North Vietnamese and the Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States.

They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counterrevolution and they felt that this counterrevolution could best be guarded against by creating and reestablishing reeducation centers in the southwest where we would take all the people who needed to be reeducated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be. I ask, well, what is going to happen to those people that we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists? And the reply was that they would have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill. 25 million people.

Here is the audio.



The Coming Constitutional Debate

June 5, 2010

by Stephen Markman, Justice, Michigan Supreme Court

STEPHEN MARKMAN was appointed Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court in 1999, and was re-elected in 2000 and 2004. Previously, he served as United States Attorney in Michigan; as Assistant Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan, where he coordinated the federal judicial selection process; and as Chief Counsel of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. He has published in such journals as the Stanford Law Review and the University of Chicago Law Review, and has been a distinguished professor of constitutional law at Hillsdale College since 1993.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered in Washington, D.C., on February 25, 2010, at an event sponsored by Hillsdale College?s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship.

As assistant attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, I prepared a report for Attorney General Edwin Meese entitled “The Constitution in the Year 2000: Choices Ahead.” This report sought to identify a range of areas in which significant constitutional controversy could be expected over the next 20 years. As critical as I believe those controversies were, they pale in significance before the controversies that will arise over the next several decades. The resolution of these emerging controversies will determine whether the Constitution of 2030 bears any resemblance to the Constitution of 1787—the Framers’ Constitution that has guided this nation for most of its first two centuries and has rendered it the freest, most prosperous, and most creative nation in the history of the world.

Proponents of a “21st century constitution” or “living constitution” aim to transform our nation’s supreme law beyond recognition—and with a minimum of public attention and debate. Indeed, if there is an overarching theme to what they wish to achieve, it is the diminishment of the democratic and representative processes of American government. It is the replacement of a system of republican government, in which the constitution is largely focused upon the architecture of government in order to minimize the likelihood of abuse of power, with a system of judicial government, in which substantive policy outcomes are increasingly determined by federal judges. Rather than merely defining broad rules of the game for the legislative and executive branches of government, the new constitution would compel specific outcomes.

Yes, the forms of the Founders’ Constitution would remain—a bicameral legislature, periodic elections, state governments—but the important decisions would increasingly be undertaken by courts, especially by federal courts. It will be the California referendum process writ national, a process by which the decisions of millions of voters on matters such as racial quotas, social services funding, and immigration policy have been routinely overturned by single judges acting in the name of the Constitution—not the Framers’ Constitution, but a “constitution for our times,” a “living constitution,” resembling, sadly, the constitutions of failed and despotic nations across the globe.

This radical transformation of American political life will occur, if it succeeds, not through high-profile court decisions resolving grand disputes of war and peace, abortion, capital punishment, or the place of religion in public life, but more likely as the product of decisions resolving forgettable and mundane disputes—the kind mentioned on the back pages of our daily newspapers, if at all. Let me provide a brief summary of six of the more popular theories of the advocates of the 21st century constitution. In particular, it is my hope here to inform ordinary citizens so that they will be better aware of the stakes. For while judges and lawyers may be its custodians, the Constitution is a document that is the heritage and responsibility of every American citizen.

1. Privileges or Immunities Clause

Since shortly after the Civil War, the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment has been understood as protecting a relatively limited array of rights that are a function of American federal citizenship, such as the right to be heard in courts of justice and the right to diplomatic protection. In defining the protections of the privileges or immunities clause in this manner, the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) rejected the argument that the clause also protects rights that are a function of state citizenship, asserting that this would lead to federal courts serving as a “perpetual censor” of state and local governments. This decision has served as a bulwark of American federalism.

Although a considerable amount of federal judicial authority has since been achieved over the states through interpretations of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, many proponents of a 21st century constitution seek additional federal oversight of state and local laws. Their strategy in this regard is to refashion the privileges or immunities clause as a new and essentially unlimited bill of rights within the 14th Amendment. The practical consequences of this would be to authorize federal judges to impose an ever broader and more stultifying uniformity upon the nation. Whatever modicum of federalism remains extant at the outset of this century, considerably less would remain tomorrow.

2. Positive Rights

For the 21st century constitutionalist, perhaps the greatest virtue of redefining the privileges or immunities clause is the prospect of transforming the Constitution from a guarantor of “negative liberties” into a charter of “affirmative government,” guaranteeing an array of “positive” rights. As President Obama has observed in a radio interview in criticism of the legacy of the Warren Court of the 1950s and 1960s, “[It] never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and . . . more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. . . . [T]he Warren Court . . . wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. . . that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

President Obama is correct. The Framers’ Constitution defines individual rights in terms of what the government cannot do to you. For example, the government cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore the individual has a constitutional right not to be subject to such punishment; the government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures, and therefore the individual has a constitutional right not to be subject to such searches and seizures, and so forth. By contrast, the Framers’ Constitution does not guarantee rights to material goods such as housing, education, food, clothing, jobs, or health care—rights that place a related obligation upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.

Proponents of a 21st century constitution have many grievances with the individual rights premises of our Constitution as written—such as the largely procedural focus of the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, with its old-fashioned conception of such rights as those to “life, liberty, and property”; the negative cast of the specifically-defined rights in the Bill of Rights; and the limited application of the equal rights clause to things that have been enacted by legislatures (as opposed to things that they should have been required to enact). Each of these “limitations” poses significant barriers to what 21st century constitutionalists hope to achieve in reconfiguring America. This explains their interest in employing the privileges or immunities clause, which seems to them open-ended and susceptible to definition by judges at their own discretion.

As various advocates of a 21st century constitution have urged, a privilege or immunity might be interpreted to allow the invention of a host of new “rights,” and thus be construed to guarantee social or economic equality. However pleasing this might sound to some people, there should be no mistake: adopting this interpretation will supplant representative decision-making with the decision-making of unelected, unaccountable, and life-tenured judges. Should the privileges or immunities clause be used in this way, as a charter of positive rights, ours will become an America in which citizens are constitutionally entitled to their neighbors’ possessions; in which economic redistribution has become as ingrained a principle as federalism and the separation of powers; in which the great constitutional issues of the day will focus on whether porridge should be subsidized and housing allowances reimbursed at 89 or 94 percent of the last fiscal year level; and in which a succession of new “rights” will be parceled out as people are deemed worthy of them by berobed lawyers in the judiciary.

3. State Action

A barrier posed by both the due process and the privileges or immunities clauses, and viewed as anachronistic by 21st century constitutionalists, is the requirement of state action as a precondition for the enforcement of rights. In the Civil Rights Cases (1883), another post-Civil War precedent, the Supreme Court asserted that these provisions of the 14th Amendment prohibited only the abridgment of individual rights by the state. “It is state action of a particular character that is prohibited. . . . The wrongful act of an individual is simply a private wrong and if not sanctioned in some way by the state, or not done under state authority, the [individual’s] rights remain in full force.” However, for advocates of 21st century constitutionalism, if fairness and equity are to be achieved, the Constitution must become more like a general legal code—applicable to both public and private institutions.

Consider, for example, Hillsdale College. Despite being the embodiment of a thoroughly private institution, government officials have sought to justify the imposition of federal rules and regulations upon Hillsdale by characterizing the college as the equivalent of a state entity on the grounds that it received public grants-in-aid. When in response to this rationale, and in order to retain its independence, Hillsdale rejected further grants, the government then sought to justify its rules and regulations on the grounds that Hillsdale was the indirect beneficiary of grants-in-aid going to individual students, such as GI Bill benefits. Once again in response to this rationale, Hillsdale asserted its independence by barring its students from receiving public grants, even those earned as in the case of GI benefits, and instead bolstered its own private scholarship resources. We have witnessed a steadily more aggressive effort by governmental regulators to treat private institutions as the equivalent of the state, and thereby to extend public oversight.

However, it would be more convenient simply to nullify the state action requirement altogether. Professor Mark Tushnet of Harvard Law School, for example, would reconsider the Civil Rights Cases:

The state-action doctrine contributes nothing but obfuscation to constitutional analysis. It works as a bogeyman because it appeals to a vague libertarian sense that Americans have about the proper relation between them and their government. It seems to suggest that there is a domain of freedom into which the Constitution doesn’t reach. We would be well rid of the doctrine.

