Saturday, June 26, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010 Israel Today Staff
Jon Voight, US senators rip Obama over Israel
Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight this week again demonstrated his deep commitment to the Jewish state by publishing an open letter to US President Barack Obama blasting him for "putting Israel in harm's way."
Published in The Washington Times, the letter accused Obama of being "the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well, when you said that you would defend Israel… against all their enemies."
Instead, Voight wrote that Obama is aiding the Jewish state's enemies in "propagandizing Israel," and in so doing is "promoting anti-Semitism throughout the world."
Voight insisted that the US and the rest of the West owe Israel much more.
"You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today," he concluded.
Voight, a Bible-believing Christian, is an longtime, outspoken supporter of Israel. He visited the Jewish state in 2008 to participate in Israel's 60th Independence Day.
In their own letter to President Obama, 87 out of 100 US Senators took a more diplomatic approach, but also chided the commander-in-chief for not being more supportive of Israel in a time when its enemies are starting to circle.
"Israel’s opponents have developed clever diplomatic and tactical ploys to challenge its international standing," read the letter.
The senators singled out the exaggerated focus on Israel at the recent Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty summit, which Obama publicly criticized, but ultimately was responsible for. They also suggested that Washington should be backing up Israel in the Gaza flotilla controversy, rather than trying to ride the fence.
Article courtesy of Israel Today magazine, www.israeltoday.co.il.
Friday, June 25, 2010
A lawsuit against the Vatican was filed yesterday in Louisville by attorney William McMurry seeking to depose Pope Benedict XVI. McMurry contends that officials of the Catholic Church in Rome, including the pope, knew about cases of priestly sexual abuse and then covered them up.
Responding is Catholic League president Bill Donohue:
It is a staple of anti-Catholic thinking that every priest on the face of the globe takes his marching orders from the pope, and that every instance of priestly wrongdoing is known to the Holy Father and his inner circle. The fact is that the Catholic Church is among the most decentralized entities in the world, and it is positively preposterous to think that the pope sits around orchestrating coverups in places ranging from Louisville to London. McMurry knows this as well, but having creamed over $10 million for himself (out of a $25.7 million pot) from a settlement with the Archdiocese of Louisville in 2003, he can afford to be motivated more by ideology than greed at this point.
"I have yet to meet a Catholic, expert or otherwise," McMurry says, "who does not believe that the Holy See has the absolute right to control the day-to-day activities of a bishop's work." Yet when even parents cannot possibly control the day-to-day activities of their children, only someone who is hopelessly naïve—or malicious—would contend that the pope is tweeting the bishops all day long.
McMurry has three clients: one says he "thinks" the local bishop knew of his alleged abuse; another maintains that he was molested over three decades ago; and the third contends that a priest touched him through his pants pocket in 1928. If this is McMurry's best shot, then he is bound to fail. Besides, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act makes it difficult to prosecute a head of state.
This lawsuit, then, is not driven by a noble pursuit of justice. It is driven by hate. As such, it deserves a quick death.
Director of Communications
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
New York, NY 10123
Thursday, June 24, 2010
It was just today that the House of Representatives violated their oath of office by voting for a bill that outlaws speech they don't want to hear. Apparently, the First Amendment means nothing. We have known they don't respect the Second Amendment. Have you had enough yet? November is coming. VOTE!
As usual Mark Levin was on top of his game and had Christine O'Donnell on right away tonight. Here is the audio.
Pence on DISCLOSE ACT: "This bill is a naked attempt to cloud the free speech rights of millions of Americans."
Washington, DC - U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, issued the following statement today in response to the U.S. House of Representatives passing the Democrat “DISCLOSE Act:”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Served by
Casting Light on Spending in Elections – DISCLOSE – Act.
must say, rarely has a bill fallen so short of doing what its title says. In
fact, this bill does the opposite of its name by limiting free speech in the
“The First Amendment says, ‘Congress shall make no
law… abridging the freedom of speech.’ That right is cherished by all Americans
and is to be protected by this Congress. Unfortunately, this bill is a naked
attempt to cloud the free speech rights of millions of Americans; rights that
were clearly affirmed in January by the Supreme Court.
“It’s for that reason that I am profoundly disappointed that the Democratic majority is trying to overturn the High Court’s Citizens United decision. The justices were clear about the freedom of Americans to collectively participate in the political process through organizations. And the fact that the Court overturned a 20-yearprecedent speaks volumes about the importance of this issue.
“But, instead of standing on the side of free speech and the American people, this bill will cloud the court’s decision and cause uncertainty about federal election law. And that would happen during the months leading up to the November midterm elections.
“Democrats suggest that the bill deals with corporations and unions even-handedly. That is false. In the interest of full disclosure, the American people should know that this legislation is sponsored by the two Democrats who are chiefly responsible for the election of Democrats to the House and Senate this fall.
“Perhaps that explains why this
bill’s provisions include enormous exclusions for union expenditures but place
extraordinary limits on corporations to hinder their ability to participate in
the political process, despite the clear directive of the Citizens United case.
“Corporations will have to make burdensome new identifying disclaimers.
“Companies that are government contractors or that received TARP bailout
money will be banned from political speech. And this bill will suppress speech
by those who choose to speak out through associations, a fundamental right
guaranteed by the Constitution.
“This legislation is nothing more than
an attempt to bring confusion to the political process and to discourage
millions of Americans and thousands of organizations from becoming involved in
the political debate.
“Campaign finance is an issue that I’ve been
committed to since I first came to Congress. I’ve worked with Republicans and
Democrats alike in an effort to bring more freedom to everyone involved in the
“This bill sets back the freedoms affirmed just
months ago by the Supreme Court.
“Mr. Speaker, I believe that instead of
greater government control of political speech, more freedom is the answer. And
while such liberty may be a bit more chaotic and inconvenient for some in the
political class, as Thomas Jefferson said, ‘I would rather be exposed to the
inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a
degree of it.’
“The answer to problems in politics in a free society is
more freedom, not less.
“I urge this body not to diminish the First
Amendment for the sake of politics. Let’s reject this bill and allow the
American people to exercise their right of free speech and participate fully in
the political process, as our Constitution intended.”
"Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Chris Van Hollen are fond of saying the DISCLOSE Act is fundamental to Democracy, but the truth is that it’s a fundamental to Democrats getting elected in November. This was a blatant attempt by the Majority to use the people’s House to sway the November election in the Democrats' favor, at the expense of Americans’ constitutional right to free speech but at great favor to special interest union bosses.
"That Speaker Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Chris Van Hollen wrote a bill they proclaimed to be about transparency in total secret and riddled with back room deals is an ironic but sad testament to the way they’ve conducted business all year, and at the end of the day, they will be held accountable for that.”
Washington (Jun 24) House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on the Democrats’ unconstitutional bill designed to silence their political opponents:
“The First Amendment says ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.’ It’s first for a reason. Freedom of speech is the basis of our democracy. The purpose of this bill, plain and simple, is to allow Democrats to use their Majority in this House to silence their political opponents. This is a backroom deal to shred our Constitution for raw, ugly, partisan gain.
“With this misguided bill, Democrats would restrict free speech and violate the First Amendment. But not for everyone. This bill would muzzle small businesses but protect labor unions. It allows the Humane Society to speak freely, but not the Farm Bureau. It would protect the AARP’s rights, but not 60-Plus. And lastly it would protect the National Rifle Association but not the National Right to Life. The NRA is carved out and gets a special deal in this bill. The NRA is all about protecting the Second Amendment, but apparently its leaders don’t care about protecting the First Amendment. That’s very disappointing.
“Since the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the First Amendment, Democrats have maintained their bill would ‘apply equally across the board’ to corporations, labor unions and advocacy organizations alike. Instead, they produced a bill full of loopholes designed to help their friends while silencing their political opponents. We in this House take an oath to ‘preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution.’ A vote for this bill violates that oath.”