If Professor Tushnet succeeds in this mission, Hillsdale’s policies concerning such things as tuition, admissions, faculty hiring, curriculum, and discipline will each have to pass the scrutiny, and receive the imprimatur, of judges.

4. Political Questions

In areas that were once viewed as inappropriate for judicial involvement, federal courts have begun to assert themselves in an unprecedented and aggressive manner. The limited role of the judiciary, for example, with regard to matters of national defense and foreign policy is not explicitly set forth in the Constitution, but such matters have from time immemorial been understood to be non-justiciable and within the exclusive responsibility of the elected branches of government. As far back as Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall recognized that “Questions in their nature political . . . can never be made in this Court.”

Yet just in the last several years, the Supreme Court, in a series of 5-4 decisions, has overruled determinations made by both the legislative and executive branches regarding the treatment of captured enemy combatants. Most notably, the Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that foreign nationals captured in combat and held outside the United States by the military as prisoners of war—a war authorized by the Congress under Article I, Section 8, and waged by the President as Commander-in-Chief under Article II, Section 2—possess the constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court. Thus, in yet one more realm of public policy—one on which the sovereignty and liberty of a free people are most dependent, national defense—judges have now begun to embark upon a sharply expanded role.

If there is no significant realm left of “political questions,” if there are no longer any traditional limitations upon the exercise of the judicial power, then every matter coming before every president, every Congress, every governor, every legislature, and every county commission and city council can, with little difficulty, be summarily recast as a justiciable dispute, or what the Constitution, in Article III, Section 2, describes as a “case” or “controversy.” As a result, every policy debate taking place within government, at every level, will become little more than a prelude for judicial resolution.

5. Ninth Amendment

Another looming constitutional battleground concerns the meaning of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Many 21st century constitutionalists understand this amendment to say that there is some unknown array of unenumerated rights that lie fallow in the Constitution, waiting only to be unearthed by far-sighted judges.

Professor Thomas Grey of the Stanford Law School has suggested, for example, that the Ninth Amendment constitutes a “license to constitutional decisionmakers to look beyond the substantive commands of the constitutional text to protect fundamental rights not expressed therein.” Rights to abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior, and similar sexual privacy rights have already been imposed by judges detecting such rights in the Ninth Amendment. The problem is that, in the words of Justices Stewart and Black, this understanding of the amendment “turns somersaults with history” and renders the courts a “day-to-day constitutional convention.”

The more conventional understanding of the Ninth Amendment has viewed it in the historical context of the Bill of Rights, of which it is a part. By this understanding, it was written to dispel any implication that by the specification of particular rights in the Bill of Rights, the people had implicitly relinquished to the new federal government rights not specified. Like the Tenth Amendment—which serves as a reminder that powers neither given to the federal government nor prohibited to the states in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people—the Ninth Amendment was adopted to emphasize that our national government is one of limited powers. Its principal purpose was to prevent an extension of federal power, not to provide an open-ended grant of judicial authority that would have the opposite effect.

6. Transnationalism

Professor Harold Koh of the Yale Law School, and now State Department Legal Counsel, is perhaps the leading proponent of what he calls “transnationalism,” which he contrasts with the “nationalist philosophy” that has characterized American constitutional law for the past 220 years.

Transnationalists believe that international and domestic law are merging into a hybrid body of transnational law, while so-called nationalists persist in preserving a division between domestic and foreign law that respects the sovereignty of the United States. Transnationalists believe that domestic courts have a critical role to play in incorporating international law into domestic law, while so-called nationalists claim that only the political branches are authorized to domesticate international legal norms. Professor Koh predicts that these disagreements will play out in future Supreme Court confirmation hearings, and that these appointments will be “pivotal” in determining by 2020 the direction in which the jurisprudence of the United States proceeds.

In practice, transnationalism would legitimize reliance by American judges upon foreign law in giving meaning to the United States Constitution; it would bind federal and state governments to international treaties and agreements that had never been ratified by the United States Senate much less enacted into law by the Congress; it would render both the domestic and international conduct of the United States increasingly beholden to the review and judgment of international tribunals in Geneva and the Hague; it would expose American soldiers and elected leaders to the sanctions of international law for “war crimes” and “violations of the Earth”; and it would replace the judgments of officials representing the American people, and holding paramount the interests of the United States, with the judgments of multinational panels of bureaucrats and judges finely balancing the interests of the U.S. with those of other nations—including authoritarian and despotic governments—throughout the world.

It is with the intention of generating debate, and of providing a roadmap to help us better navigate the constitutional forks-in-the-road that will soon be facing our nation, that I offer these thoughts. While there has never been a time in our history in which there was not serious constitutional debate among our people, I would submit that there have been few times in which this debate was more fundamental in defining the American experiment.

_________

March 2010 Copyright ? 2010 Hillsdale College. Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.



Health Care in a Free Society

June 5, 2010

by Paul Ryan
Member, U.S. House of Representatives

PAUL RYAN is in his sixth term as a member of Congress, representing Wisconsin’s First Congressional District. He is the ranking member of the House Budget Committee and a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee. A graduate of Miami University in Ohio, he and his wife Janna have three children and live in Janesville, Wisconsin.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 13, 2010, in Washington, D.C., at an event sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship.

SOMEONE once said that before there was the New Deal, there was the Wisconsin Deal. In my home state, the University of Wisconsin was an early hotbed of progressivism, whose goal was to reorder society along lines other than those of the Constitution. The best known Wisconsin progressive in American politics was Robert LaFollette. ?Fighting Bob,? as he was called, was a Republican?as was Theodore Roosevelt, another early progressive. Today we tend to associate progressivism mostly with Democrats, and trace it back to Woodrow Wilson. But it had its roots in both parties.

The social and political programs of the progressives came in on two great waves: the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s. Today, President Obama often invokes progressivism and hopes to generate its third great wave of public policy. In thinking about what this would mean, we need look no farther than the health care reform program he is promoting along with the leadership in Congress.

Let me say here at the beginning that even though survey after survey shows that 75 percent or more of Americans are satisfied with the quality of their health care, no one I know in Congress denies that health care reform is needed. Everyone understands that health care in our country has grown needlessly expensive, and that some who want coverage cannot afford it. The ongoing debate over health care, then, is not about whether there should be reform; it is about what the principle of that reform ought to be.

Under the terms of our Constitution, every individual has a right to care for their health, just as they have a right to eat. These rights are integral to our natural right to life?and it is government’s chief purpose to secure our natural rights. But the right to care for one’s health does not imply that government must provide health care, any more than our right to eat, in order to live, requires government to own the farms and raise the crops.

Government’s constitutional obligations in regard to protecting such rights are normally met by establishing the conditions for free markets?markets which historically provide an abundance of goods and services, at an affordable cost, for the largest number. When free markets seem to be failing to meet this goal?and I would argue that the delivery of health care today is an example of where this is the case?government, rather than seeking to supply the need itself, should look to see if its own interventions are the root of the problem, and should make adjustments to unleash competition and choice.

With good reason, the Constitution left the administration of public health?like that of most public goods?decentralized. If there is any doubt that control of health care services should not have been placed in the federal government, we need only look at the history of Medicare and Medicaid?a history in which fraud has proliferated despite all efforts to stop it and failure to control costs has become a national nightmare. In 1966 the cost of Medicare to the taxpayers was about $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that it would cost $12 billion (adjusted for inflation) by 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was nearly nine times that?$107 billion. By 2009 Medicare costs reached $427 billion, with Medicaid boosting that by an additional $255 billion. And this doesn’t take into account the Medicaid expansion in last year’s ?stimulus.?

The health care reform bills that emerged from the House and the Senate late last year would only exacerbate this crisis. The federal takeover of health care that those bills represent would subsume approximately one-sixth of our national economy. Combined with spending at all levels, government would then control about 50 percent of total national production.

The good news is that we have a choice. There are three basic models for health care delivery that are available to us: (1) today’s business-government partnership or ?crony capitalism? model, in which bureaucratized insurance companies monopolize the field in most states; (2) the progressive model promoted by the Obama administration and congressional leaders, in which federal bureaucrats tell us which services they will allow; and (3) the model consistent with our Constitution, in which health care providers compete in a free and transparent market, and in which individual consumers are in control.