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
This is not a situation created by the taxpayers, therefore the taxpayers should not foot the bill through federal assistance. It is a situation that requires the removal of federal interference and individual volunteerism and charity, which has been offered from around the world. The Gulf states have either failed to set aside the funds to deal with such crises, or refuse to use such funds, and have instead decided to put themselves at the federal government's mercy in exchange for that financial assistance.
Now these governors want to play on the public's emotions and put the blame on the feds and on BP? Sure, BP and the feds share the task of stopping the leak. This does not, however, remove the states from their responsibility of protecting their own shores from the aftermath and putting the feds in their place and it certainly does not give the feds a foot in the door to state business.
I think it is great that Gov. Jindal is trying to stop the devastation from hitting his shorelines, but he just simply does not go far enough. He has just enough dependency on the federal government to put himself, and his state, in a position of waiting on them if he wants their money. What happened to states rights, what happened to state sovereignty? What Gov. Jindal should be doing is putting the federal government in its place and that is in DC and stopping the leak and not in the clean up of the shores of Louisiana.
Obama has no power to stop any action Gov. Jindal deems necessary to control this devastation from hitting his shores, but what Gov. Jindal allows him to have. Environmental groups can shout loud as they wish and it does not give them any power over a state's decision, unless the governor and the people give it to them. My biggest question in all of this is why doesn't Louisiana, and many other shoreline states, have a state naval defense force? Why is the Coast Guard interfering in the waters off a sovereign state on behalf of a powerless president sticking his nose where it does not belong? Why are the people and the governor allowing such acts of aggression to occur against their own well being?
These are my opinions and not those of DR or Conservatism unless otherwise individually expressed, but in my opinion it is the failure of the governors of the affected states to take responsibility for the powers they have and willingly shirking their responsibilities in trade for federal money and control.
If these states would stop playing games and actually take responsibility for the clean up then we would see results. I point to the example and difference of how Louisiana and Mississippi handled Hurricane Katrina; the difference between the federal government and the state government taking control. Keep the feds out of the states' business and miracles can be worked.
The fact that Obama is an incompetent, little man of a president who isn't comfortable around the military is not shocking anyone. However it is the general's rules of engagement that are getting our men and women killed. He is every bit the failure that Obama is and now Gen. Petraeus has been picked simply because Obama know it gives him cover.
The right will never attack Gen. Petraeus who is a good man, but if he does not remove these ridiculous rules of engagement from around the necks of our armed forces he will not be successful either. Obviously the failure of leadership at all levels of our government and military are a detriment to our armed forces, but it also makes us look pathetic and weak on the world stage and invites challenge. How long until the next crisis comes.
As far as I can tell from their statements an employer is not required to fire everyone who must take leave before 12 months of employment, therefore an employer could use this ruling to discriminate against pregnant women; since men are incapable of getting pregnant this is discrimination against women.
The nonsense that an employer can fire a woman for taking an "unauthorized" break to express milk is also discrimination against women and families; since we have all seen the limitless breaks smokers get because for their addiction. Just because a woman cannot control when she must express does not mean she should be able to be fired. So is the court encouraging women to take up smoking now so she can go express milk for her child? Are they encouraging women to not breastfeed? Are they encouraging women to have an abortion to keep their job if they become pregnant early in their first year of employment? Sounds like house-of-horror material to me.
This court is obviously pro-abortion, anti-family, and now openly discriminatory against women. You cannot twist words in a manner that they appear to say something they do not and expect that the public is just going to swallow it without question. In this case the court is wrong and the citizens of Ohio should be outraged enough to replace them.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
A C-SPAN crew followed Representative Melancon as he toured areas affected by the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
h/t: Louisiana Now
You cannot have order if your own government encourages and helps foreigners to break your own laws. If an American breaks American laws they are held accountable in American courts so why is it that we are allowing a disgrace like this woman to encourage, help, and protect foreigners with no rights in this Republic to break our laws in confidentiality?
Every time we put up with this chaotic betrayal from our own government we lose another right and another level of our own standard of living. Are you going to wait until you are in the poorhouse to do anything about it? Don't make the mistake of thinking it won't affect you because by the time it does, it will be too late. Don't forget, they are called illegal because they have no right to be here and broke laws our government is supposed to enforce to get here; they are criminals.
“House Democrats are making history again, but for all the wrong reasons. Last
year they were responsible for adding $1.9 trillion to the national debt. This
year they won’t even propose an annual budget resolution, marking the first time
that has happened since the current budget rules were established in 1974. This
is an historic failure of leadership.
“House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
once said, ‘The most basic responsibility of governing’ is ‘enacting a budget.’
He now admits that his party, with its overwhelming majority in the House, will
shirk that responsibility this year. But that won’t stop Democrats from their
out of control spending. Through the first eight months of the current fiscal
year, the federal government amassed $935 billion in deficit spending.
“The American people are tired of the Democrats’ habit of taxing,
spending, and borrowing too much. Without a budget blueprint, those dangerous
trends will grow worse and will pile massive debt on our children and
By George Friedman
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle will brief French and Polish officials on a joint proposal for Russian-European “cooperation on security,” according to a statement from Westerwelle’s spokesman on Monday. The proposal emerged out of talks between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev earlier in June and is based on a draft Russia drew up in 2008. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will be present at the meeting. Peschke said, “We want to further elaborate and discuss it within the triangle [i.e., France, Germany and Poland] in the presence of the Russian foreign minister.”
On the surface, the proposal developed by Merkel and Medvedev appears primarily structural. It raises security discussions about specific trouble spots to the ministerial level rather than the ambassadorial level, with a committee being formed consisting of EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Russia’s foreign minister.
All of this seems rather mild until we consider three things. First, proposals for deepening the relationship between Russia and the European Union have been on the table for several years without much progress. Second, the Germans have taken this initiative at a time when German foreign policy is in a state of flux. And third, the decision to take this deal to France and Poland indicates that the Germans are extremely sensitive to the geopolitical issues involved, which are significant and complex.
Reconsidering Basic Strategy
The economic crisis in Europe has caused the Germans, among others, to reconsider their basic strategy. Ever since World War II, the Germans have pursued two national imperatives. The first was to maintain close relations with the French — along with the rest of Europe — to eliminate the threat of war. Germany had fought three wars with France since 1870, and its primary goal was not fighting another one. Its second goal was prosperity. Germany’s memory of the Great Depression plus its desire to avoid militarism made it obsessed with economic development and creating a society focused on prosperity. It saw the creation of an integrated economic structure in Europe as achieving both ends, tying Germany into an unbreakable relationship with France and at the same time creating a trading bloc that would ensure prosperity.
Events since the financial crisis of 2008 have shaken German confidence in the European Union as an instrument of prosperity, however. Until 2008, Europe had undergone an extraordinary period of prosperity, in which West Germany could simultaneously integrate with East Germany and maintain its long-term economic growth. The European Union appeared to be a miraculous machine that automatically generated prosperity and political stability alongside it.
After 2008, this perception changed, and the sense of insecurity accelerated with the current crisis in Greece and among the Mediterranean members of the European Union. The Germans found themselves underwriting what they regarded as Greek profligacy to protect the euro and the European economy. This not only generated significant opposition among the German public, it raised questions in the German government. The purpose of the European Union was to ensure German prosperity. If the future of Europe was Germany shoring up Europe — in other words, transferring wealth from Germany to Europe — then the rationale for European integration became problematic.
The Germans were certainly not prepared to abandon European integration, which had given Germany 65 years of peace. At the same time, the Germans were prepared to consider adjustments to the framework in which Europe was operating, particular from an economic standpoint. A Europe in which German prosperity is at risk from the budgeting practices of Greece needed adjustment.