We are urged today?out of compassion?to support the progressive model; but placing control of health care in the hands of government bureaucrats is not compassionate. Bureaucrats don’t make decisions about health care according to personal need or preference; they ration resources according to a dollar-driven social calculus. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the administration’s point people on health care, advocates what he calls a ?whole life system??a system in which government makes treatment decisions for individuals using a statistical formula based on average life expectancy and ?social usefulness.? In keeping with this, the plans that recently emerged from Congress have a Medicare board of unelected specialists whose job it would be to determine the program’s treatment protocols as a method of limiting costs.

President Obama said in December: ?If we don’t pass [this health care reform legislation]…the federal government will go bankrupt, because Medicare and Medicaid are on a trajectory that are [sic] unsustainable….? On first hearing, this argument appears ludicrous: We must stop the nation from going broke by enacting a program costing $800 billion or more in its first decade alone? On the other hand, if the President means what he says, there is only one way to achieve his stated goal under the new program: through deep and comprehensive government rationing of health care.

The idea that the government should make decisions about how long people should live and who should be denied care is something that Americans find repugnant. As is true of the supply of every service or product, the supply of health care is finite. But it is a mistake to conclude that government should ration it, rather than allowing individuals to order their needs and allocate their resources among competing options. Those who are sick, special needs patients, and seniors are the ones who will be most at risk when the government involves itself in these difficult choices?as government must, once it takes upon itself management of American health care.

The very idea of government-run health care conflicts with the American idea of a free society and the constitutional principles underlying it?the principles of individual rights and free markets. And from a practical perspective it makes no sense, given that our current health care system is the best in the world?even drawing patients from other advanced countries that have suffered by adopting the government-run model.

But if one begins with the idea that health care reform to reduce costs should be guided by the principles of economic and political liberty, what would such reform look like? Four changes to the current system come immediately to mind.

One, we should equalize the tax treatment of people paying for health care by ending the current discrimination against those who don’t get health insurance from their jobs?in other words, everyone paying for health care should receive the same tax benefits.

Two, we need high-risk insurance pools in the states so that those with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage that is not prohibitively expensive, and so that costs in non-high-risk pools are stabilized. To see the value of this, consider a pool of 200 people in which six have pre-existing heart disease or cancer. Rates for everyone will be through the roof. But if the six are placed in a high-risk pool and ensured coverage at an affordable rate, the risk profile of the larger pool is stabilized and coverage for the remaining 194 people is driven down.

Three, we need to unlock existing health care monopolies by letting people purchase health insurance across state lines?just as they do car insurance and other goods and services. This is a simple and obvious way to reduce costs.

Four, we need to establish transparency in terms of costs and quality of health care. In Milwaukee, an MRI can cost between $400 and $4,000, and a bypass surgery between $4,700 and $100,000. Unless the consumer is able to compare prices and quality of services?and unless he has an incentive to base choices on that information, as he does in purchasing other goods and services?there is not really a free market. It would go a long way to solve our health care problems to recreate one.

These four measures would empower consumers and force providers?insurers, doctors, and hospitals?to compete against each other for business. This works in other sectors of our economy, and it will work with health care.

So why can’t we agree on them? The answer is that the current health care debate is not really about how we can most effectively bring down costs. It is a debate less about policy than about ideology. It is a debate over whether we should reform health care in a way compatible with our Constitution and our free society, or whether we should abandon our free market economic model for a full-fledged European-style social welfare state. This, I believe, is the true goal of those promoting government-run health care.

If we go down this path, creating entitlement after entitlement and promising benefits that can never be delivered, America will become like the European Union: a welfare state where most people pay few or no taxes while becoming dependent on government benefits; where tax reduction is impossible because more people have a stake in welfare than in producing wealth; where high unemployment is a way of life and the spirit of risk-taking is smothered by webs of regulation.

America today is not as far from this tipping point as we might think. While exact and precise measures cannot be made, there are estimates that in 2004, 20 percent of households in the U.S. were receiving about 75 percent of their income from the federal government, and that another 20 percent were receiving nearly 40 percent of their income from federal programs. All in all, about 60 percent of U.S. households were receiving more government benefits and services, measured in dollars, than they were paying back in taxes. It has also been estimated that President Obama’s first budget alone raises this level of ?net dependency? to 70 percent.

Looked at in this way, I see health care reform of the kind promoted by the Obama administration and congressional leaders as part of a crusade against the American idea. This is a dramatic charge, but the only alternative is that they are ignorant of the consequences of their proposed programs. The national health care exchange created by their legislation, together with its massive subsidies for middle-income earners, would represent the greatest expansion of the welfare state in our country in a generation?and possibly in history. According to recent analysis, the plan would provide subsidies that average a little less than 20 percent of the income of people earning up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. In other words, as many as 110 million Americans could claim this new entitlement within a few years of its implementation. In addition to the immediate massive increase in dependency this would bring on, the structure of the subsidies?whereby they fade out as income rises?would impose a marginal tax penalty that would act as a disincentive to work, increasing dependency even more.

And before I conclude, allow me to clear up a misperception about insurance exchanges: it makes absolutely no difference whether we have 50 state exchanges rather than a federal exchange, as long as the federal government is where the subsidies for consumers will be located. In other words, despite what some seem to believe, both the House and the Senate versions of health care reform set up a system in which, if you are eligible and you want a break on your insurance premium, it is the federal government that will provide it while telling you what kind of insurance you have to buy. In this sense, the idea of state exchanges instead of a federal exchange is a distinction without a difference.

* * *

Americans take pride in self-government, which entails providing for their own well-being and the well-being of their families in a free society. In exchange for this, the promoters of government-run health care would make them passive subjects, dependent on handouts and far more concerned about security than liberty. At the heart of the conflict over heath care reform, as I said at the beginning, are two incompatible understandings of America: one is based on the principles of progressivism, and would place more and more aspects of our lives under the administration of unelected ?experts? in federal bureaucracies; the other sees America as a society of free individuals under a Constitution that severely limits what the federal government can rightfully do.

We have seen many times over the past 100 years that the American people tend to be resistant to the progressive view of how we should reform our system of government?and I believe we are seeing this again today. Americans retain the Founders’ view that a government that seeks to go beyond its high but limited constitutional role of securing equal rights and establishing free markets is not progressive at all in the literal sense of that word?rather it is reactionary. Such a government seeks to privilege some Americans at the expense of others?which is precisely what the American Revolution was fought to prevent.

Americans understand that the problems facing our health care system today, real as they are, can be addressed without nationalizing one-sixth of the American economy and moving us past the tipping point toward a European-style social welfare state. They know that we can solve these problems while at the same time remaining a free society and acting consistently with the principles that have made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth. It is our duty now as their representatives to come together and do so.

_________
February 2010
Copyright ? 2010 Hillsdale College. Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.



Live Free or Die

May 27, 2010

by Mark Steyn

MARK STEYN’S column appears in several newspapers, including the Washington Times, Philadelphia’s Evening Bulletin, and the Orange County Register. In addition, he writes for The New Criterion, Maclean’s in Canada, the Jerusalem Post, The Australian, and Hawke’s Bay Today in New Zealand. The author of National Review’s Happy Warrior column, he also blogs on National Review Online. He is the author of several books, including the best-selling America Alone: The End of The World as We Know It. Mr. Steyn teaches a two-week course in journalism at Hillsdale College during each spring semester.

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on March 9, 2009.

MY REMARKS are titled tonight after the words of General Stark, New Hampshire’s great hero of the Revolutionary War: “Live free or die!” When I first moved to New Hampshire, where this appears on our license plates, I assumed General Stark had said it before some battle or other?a bit of red meat to rally the boys for the charge; a touch of the old Henry V-at-Agincourt routine. But I soon discovered that the general had made his famous statement decades after the war, in a letter regretting that he would be unable to attend a dinner. And in a curious way I found that even more impressive. In extreme circumstances, many people can rouse themselves to rediscover the primal impulses: The brave men on Flight 93 did. They took off on what they thought was a routine business trip, and, when they realized it wasn’t, they went into General Stark mode and cried “Let’s roll!” But it’s harder to maintain the “Live free or die!” spirit when you’re facing not an immediate crisis but just a slow, remorseless, incremental, unceasing ratchet effect. “Live free or die!” sounds like a battle cry: We’ll win this thing or die trying, die an honorable death. But in fact it’s something far less dramatic: It’s a bald statement of the reality of our lives in the prosperous West. You can live as free men, but, if you choose not to, your society will die.