The Pull of Russia
In looking at their real economic interests, the Germans were inevitably drawn to their relationship with Russia. Russia supplies Germany with nearly 40 percent of the natural gas Germany uses. Without Russian energy, Germany’s economy is in trouble. At the same time, Russia needs technology and expertise to develop its economy away from being simply an exporter of primary commodities. Moreover, the Germans already have thousands of enterprises that have invested in Russia. Finally, in the long run, Germany’s population is declining below the level needed to maintain its economy. It does not want to increase immigration into Germany because of fears of social instability. Russia’s population is also falling, but it still has surplus population relative to its economic needs and will continue to have one for quite a while. German investment in Russia allows Germany to get the labor it needs without resorting to immigration by moving production facilities east to Russia.
The Germans have been developing economic relations with Russia since before the Soviet collapse, but the Greek crisis forced them to reconsider their relationship with Russia. If the European Union was becoming a trap in which Germany was going to consistently subsidize the rest of Europe, and a self-contained economy is impossible, then another strategy would be needed. This consisted of two parts. The first was insisting on a restructuring of the European Union to protect Germany from the domestic policies of other countries. Second, if Europe was heading toward a long period of stagnation, then Germany, heavily dependent on exports and needing labor, needed to find an additional partner — if not a new one.
At the same time, a German-Russian alignment is a security issue as well as an economic issue. Between 1871 and 1941 there was a three-player game in continental Europe — France, Germany and Russia. The three shifted alliances with each other, with each shift increasing the chance of war. In 1871, Prussia was allied with Russia when it attacked France. In 1914, The French and Russians were allied against Germany. In 1940, Germany was allied with Russia when it attacked France. The three-player game played itself out in various ways with a constant outcome: war.
The last thing Berlin wants is to return to that dynamic. Instead, its hope is to integrate Russia into the European security system, or at least give it a sufficient stake in the European economic system that Russia does not seek to challenge the European security system. This immediately affects French relations with Russia. For Paris, partnership with Germany is the foundation of France’s security policy and economy. If Germany moves into a close security and economic relationship with Russia, France must calculate the effect this will have on France. There has never been a time when a tripartite alliance of France, Germany and Russia has worked because it has always left France as the junior partner. Therefore, it is vital for the Germans to present this not as a three-way relationship but as the inclusion of Russia into Europe, and to focus on security measures rather than economic measures. Nevertheless, the Germans have to be enormously careful in managing their relationship with France.
Even more delicate is the question of Poland. Poland is caught between Russia and Germany. Its history has been that of division between these two countries or conquest by one. This is a burning issue in the Polish psyche. A closer relationship between Germany and Russia inevitably will generate primordial fears of disaster in Poland.
Therefore, Wednesday’s meeting with the so-called triangular group is essential. Both the French and the Poles, and the Poles with great intensity, must understand what is happening. The issue is partly the extent to which this affects German commitments to the European Union, and the other part — crucial to Poland —is what this does to Germany’s NATO commitments.
The NATO Angle
It is noteworthy the Russians emphasized that what is happening poses no threat to NATO. Russia is trying to calm not only Poland, but also the United States. The problem, however, is this: If Germany and Europe have a security relationship that requires prior consultation and cooperation, then Russia inevitably has a hand in NATO. If the Russians oppose a NATO action, Germany and other European states will be faced with a choice between Russia and NATO.
To put it more bluntly, if Germany enters into a cooperative security arrangement with Russia (forgetting the rest of Europe for the moment), then how does it handle its relationship with the United States when the Russians and Americans are at loggerheads in countries like Georgia? The Germans and Russians both view the United States as constantly and inconveniently pressuring them both to take risks in areas where they feel they have no interest. NATO may not be functional in any real sense, but U.S. pressure is ever-present. The Germans and Russians acting together would be in a better position to deflect this pressure than standing alone.