My book America Alone is often assumed to be about radical Islam, firebreathing imams, the excitable young men jumping up and down in the street doing the old “Death to the Great Satan” dance. It’s not. It’s about us. It’s about a possibly terminal manifestation of an old civilizational temptation: Indolence, as Machiavelli understood, is the greatest enemy of a republic. When I ran into trouble with the so-called “human rights” commissions up in Canada, it seemed bizarre to find the progressive left making common cause with radical Islam. One half of the alliance profess to be pro-gay, pro-feminist secularists; the other half are homophobic, misogynist theocrats. Even as the cheap bus ‘n’ truck road-tour version of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, it made no sense. But in fact what they have in common overrides their superficially more obvious incompatibilities: Both the secular Big Government progressives and political Islam recoil from the concept of the citizen, of the free individual entrusted to operate within his own societal space, assume his responsibilities, and exploit his potential.

In most of the developed world, the state has gradually annexed all the responsibilities of adulthood?health care, child care, care of the elderly?to the point where it’s effectively severed its citizens from humanity’s primal instincts, not least the survival instinct. Hillary Rodham Clinton said it takes a village to raise a child. It’s supposedly an African proverb?there is no record of anyone in Africa ever using this proverb, but let that pass. P.J. O’Rourke summed up that book superbly: It takes a village to raise a child. The government is the village, and you’re the child. Oh, and by the way, even if it did take a village to raise a child, I wouldn’t want it to be an African village. If you fly over West Africa at night, the lights form one giant coastal megalopolis: Not even Africans regard the African village as a useful societal model. But nor is the European village. Europe’s addiction to big government, unaffordable entitlements, cradle-to-grave welfare, and a dependence on mass immigration needed to sustain it has become an existential threat to some of the oldest nation-states in the world.

And now the last holdout, the United States, is embarking on the same grim path: After the President unveiled his budget, I heard Americans complain, oh, it’s another Jimmy Carter, or LBJ’s Great Society, or the new New Deal. You should be so lucky. Those nickel-and-dime comparisons barely begin to encompass the wholesale Europeanization that’s underway. The 44th president’s multi-trillion-dollar budget, the first of many, adds more to the national debt than all the previous 43 presidents combined, from George Washington to George Dubya. The President wants Europeanized health care, Europeanized daycare, Europeanized education, and, as the Europeans have discovered, even with Europeanized tax rates you can’t make that math add up. In Sweden, state spending accounts for 54% of GDP. In America, it was 34%?ten years ago. Today, it’s about 40%. In four years’ time, that number will be trending very Swede-like.

But forget the money, the deficit, the debt, the big numbers with the 12 zeroes on the end of them. So-called fiscal conservatives often miss the point. The problem isn’t the cost. These programs would still be wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them each month. They’re wrong because they deform the relationship between the citizen and the state. Even if there were no financial consequences, the moral and even spiritual consequences would still be fatal. That’s the stage where Europe is.

America is just beginning this process. I looked at the rankings in Freedom in the 50 States published by George Mason University last month. New Hampshire came in Number One, the Freest State in the Nation, which all but certainly makes it the freest jurisdiction in the Western world. Which kind of depressed me. Because the Granite State feels less free to me than it did when I moved there, and you always hope there’s somewhere else out there just in case things go belly up and you have to hit the road. And way down at the bottom in the last five places were Maryland, California, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and the least free state in the Union by some distance, New York.

New York! How does the song go? “If you can make it there, you’ll make it anywhere!” If you can make it there, you’re some kind of genius. “This is the worst fiscal downturn since the Great Depression,” announced Governor Paterson a few weeks ago. So what’s he doing? He’s bringing in the biggest tax hike in New York history. If you can make it there, he can take it there?via state tax, sales tax, municipal tax, a doubled beer tax, a tax on clothing, a tax on cab rides, an “iTunes tax,” a tax on haircuts, 137 new tax hikes in all. Call 1-800-I-HEART-NEW-YORK today and order your new package of state tax forms, for just $199.99, plus the 12% tax on tax forms and the 4% tax form application fee partially refundable upon payment of the 7.5% tax filing tax. If you can make it there, you’ll certainly have no difficulty making it in Tajikistan.

New York, California… These are the great iconic American states, the ones we foreigners have heard of. To a penniless immigrant called Arnold Schwarzenegger, California was a land of plenty. Now Arnold is an immigrant of plenty in a penniless land: That’s not an improvement. One of his predecessors as governor of California, Ronald Reagan, famously said, “We are a nation that has a government, not the other way around.” In California, it’s now the other way around: California is increasingly a government that has a state. And it is still in the early stages of the process. California has thirtysomething million people. The Province of Quebec has seven million people. Yet California and Quebec have roughly the same number of government workers. “There is a great deal of ruin in a nation,” said Adam Smith, and America still has a long way to go. But it’s better to jump off the train as you’re leaving the station and it’s still picking up speed than when it’s roaring down the track and you realize you’ve got a one-way ticket on the Oblivion Express.

“Indolence,” in Machiavelli’s word: There are stages to the enervation of free peoples. America, which held out against the trend, is now at Stage One: The benign paternalist state promises to make all those worries about mortgages, debt, and health care disappear. Every night of the week, you can switch on the TV and see one of these ersatz “town meetings” in which freeborn citizens of the republic (I use the term loosely) petition the Sovereign to make all the bad stuff go away. “I have an urgent need,” a lady in Fort Myers beseeched the President. “We need a home, our own kitchen, our own bathroom.” He took her name and ordered his staff to meet with her. Hopefully, he didn’t insult her by dispatching some no-name deputy assistant associate secretary of whatever instead of flying in one of the bigtime tax-avoiding cabinet honchos to nationalize a Florida bank and convert one of its branches into a desirable family residence, with a swing set hanging where the drive-thru ATM used to be.

As all of you know, Hillsdale College takes no federal or state monies. That used to make it an anomaly in American education. It’s in danger of becoming an anomaly in America, period. Maybe it’s time for Hillsdale College to launch the Hillsdale Insurance Agency, the Hillsdale Motor Company and the First National Bank of Hillsdale. The executive supremo at Bank of America is now saying, oh, if only he’d known what he knows now, he wouldn’t have taken the government money. Apparently it comes with strings attached. Who knew? Sure, Hillsdale College did, but nobody else.

If you’re a business, when government gives you 2% of your income, it has a veto on 100% of what you do. If you’re an individual, the impact is even starker. Once you have government health care, it can be used to justify almost any restraint on freedom: After all, if the state has to cure you, it surely has an interest in preventing you needing treatment in the first place. That’s the argument behind, for example, mandatory motorcycle helmets, or the creepy teams of government nutritionists currently going door to door in Britain and conducting a “health audit” of the contents of your refrigerator. They’re not yet confiscating your Twinkies; they just want to take a census of how many you have. So you do all this for the “free” health care?and in the end you may not get the “free” health care anyway. Under Britain’s National Health Service, for example, smokers in Manchester have been denied treatment for heart disease, and the obese in Suffolk are refused hip and knee replacements. Patricia Hewitt, the British Health Secretary, says that it’s appropriate to decline treatment on the basis of “lifestyle choices.” Smokers and the obese may look at their gay neighbor having unprotected sex with multiple partners, and wonder why his “lifestyle choices” get a pass while theirs don’t. But that’s the point: Tyranny is always whimsical.

And if they can’t get you on grounds of your personal health, they’ll do it on grounds of planetary health. Not so long ago in Britain it was proposed that each citizen should have a government-approved travel allowance. If you take one flight a year, you’ll pay just the standard amount of tax on the journey. But, if you travel more frequently, if you take a second or third flight, you’ll be subject to additional levies?in the interest of saving the planet for Al Gore’s polar bear documentaries and that carbon-offset palace he lives in in Tennessee.