Intriguingly, part of the German-Russian talks relate to a specific security matter — the issue of Moldova and Transdniestria. Moldova is a region between Romania and Ukraine (which adjoins Russia and has re-entered the Russian sphere of influence) that at various times has been part of both. It became independent after the collapse of communism, but Moldova’s eastern region, Transdniestria, broke away from Moldova under Russian sponsorship. Following a change in government in 2009, Moldova sees itself as pro-Western while Transdniestria is pro-Russian. The Russians have supported Transdniestria’s status as a breakaway area (and have troops stationed there), while Moldova has insisted on its return.
The memorandum between Merkel and Medvedev specifically pointed to the impact a joint security relationship might have on this dispute. The kind of solution that may be considered is unclear, but if the issue goes forward, the outcome will give the first indication of what a German-Russian security relationship will look like. The Poles will be particularly interested, as any effort in Moldova will automatically impact both Romania and Ukraine — two states key to determining Russian strength in the region. Whatever way the solution tilts will define the power relationship among the three.
It should be remembered that the Germans are proposing a Russian security relationship with Europe, not a Russian security relationship with Germany alone. At the same time, it should be remembered that it is the Germans taking the initiative to open the talks by unilaterally negotiating with the Russians and taking their agreements to other European countries. It is also important to note that they have not taken this to all the European countries but to France and Poland first — with French President Nicolas Sarkozy voicing his initial approval on June 19 — and equally important, that they have not publicly brought it to the United States. Nor is it clear what the Germans might do if the French and Poles reject the relationship, which is not inconceivable.
The Germans do not want to lose the European concept. At the same time, they are trying to redefine it more to their advantage. From the German point of view, bringing Russia into the relationship would help achieve this. But the Germans still have to explain what their relationship is with the rest of Europe, particularly their financial obligation to troubled economies in the eurozone. They also have to define their relationship to NATO, and more important, to the United States.
Like any country, Germany can have many things, but it can’t have everything. The idea that it will meld the European Union, NATO and Russia into one system of relationships without alienating at least some of their partners — some intensely — is naive. The Germans are not naive. They know that the Poles will be terrified and the French uneasy. The southern Europeans will feel increasingly abandoned as Germany focuses on the North European Plain. And the United States, watching Germany and Russia draw closer, will be seeing an alliance of enormous weight developing that might threaten its global interests.
With this proposal, the Germans are looking to change the game significantly. They are moving slowly and with plenty of room for retreat, but they are moving. It will be interesting to hear what the Poles and French say on Wednesday. Their public support should not be taken for anything more than not wanting to alienate the Germans or Russians until they have talked to the Americans. It will also be interesting to see what the Obama administration has to say about this.
Monday, June 21, 2010
This slow-bleed strategy is sucking the life blood out of our armed forces and our treasury is already depleted. Since we are unwilling to win the war, how much longer until we bring the troops home?
Good for Rep. King. Obama and his cronies clearly have their favorites. Just look at the unconstitutional hate crimes law they all support or the example Rep. King gives. The Republican Party needs to quit with this race farce. The Democrat Party has been using race for years to purposely build hatred and resentment toward white people. They need to be called out on it.
From the Chairman
In a republic such as ours, citizens expect their elected leaders to find solutions that work and take responsibility for their actions. Sadly, most Washington Democrats have proven themselves unable to live up to these simple expectations.
Consider the budget. Americans want Washington to stop spending trillions of dollars we do not have, but the Democrats’ only plan is to close their eyes, avoid a budget vote, and pretend the deficits are not real. Unfortunately, burying their heads in the sand will not make these deficits go away. That will take real leadership and a balanced budget like the one introduced by the RSC.
With unemployment still high, the lack of jobs remains a primary concern. Many employers who might otherwise be hiring have instead hunkered down under the Democrats’ onslaught of higher taxes, costly mandates, and growth-stymieing debt. Republicans want to lower obstacles to growth and job creation, but Democrats are too busy claiming their failed stimulus will foster a “recovery summer” – despite their previous assertions that the stimulus would “likely be contributing little to growth” by mid-2010.
And despite their massive majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats now plan to wait until after the November elections to try to pass their disastrous national energy tax. This lame duck strategy only makes sense if Democrats believe they would be defying the will of their constituents – which they would. Instead of underhanded tactics to create a policy for less energy, the country needs an “all-you-can-create” energy policy.
We need serious leadership in Washington that respects and listens to the American people.
Congressman Tom Price
Chairman, Republican Study Committee
RSC Media Activity – Republican Study Committee members work hard to ensure that the conservative viewpoint is well-represented in all corners of the media. Visit our Media Center for more.
· Rep. John Kline (MN-02): Promises Made, Promises Broken: The Consequences of ObamaCare; Big Government, June 16.
· Chairman Tom Price (GA-06): Stop Reckless Spending; The Hill, June 18.
· Rep. Eric Cantor (VA-07): It’s the Spending, Debt, Regulations, Tax Increases…; Richmond Times-Dispatch, June 20.
Outlook – Here is a preview of upcoming Democrat proposals to advance their big-government, anti-taxpayer agenda.
· The House schedule for this week remains unclear. The Democrat majority might bring up one, several, or none of the following bills: troop funding for Iraq/Afghanistan (with a state budget bailout and other unrelated spending tacked-on), the DISCLOSE Act, Iran Sanctions, and a 6-month “Doc-Fix” to delay a 21% cut in Medicare reimbursements.
· House Democrats recently decided to add a sixth week to the August-September recess, despite having failed to write a budget or address the need for private sector job creation.
House Floor Activity – The following key legislation came through the House of Representatives last week.
· The House passed H.R. 5297, a $33 billion bill that would extend the TARP bailout model to small business loans.
· Each week, the RSC Budget and Spending Taskforce compiles a weekly report on the latest budget and spending news. Additionally, the RSC Money Monitor tracks how bills passed by the House affect authorizations, mandatory spending, and federal government revenue.
CONTRIBUTE TO HER LIFE'S WORK
On August 26, the Catholic League will hold a rally in front of the Empire State Building to protest the decision not to honor Mother Teresa. That event is very much in keeping with the civil rights agenda of our organization. But as a Catholic entity, we also feel compelled to urge our supporters to make a contribution to groups which embody the principles which Mother Teresa fought for all her life.
Mother Teresa was a champion of the culture of life. Crisis Pregnancy Centers, which address women contemplating an abortion, are very much in keeping with her mission. So are programs like Project Rachel: they work with women who have had an abortion.
To find the name and address of these organizations in the tri-state area, click here. We urge everyone to make a donation to one or more of these groups; we have also listed Mother Teresa's order, the Missionaries of Charity, and an order of nuns dedicated to her work, the Sisters of Life.
Director of Communications
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
New York, NY 10123
This virtually assures that the assembly will be back in Republican hands after November. It also makes it easier for Conservatives to vote for Ziegelbauer who has a conservative voting record because he no longer will contribute to the Democrat majority.
I have dealt with Ziegelbauer many times, one thing that immediately comes across is how friendly and outgoing he is. I once emailed him on an issue only to have my phone ring seconds later. He was calling to answer directly. Needless to say, I was impressed. He is a man who understand that he works for the people instead of the people working for him.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
I pray that God blesses you greatly with health, happiness, and long life. You changed my life from the day we met in so many wonderful and blessed ways. You restored my belief in things like faith, dignity, selfworth, our Republic, and family. You have shown me what a Godly husband and father is and is capable of. He is capable of great things because he is lifted to great heights by his faith in God and the loyalty of his family and in return I and our family have basked in your love and protection and dwelled in the loving home you have provided. Because of you we are rich beyond Earthly treasure. You are the heart of this home and you deserve so much more than we could ever return in gratitude. If we can ask one thing of God it is that he rewards you with the long and proserous life you deserve.
Happy Father's Day sweetheart.
Your ever loving and loyal wife,
To all fathers I wish you a Happy Father's Day and may God bless you as greatly as he has us.