Isn’t this the very definition of totalitarianism-lite? The Soviets restricted the movement of people through the bureaucratic apparatus of “exit visas.” The British are proposing to do it through the bureaucratic apparatus of exit taxes?indeed, the bluntest form of regressive taxation. As with the Communists, the nomenklatura?the Prince of Wales, Al Gore, Madonna?will still be able to jet about hither and yon. What’s a 20% surcharge to them? Especially as those for whom vast amounts of air travel are deemed essential?government officials, heads of NGOs, environmental activists?will no doubt be exempted from having to pay the extra amount. But the ghastly masses will have to stay home.

“Freedom of movement” used to be regarded as a bedrock freedom. The movement is still free, but there’s now a government processing fee of $389.95. And the interesting thing about this proposal was that it came not from the Labour Party but the Conservative Party.

That’s Stage Two of societal enervation?when the state as guarantor of all your basic needs becomes increasingly comfortable with regulating your behavior. Free peoples who were once willing to give their lives for liberty can be persuaded very quickly to relinquish their liberties for a quiet life. When President Bush talked about promoting democracy in the Middle East, there was a phrase he liked to use: “Freedom is the desire of every human heart.” Really? It’s unclear whether that’s really the case in Gaza and the Pakistani tribal lands. But it’s absolutely certain that it’s not the case in Berlin and Paris, Stockholm and London, New Orleans and Buffalo. The story of the Western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government “security,” large numbers of people vote to dump freedom every time?the freedom to make your own decisions about health care, education, property rights, and a ton of other stuff. It’s ridiculous for grown men and women to say: I want to be able to choose from hundreds of cereals at the supermarket, thousands of movies from Netflix, millions of songs to play on my iPod?but I want the government to choose for me when it comes to my health care. A nation that demands the government take care of all the grown-up stuff is a nation turning into the world’s wrinkliest adolescent, free only to choose its record collection.

And don’t be too sure you’ll get to choose your record collection in the end. That’s Stage Three: When the populace has agreed to become wards of the state, it’s a mere difference of degree to start regulating their thoughts. When my anglophone friends in the Province of Quebec used to complain about the lack of English signs in Quebec hospitals, my response was that, if you allow the government to be the sole provider of health care, why be surprised that they’re allowed to decide the language they’ll give it in? But, as I’ve learned during my year in the hellhole of Canadian “human rights” law, that’s true in a broader sense. In the interests of “cultural protection,” the Canadian state keeps foreign newspaper owners, foreign TV operators, and foreign bookstore owners out of Canada. Why shouldn’t it, in return, assume the right to police the ideas disseminated through those newspapers, bookstores and TV networks it graciously agrees to permit?

When Maclean’s magazine and I were hauled up in 2007 for the crime of “flagrant Islamophobia,” it quickly became very clear that, for members of a profession that brags about its “courage” incessantly (far more than, say, firemen do), an awful lot of journalists are quite content to be the eunuchs in the politically correct harem. A distressing number of Western journalists see no conflict between attending lunches for World Press Freedom Day every month and agreeing to be micro-regulated by the state. The big problem for those of us arguing for classical liberalism is that in modern Canada there’s hardly anything left that isn’t on the state dripfeed to one degree or another: Too many of the institutions healthy societies traditionally look to as outposts of independent thought?churches, private schools, literature, the arts, the media?either have an ambiguous relationship with government or are downright dependent on it. Up north, “intellectual freedom” means the relevant film-funding agency?Cinedole Canada or whatever it’s called?gives you a check to enable you to continue making so-called “bold, brave, transgressive” films that discombobulate state power not a whit.

And then comes Stage Four, in which dissenting ideas and even words are labeled as “hatred.” In effect, the language itself becomes a means of control. Despite the smiley-face banalities, the tyranny becomes more naked: In Britain, a land with rampant property crime, undercover constables nevertheless find time to dine at curry restaurants on Friday nights to monitor adjoining tables lest someone in private conversation should make a racist remark. An author interviewed on BBC Radio expressed, very mildly and politely, some concerns about gay adoption and was investigated by Scotland Yard’s Community Safety Unit for Homophobic, Racist and Domestic Incidents. A Daily Telegraph columnist is arrested and detained in a jail cell over a joke in a speech. A Dutch legislator is invited to speak at the Palace of Westminster by a member of the House of Lords, but is banned by the government, arrested on arrival at Heathrow and deported.

America, Britain, and even Canada are not peripheral nations: They’re the three anglophone members of the G7. They’re three of a handful of countries that were on the right side of all the great conflicts of the last century. But individual liberty flickers dimmer in each of them. The massive expansion of government under the laughable euphemism of “stimulus” (Stage One) comes with a quid pro quo down the line (Stage Two): Once you accept you’re a child in the government nursery, why shouldn’t Nanny tell you what to do? And then?Stage Three?what to think? And?Stage Four?what you’re forbidden to think . . . .

Which brings us to the final stage: As I said at the beginning, Big Government isn’t about the money. It’s more profound than that. A couple of years back Paul Krugman wrote a column in The New York Times asserting that, while parochial American conservatives drone on about “family values,” the Europeans live it, enacting policies that are more “family friendly.” On the Continent, claims the professor, “government regulations actually allow people to make a desirable tradeoff-to modestly lower income in return for more time with friends and family.”

As befits a distinguished economist, Professor Krugman failed to notice that for a continent of “family friendly” policies, Europe is remarkably short of families. While America’s fertility rate is more or less at replacement level?2.1?seventeen European nations are at what demographers call “lowest-low” fertility?1.3 or less?a rate from which no society in human history has ever recovered. Germans, Spaniards, Italians and Greeks have upside-down family trees: four grandparents have two children and one grandchild. How can an economist analyze “family friendly” policies without noticing that the upshot of these policies is that nobody has any families?

As for all that extra time, what happened? Europeans work fewer hours than Americans, they don’t have to pay for their own health care, they’re post-Christian so they don’t go to church, they don’t marry and they don’t have kids to take to school and basketball and the 4-H stand at the county fair. So what do they do with all the time?

Forget for the moment Europe’s lack of world-beating companies: They regard capitalism as an Anglo-American fetish, and they mostly despise it. But what about the things Europeans supposedly value? With so much free time, where is the great European art? Where are Europe’s men of science? At American universities. Meanwhile, Continental governments pour fortunes into prestigious white elephants of Euro-identity, like the Airbus A380, capable of carrying 500, 800, a thousand passengers at a time, if only somebody somewhere would order the darn thing, which they might consider doing once all the airports have built new runways to handle it.

“Give people plenty and security, and they will fall into spiritual torpor,” wrote Charles Murray in In Our Hands. “When life becomes an extended picnic, with nothing of importance to do, ideas of greatness become an irritant. Such is the nature of the Europe syndrome.”

The key word here is “give.” When the state “gives” you plenty?when it takes care of your health, takes cares of your kids, takes care of your elderly parents, takes care of every primary responsibility of adulthood?it’s not surprising that the citizenry cease to function as adults: Life becomes a kind of extended adolescence?literally so for those Germans who’ve mastered the knack of staying in education till they’re 34 and taking early retirement at 42. Hilaire Belloc, incidentally, foresaw this very clearly in his book The Servile State in 1912. He understood that the long-term cost of a welfare society is the infantilization of the population.

Genteel decline can be very agreeable?initially: You still have terrific restaurants, beautiful buildings, a great opera house. And once the pressure’s off it’s nice to linger at the sidewalk table, have a second caf? au lait and a pain au chocolat, and watch the world go by. At the Munich Security Conference in February, President Sarkozy demanded of his fellow Continentals, “Does Europe want peace, or do we want to be left in peace?” To pose the question is to answer it. Alas, it only works for a generation or two. And it’s hard to come up with a wake-up call for a society as dedicated as latterday Europe to the belief that life is about sleeping in.

As Gerald Ford liked to say when trying to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” And that’s true. But there’s an intermediate stage: A government big enough to give you everything you want isn’t big enough to get you to give any of it back. That’s the position European governments find themselves in. Their citizens have become hooked on unaffordable levels of social programs which in the end will put those countries out of business. Just to get the Social Security debate in perspective, projected public pension liabilities are expected to rise by 2040 to about 6.8% of GDP in the U.S. In Greece, the figure is 25%?i.e., total societal collapse. So what? shrug the voters. Not my problem. I want my benefits. The crisis isn’t the lack of money, but the lack of citizens?in the meaningful sense of that word.

Every Democrat running for election tells you they want to do this or that “for the children.” If America really wanted to do something “for the children,” it could try not to make the same mistake as most of the rest of the Western world and avoid bequeathing the next generation a leviathan of bloated bureaucracy and unsustainable entitlements that turns the entire nation into a giant Ponzi scheme. That’s the real “war on children” (to use another Democrat catchphrase)?and every time you bulk up the budget you make it less and less likely they’ll win it.

Conservatives often talk about “small government,” which, in a sense, is framing the issue in leftist terms: they’re for big government. But small government gives you big freedoms?and big government leaves you with very little freedom. The bailout and the stimulus and the budget and the trillion-dollar deficits are not merely massive transfers from the most dynamic and productive sector to the least dynamic and productive. When governments annex a huge chunk of the economy, they also annex a huge chunk of individual liberty. You fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the state into something closer to that of junkie and pusher?and you make it very difficult ever to change back. Americans face a choice: They can rediscover the animating principles of the American idea?of limited government, a self-reliant citizenry, and the opportunities to exploit your talents to the fullest?or they can join most of the rest of the Western world in terminal decline. To rekindle the spark of liberty once it dies is very difficult. The inertia, the ennui, the fatalism is more pathetic than the demographic decline and fiscal profligacy of the social democratic state, because it’s subtler and less tangible. But once in a while it swims into very sharp focus. Here is the writer Oscar van den Boogaard from an interview with the Belgian paper De Standaard. Mr. van den Boogaard, a Dutch gay “humanist” (which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool), was reflecting on the accelerating Islamification of the Continent and concluding that the jig was up for the Europe he loved. “I am not a warrior, but who is?” he shrugged. “I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.” In the famous Kubler-Ross five stages of grief, Mr. van den Boogard is past denial, anger, bargaining and depression, and has arrived at a kind of acceptance.

“I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.” Sorry, doesn’t work?not for long. Back in New Hampshire, General Stark knew that. Mr. van den Boogard’s words are an epitaph for Europe. Whereas New Hampshire’s motto?”Live free or die!”?is still the greatest rallying cry for this state or any other. About a year ago, there was a picture in the papers of Iranian students demonstrating in Tehran and waving placards. And what they’d written on those placards was: “Live free or die!” They understand the power of those words; so should we.

_________
April 2009
Copyright ? 2010 Hillsdale College.? Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.



List of those in the Coup D’etat

March 25, 2010

A Coup D’etat against the American People took place March 23, 2010

Here is the list who voted in favor of, and who voted against, the Coup D’etat of the Health Bill in direct opposition of the will of the American People.

We encourage every U.S. citizen to write to any Representatives in their districts and any Senators in their state to praise them if they voted “no” and to warn them who voted “yes” that their vote will be remembered at the ballot box.

 

House Vote:

Vote

District

Representative

No AL-4 Aderholt, Robert [R]
No NJ-3 Adler, John [D]
No MO-2 Akin, W. [R]
No LA-5 Alexander, Rodney [R]
No PA-4 Altmire, Jason [D]
No NY-24 Arcuri, Michael [D]
No OH-7 Austria, Steve [R]
No MN-6 Bachmann, Michele [R]
No AL-6 Bachus, Spencer [R]
No SC-3 Barrett, James [R]
No GA-12 Barrow, John [D]
No MD-6 Bartlett, Roscoe [R]
No TX-6 Barton, Joe [R]
No AR-1 Berry, Robert [D]
No IL-13 Biggert, Judy [R]
No CA-50 Bilbray, Brian [R]
No FL-9 Bilirakis, Gus [R]
No UT-1 Bishop, Rob [R]
No TN-7 Blackburn, Marsha [R]
No MO-7 Blunt, Roy [R]
No OH-8 Boehner, John [R]
No AL-1 Bonner, Jo [R]
No CA-45 Bono Mack, Mary [R]
No AR-3 Boozman, John [R]
No OK-2 Boren, Dan [D]
No VA-9 Boucher, Frederick [D]
No LA-7 Boustany, Charles [R]
No TX-8 Brady, Kevin [R]
No AL-2 Bright, Bobby [D]
No GA-10 Broun, Paul [R]
No SC-1 Brown, Henry [R]
No FL-5 Brown-Waite, Virginia [R]
No FL-13 Buchanan, Vern [R]
No TX-26 Burgess, Michael [R]
No IN-5 Burton, Dan [R]
No IN-4 Buyer, Stephen [R]
No CA-44 Calvert, Ken [R]
No MI-4 Camp, David [R]
No CA-48 Campbell, John [R]
No VA-7 Cantor, Eric [R]
No LA-2 Cao, Anh [R]
No WV-2 Capito, Shelley [R]
No TX-31 Carter, John [R]
No LA-6 Cassidy, Bill [R]
No DE-0 Castle, Michael [R]
No UT-3 Chaffetz, Jason [R]
No KY-6 Chandler, Ben [D]
No MS-1 Childers, Travis [D]
No NC-6 Coble, Howard [R]
No CO-6 Coffman, Mike [R]
No OK-4 Cole, Tom [R]
No TX-11 Conaway, K. [R]
No FL-4 Crenshaw, Ander [R]
No TX-7 Culberson, John [R]
No AL-7 Davis, Artur [D]
No KY-4 Davis, Geoff [R]
No TN-4 Davis, Lincoln [D]
No GA-9 Deal, Nathan [R]
No PA-15 Dent, Charles [R]
No FL-21 Diaz-Balart, Lincoln [R]
No FL-25 Diaz-Balart, Mario [R]
No CA-26 Dreier, David [R]
No TN-2 Duncan, John [R]
No TX-17 Edwards, Thomas [D]
No MI-3 Ehlers, Vernon [R]
No MO-8 Emerson, Jo Ann [R]
No OK-5 Fallin, Mary [R]
No AZ-6 Flake, Jeff [R]
No LA-4 Fleming, John [R]
No VA-4 Forbes, James [R]
No NE-1 Fortenberry, Jeffrey [R]
No NC-5 Foxx, Virginia [R]
No AZ-2 Franks, Trent [R]
No NJ-11 Frelinghuysen, Rodney [R]
No CA-24 Gallegly, Elton [R]
No NJ-5 Garrett, Scott [R]
No PA-6 Gerlach, Jim [R]
No GA-11 Gingrey, John [R]
No TX-1 Gohmert, Louis [R]
No VA-6 Goodlatte, Robert [R]
No TX-12 Granger, Kay [R]
No MO-6 Graves, Samuel [R]
No AL-5 Griffith, Parker [D]
No KY-2 Guthrie, Brett [R]
No TX-4 Hall, Ralph [R]
No MS-3 Harper, Gregg [R]
No WA-4 Hastings, Doc [R]
No NV-2 Heller, Dean [R]
No TX-5 Hensarling, Jeb [R]
No CA-2 Herger, Walter [R]
No SD-0 Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie [D]
No MI-2 Hoekstra, Peter [R]
No PA-17 Holden, Tim [D]
No CA-52 Hunter, Duncan [R]
No SC-4 Inglis, Bob [R]
No CA-49 Issa, Darrell [R]
No KS-2 Jenkins, Lynn [R]
No TX-3 Johnson, Samuel [R]
No IL-15 Johnson, Timothy [R]
No NC-3 Jones, Walter [R]
No OH-4 Jordan, Jim [R]
No NY-3 King, Peter [R]
No IA-5 King, Steve [R]
No GA-1 Kingston, Jack [R]
No IL-10 Kirk, Mark [R]
No NC-8 Kissell, Larry [D]
No MN-2 Kline, John [R]
No MD-1 Kratovil, Frank [D]
No CO-5 Lamborn, Doug [R]
No NJ-7 Lance, Leonard [R]
No IA-4 Latham, Thomas [R]
No OH-14 LaTourette, Steven [R]
No OH-5 Latta, Robert [R]
No NY-26 Lee, Christopher [R]
No CA-41 Lewis, Jerry [R]
No GA-7 Linder, John [R]
No IL-3 Lipinski, Daniel [D]
No NJ-2 LoBiondo, Frank [R]
No OK-3 Lucas, Frank [R]
No MO-9 Luetkemeyer, Blaine [R]
No WY-0 Lummis, Cynthia [R]
No CA-3 Lungren, Daniel [R]
No MA-9 Lynch, Stephen [D]
No FL-14 Mack, Connie [R]
No IL-16 Manzullo, Donald [R]
No TX-24 Marchant, Kenny [R]
No GA-8 Marshall, James [D]
No UT-2 Matheson, Jim [D]
No CA-22 McCarthy, Kevin [R]
No TX-10 McCaul, Michael [R]
No CA-4 McClintock, Tom [R]
No MI-11 McCotter, Thaddeus [R]
No NC-10 McHenry, Patrick [R]
No NC-7 McIntyre, Mike [D]
No CA-25 McKeon, Howard [R]
No NY-13 McMahon, Michael [D]
No WA-5 McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [R]
No LA-3 Melancon, Charles [D]
No FL-7 Mica, John [R]
No MI-10 Miller, Candice [R]
No CA-42 Miller, Gary [R]
No FL-1 Miller, Jeff [R]
No ID-1 Minnick, Walter [D]
No KS-1 Moran, Jerry [R]
No PA-18 Murphy, Tim [R]
No NC-9 Myrick, Sue [R]
No TX-19 Neugebauer, Randy [R]
No CA-21 Nunes, Devin [R]
No VA-2 Nye, Glenn [D]
No TX-22 Olson, Pete [R]
No TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]
No MN-3 Paulsen, Erik [R]
No IN-6 Pence, Mike [R]
No MN-7 Peterson, Collin [D]
No WI-6 Petri, Thomas [R]
No PA-16 Pitts, Joseph [R]
No PA-19 Platts, Todd [R]
No TX-2 Poe, Ted [R]
No FL-15 Posey, Bill [R]
No GA-6 Price, Tom [R]
No FL-12 Putnam, Adam [R]
No CA-19 Radanovich, George [R]
No MT-0 Rehberg, Dennis [R]
No WA-8 Reichert, Dave [R]
No TN-1 Roe, Phil [R]
No KY-5 Rogers, Harold [R]
No AL-3 Rogers, Michael [R]
No MI-8 Rogers, Michael [R]
No CA-46 Rohrabacher, Dana [R]
No FL-16 Rooney, Thomas [R]
No IL-6 Roskam, Peter [R]
No FL-18 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R]
No AR-4 Ross, Mike [D]
No CA-40 Royce, Edward [R]
No WI-1 Ryan, Paul [R]
No LA-1 Scalise, Steve [R]
No OH-2 Schmidt, Jean [R]
No IL-18 Schock, Aaron [R]
No WI-5 Sensenbrenner, F. [R]
No TX-32 Sessions, Peter [R]
No AZ-3 Shadegg, John [R]
No IL-19 Shimkus, John [R]
No NC-11 Shuler, Heath [D]
No PA-9 Shuster, William [R]
No ID-2 Simpson, Michael [R]
No MO-4 Skelton, Ike [D]
No NE-3 Smith, Adrian [R]
No NJ-4 Smith, Christopher [R]
No TX-21 Smith, Lamar [R]
No IN-3 Souder, Mark [R]
No OH-18 Space, Zachary [D]
No FL-6 Stearns, Clifford [R]
No OK-1 Sullivan, John [R]
No TN-8 Tanner, John [D]
No MS-4 Taylor, Gene [D]
No NM-2 Teague, Harry [D]
No NE-2 Terry, Lee [R]
No PA-5 Thompson, Glenn [R]
No TX-13 Thornberry, William [R]
No KS-4 Tiahrt, Todd [R]
No OH-12 Tiberi, Patrick [R]
No OH-3 Turner, Michael [R]
No MI-6 Upton, Frederick [R]
No OR-2 Walden, Greg [R]
No TN-3 Wamp, Zach [R]
No GA-3 Westmoreland, Lynn [R]
No KY-1 Whitfield, Edward [R]
No SC-2 Wilson, Addison [R]
No VA-1 Wittman, Rob [R]
No VA-10 Wolf, Frank [R]
No FL-10 Young, C. W. [R]
No AK-0 Young, Donald [R]
Aye NY-5 Ackerman, Gary [D]
Aye NJ-1 Andrews, Robert [D]
Aye CA-43 Baca, Joe [D]
Aye WA-3 Baird, Brian [D]
Aye WI-2 Baldwin, Tammy [D]
Aye IL-8 Bean, Melissa [D]
Aye CA-31 Becerra, Xavier [D]
Aye NV-1 Berkley, Shelley [D]
Aye CA-28 Berman, Howard [D]
Aye GA-2 Bishop, Sanford [D]
Aye NY-1 Bishop, Timothy [D]
Aye OR-3 Blumenauer, Earl [D]
Aye OH-16 Boccieri, John [D]
Aye IA-3 Boswell, Leonard [D]
Aye FL-2 Boyd, Allen [D]
Aye PA-1 Brady, Robert [D]
Aye IA-1 Braley, Bruce [D]
Aye FL-3 Brown, Corrine [D]
Aye NC-1 Butterfield, George [D]
Aye CA-23 Capps, Lois [D]
Aye MA-8 Capuano, Michael [D]
Aye CA-18 Cardoza, Dennis [D]
Aye MO-3 Carnahan, Russ [D]
Aye PA-10 Carney, Christopher [D]
Aye IN-7 Carson, Andr? [D]
Aye FL-11 Castor, Kathy [D]
Aye CA-32 Chu, Judy [D]
Aye NY-11 Clarke, Yvette [D]
Aye MO-1 Clay, William [D]
Aye MO-5 Cleaver, Emanuel [D]
Aye SC-6 Clyburn, James [D]
Aye TN-9 Cohen, Steve [D]
Aye VA-11 Connolly, Gerald [D]
Aye MI-14 Conyers, John [D]
Aye TN-5 Cooper, Jim [D]
Aye CA-20 Costa, Jim [D]
Aye IL-12 Costello, Jerry [D]
Aye CT-2 Courtney, Joe [D]
Aye NY-7 Crowley, Joseph [D]
Aye TX-28 Cuellar, Henry [D]
Aye MD-7 Cummings, Elijah [D]
Aye PA-3 Dahlkemper, Kathleen [D]
Aye IL-7 Davis, Danny [D]
Aye CA-53 Davis, Susan [D]
Aye OR-4 DeFazio, Peter [D]
Aye CO-1 DeGette, Diana [D]
Aye MA-10 Delahunt, William [D]
Aye CT-3 DeLauro, Rosa [D]
Aye WA-6 Dicks, Norman [D]
Aye MI-15 Dingell, John [D]
Aye TX-25 Doggett, Lloyd [D]
Aye IN-2 Donnelly, Joe [D]
Aye PA-14 Doyle, Michael [D]
Aye OH-1 Driehaus, Steve [D]
Aye MD-4 Edwards, Donna [D]
Aye MN-5 Ellison, Keith [D]
Aye IN-8 Ellsworth, Brad [D]
Aye NY-17 Engel, Eliot [D]
Aye CA-14 Eshoo, Anna [D]
Aye NC-2 Etheridge, Bob [D]
Aye CA-17 Farr, Sam [D]
Aye PA-2 Fattah, Chaka [D]
Aye CA-51 Filner, Bob [D]
Aye IL-14 Foster, Bill [D]
Aye MA-4 Frank, Barney [D]
Aye OH-11 Fudge, Marcia [D]
Aye CA-10 Garamendi, John [D]
Aye AZ-8 Giffords, Gabrielle [D]
Aye TX-20 Gonzalez, Charles [D]
Aye TN-6 Gordon, Barton [D]
Aye FL-8 Grayson, Alan [D]
Aye TX-9 Green, Al [D]
Aye TX-29 Green, Raymond [D]
Aye AZ-7 Grijalva, Raul [D]
Aye IL-4 Gutierrez, Luis [D]
Aye NY-19 Hall, John [D]
Aye IL-11 Halvorson, Deborah [D]
Aye IL-17 Hare, Phil [D]
Aye CA-36 Harman, Jane [D]
Aye FL-23 Hastings, Alcee [D]
Aye NM-1 Heinrich, Martin [D]
Aye NY-27 Higgins, Brian [D]
Aye IN-9 Hill, Baron [D]
Aye CT-4 Himes, James [D]
Aye NY-22 Hinchey, Maurice [D]
Aye TX-15 Hinojosa, Rub?n [D]
Aye HI-2 Hirono, Mazie [D]
Aye NH-2 Hodes, Paul [D]
Aye NJ-12 Holt, Rush [D]
Aye CA-15 Honda, Michael [D]
Aye MD-5 Hoyer, Steny [D]
Aye WA-1 Inslee, Jay [D]
Aye NY-2 Israel, Steve [D]
Aye IL-2 Jackson, Jesse [D]
Aye TX-18 Jackson-Lee, Sheila [D]
Aye TX-30 Johnson, Eddie [D]
Aye GA-4 Johnson, Henry [D]
Aye WI-8 Kagen, Steve [D]
Aye PA-11 Kanjorski, Paul [D]
Aye OH-9 Kaptur, Marcy [D]
Aye RI-1 Kennedy, Patrick [D]
Aye MI-5 Kildee, Dale [D]
Aye MI-13 Kilpatrick, Carolyn [D]
Aye OH-15 Kilroy, Mary Jo [D]
Aye WI-3 Kind, Ronald [D]
Aye AZ-1 Kirkpatrick, Ann [D]
Aye FL-22 Klein, Ron [D]
Aye FL-24 Kosmas, Suzanne [D]
Aye OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis [D]
Aye RI-2 Langevin, James [D]
Aye WA-2 Larsen, Rick [D]
Aye CT-1 Larson, John [D]
Aye CA-9 Lee, Barbara [D]
Aye MI-12 Levin, Sander [D]
Aye GA-5 Lewis, John [D]
Aye IA-2 Loebsack, David [D]
Aye CA-16 Lofgren, Zoe [D]
Aye NY-18 Lowey, Nita [D]
Aye NM-3 Lujan, Ben [D]
Aye NY-25 Maffei, Daniel [D]
Aye NY-14 Maloney, Carolyn [D]
Aye CO-4 Markey, Betsy [D]
Aye MA-7 Markey, Edward [D]
Aye CA-5 Matsui, Doris [D]
Aye NY-4 McCarthy, Carolyn [D]
Aye MN-4 McCollum, Betty [D]
Aye WA-7 McDermott, James [D]
Aye MA-3 McGovern, James [D]
Aye CA-11 McNerney, Jerry [D]
Aye FL-17 Meek, Kendrick [D]
Aye NY-6 Meeks, Gregory [D]
Aye ME-2 Michaud, Michael [D]
Aye CA-7 Miller, George [D]
Aye NC-13 Miller, R. [D]
Aye AZ-5 Mitchell, Harry [D]
Aye WV-1 Mollohan, Alan [D]
Aye KS-3 Moore, Dennis [D]
Aye WI-4 Moore, Gwen [D]
Aye VA-8 Moran, James [D]
Aye CT-5 Murphy, Christopher [D]
Aye PA-8 Murphy, Patrick [D]
Aye NY-20 Murphy, Scott [D]
Aye NY-8 Nadler, Jerrold [D]
Aye CA-38 Napolitano, Grace [D]
Aye MA-2 Neal, Richard [D]
Aye MN-8 Oberstar, James [D]
Aye WI-7 Obey, David [D]
Aye MA-1 Olver, John [D]
Aye TX-27 Ortiz, Solomon [D]
Aye NY-23 Owens, William [D]
Aye NJ-6 Pallone, Frank [D]
Aye NJ-8 Pascrell, William [D]
Aye AZ-4 Pastor, Edward [D]
Aye NJ-10 Payne, Donald [D]
Aye CA-8 Pelosi, Nancy [D]
Aye CO-7 Perlmutter, Ed [D]
Aye VA-5 Perriello, Thomas [D]
Aye MI-9 Peters, Gary [D]
Aye ME-1 Pingree, Chellie [D]
Aye CO-2 Polis, Jared [D]
Aye ND-0 Pomeroy, Earl [D]
Aye NC-4 Price, David [D]
Aye IL-5 Quigley, Mike [D]
Aye WV-3 Rahall, Nick [D]
Aye NY-15 Rangel, Charles [D]
Aye TX-16 Reyes, Silvestre [D]
Aye CA-37 Richardson, Laura [D]
Aye TX-23 Rodriguez, Ciro [D]
Aye NJ-9 Rothman, Steven [D]
Aye CA-34 Roybal-Allard, Lucille [D]
Aye MD-2 Ruppersberger, C.A. [D]
Aye IL-1 Rush, Bobby [D]
Aye OH-17 Ryan, Timothy [D]
Aye CO-3 Salazar, John [D]
Aye CA-39 Sanchez, Linda [D]
Aye CA-47 Sanchez, Loretta [D]
Aye MD-3 Sarbanes, John [D]
Aye IL-9 Schakowsky, Janice [D]
Aye MI-7 Schauer, Mark [D]
Aye CA-29 Schiff, Adam [D]
Aye OR-5 Schrader, Kurt [D]
Aye PA-13 Schwartz, Allyson [D]
Aye GA-13 Scott, David [D]
Aye VA-3 Scott, Robert [D]
Aye NY-16 Serrano, Jos? [D]
Aye PA-7 Sestak, Joe [D]
Aye NH-1 Shea-Porter, Carol [D]
Aye CA-27 Sherman, Brad [D]
Aye NJ-13 Sires, Albio [D]
Aye NY-28 Slaughter, Louise [D]
Aye WA-9 Smith, Adam [D]
Aye AR-2 Snyder, Victor [D]
Aye CA-12 Speier, Jackie [D]
Aye SC-5 Spratt, John [D]
Aye CA-13 Stark, Fortney [D]
Aye MI-1 Stupak, Bart [D]
Aye OH-13 Sutton, Betty [D]
Aye MS-2 Thompson, Bennie [D]
Aye CA-1 Thompson, C. [D]
Aye MA-6 Tierney, John [D]
Aye NV-3 Titus, Dina [D]
Aye NY-21 Tonko, Paul [D]
Aye NY-10 Towns, Edolphus [D]
Aye MA-5 Tsongas, Niki [D]
Aye MD-8 Van Hollen, Christopher [D]
Aye NY-12 Velazquez, Nydia [D]
Aye IN-1 Visclosky, Peter [D]
Aye MN-1 Walz, Timothy [D]
Aye FL-20 Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D]
Aye CA-35 Waters, Maxine [D]
Aye CA-33 Watson, Diane [D]
Aye NC-12 Watt, Melvin [D]
Aye CA-30 Waxman, Henry [D]
Aye NY-9 Weiner, Anthony [D]
Aye VT-0 Welch, Peter [D]
Aye OH-6 Wilson, Charles [D]
Aye CA-6 Woolsey, Lynn [D]
Aye OR-1 Wu, David [D]
Aye KY-3 Yarmuth, John [D]

 

Senate Vote:

 

YEAs —60
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

 

NAYs —39
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)

 

Not Voting – 1
Bunning (R-KY)

 

Pray for those who violated the will of the people.



Obama’s Income Distribution Plan

February 9, 2010

Dear Folks:

One of the classic tenets of Progressivism (also known as “conservative socialism”) is the re-distribution of wealth by raising taxes on the wealthy, which will be disaster for our economy as all of us will pay for this.

Sean Hannity and guests discuss Obama’s income distribution and tax hike plan for all Americans February 8th. We all need to listen to this analysis carefully as Obama’s agenda leads to economy injustice for all of us:

Your advocate,
Bro. Ignatius Mary