Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Schlafly: Health Care Vote Set to Expose the Myth of the 'Pro-Life Democrat'
One could think of our congresscritter Charlie Wilson when reading this. However, no one really believes he was ever pro-life. He just mouthed the words when we was running for congress.
Schlafly: Health Care Vote Set to Expose the Myth of the 'Pro-Life Democrat'
Schlafly: Health Care Vote Set to Expose the Myth of the 'Pro-Life Democrat'
Ohio Right to Life press release
Nine Ohio Members of Congress Vote for Pro-Abortion Health Care Bill
| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
| On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 219 to 212 to pass H.R. 3590, the pro-abortion Senate Health Care bill. Nine Ohio Members of Congress voted in favor of this pro-abortion bill - thus providing the votes necessary for its passage. They are: Steve Driehaus; Charlie Wilson; Marcy Kaptur; Dennis Kucinich; Marcia Fudge; Betty Sutton; Mary Jo Kilroy; John Boccieri; and Tim Ryan. Although President Obama agreed to issue an Executive Order supposedly preventing abortion funding under the bill in order to obtain the votes of some of these legislators, the Executive Order will not prevent the pro-abortion effects of the bill. As National Right to Life stated: "The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says." The view that the Executive Order will not correct the pro-abortion problems with the bill was also confirmed by legal experts consulted by the U.S. Catholic Conference and Americans United for Life. "It is particularly infuriating that some of the Ohio Representatives who voted for this bill purport to be pro-life," said Mike Gonidakis, Executive Director of Ohio Right to Life. "Whether they were duped by the executive order or merely trying to give themselves 'political cover,' all of these Ohio Members of Congress are responsible for the largest expansion of federal support for abortion since Roe v. Wade. Pro-lifers should repeatedly make clear to them that their vote for this pro-abortion bill was a huge political and moral mistake and will not be forgotten." Gonidakis said. Persons wishing to express their disappointment at their vote can contact these Representatives at the following numbers: John Bocceri (202) 225-3876 or (330) 489-4414 Steve Driehaus (202) 225-2216 or (513) 684-2723 Marcia Fudge (202) 225-7032 or (216) 522-4900 Marcy Kaptur (202) 225-4146 or (800) 964-4699 Dennis Kucinich (202) 225-5871 or (216) 228-8850 Mary Jo Kilroy (202) 225-2015 or (614) 294-2196 Tim Ryan (202) 225-5261 or (330) 740-0193 Betty Sutton (202) 225-3401 or (330) 865-8450 Charles Wilson (202) 225-5705 or (740) 633-5705 Sincerely, Ohio Right to Life |
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Ohio's new fence laws. Unintended consequences again.
Just read my latest copy of "The Ohio Woodland Journal".
There is a story (Is New Timber Trespass Legislation on the Horizon in Ohio) about State Representative Ross McGregor working on (among other issues) logging issues around people knowing where they are and whose property they are on when removing timber.
This brings me to the unintended consequences part:
We had a property line fence law in Ohio that worked for many years. It simply required one to establish a fence around your property. You and your neighbor shared in this cost. This forced us to know where our property lines were. It also forced neighbors to agree (one way or the other) where the property line was.
There was some complaining about the law. Mostly from folks that moved here from another state or folks that moved out of town into the rural areas of the state. One of the arguments against the old law was that it wasn't fair for someone that didn't own livestock to have to build a fence around their property.
My contention is and was that it is always fair when the rules apply to everyone and the rules are known before one purchases property that is affected by the rules.
One of the main problems with the old law was lack of enforcement. Having Township Trustees required to hold hearing on fence line disputes was a recipe for absolutely no action. They are too worried about getting reelected and keeping their OPERS to force the required actions of the law onto their neighbors.
One more reason Townships need abolished in Ohio. (seeds for another post)
Basically, the old line fence law said you shall build a fence. The new line fence law says you may build one if you wish. The new law (of course) has a very complicated set of rules.
So, back to Rep. McGregor and his Timber Trespass legislation.
Some of the fixes he suggested included requiring an expensive survey before any logging operations commence.
If we would have left our line fence law as it was, all we would have to do the address the logging trespass issue is to enforce the law.
Which leads me to continue to believe that our government spends a lot of time fixing the problems that they themselves cause by trying to fix another perceived problem....all without considering the untended consequences of their actions.
There is a story (Is New Timber Trespass Legislation on the Horizon in Ohio) about State Representative Ross McGregor working on (among other issues) logging issues around people knowing where they are and whose property they are on when removing timber.
This brings me to the unintended consequences part:
We had a property line fence law in Ohio that worked for many years. It simply required one to establish a fence around your property. You and your neighbor shared in this cost. This forced us to know where our property lines were. It also forced neighbors to agree (one way or the other) where the property line was.
There was some complaining about the law. Mostly from folks that moved here from another state or folks that moved out of town into the rural areas of the state. One of the arguments against the old law was that it wasn't fair for someone that didn't own livestock to have to build a fence around their property.
My contention is and was that it is always fair when the rules apply to everyone and the rules are known before one purchases property that is affected by the rules.
One of the main problems with the old law was lack of enforcement. Having Township Trustees required to hold hearing on fence line disputes was a recipe for absolutely no action. They are too worried about getting reelected and keeping their OPERS to force the required actions of the law onto their neighbors.
One more reason Townships need abolished in Ohio. (seeds for another post)
Basically, the old line fence law said you shall build a fence. The new line fence law says you may build one if you wish. The new law (of course) has a very complicated set of rules.
So, back to Rep. McGregor and his Timber Trespass legislation.
Some of the fixes he suggested included requiring an expensive survey before any logging operations commence.
If we would have left our line fence law as it was, all we would have to do the address the logging trespass issue is to enforce the law.
Which leads me to continue to believe that our government spends a lot of time fixing the problems that they themselves cause by trying to fix another perceived problem....all without considering the untended consequences of their actions.
Charlie Wilson: Who's to blame for this pro-abortion "health care bill"??
When he votes for this bill, he will "own it" just as much as barry does.
All he has to do is vote no. But he won't. He's tied at the hip with our embarrassment in chief to grow a back bone of his own and vote to protect his district from this monstrous, debt increasing, states rights infringing, baby killing bill.
Charlie Wilson is no "conservative pro-life democrat". He will vote exactly like Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.
He will be voting to use your tax money to kill babies. What has our country come to when our representative can justify killing innocent babies because he thinks this bill has some good things in it. I say "he thinks" because he hasn't read it. No one has had time to read it. Yet, he'll vote for it.
He is going to vote for a bill that is unconstitutional. No where is this allowed in the constitution. The 10th Amendment specifically denies it. He swore to uphold the constitution, yet he is going to lie to us with this one vote.
He is going to force young people to pay thousands for health insurance, even though this is one group that does not need it. It's a choice that needs left up to individuals, not government. Then if folks don't get insurance, they'll pay a fine. The fine will be small enough that many will just pay the fine rather than the thousands for the privilege of being in a government run health care system. Then, when these people that don't get insurance do get sick, they can just start paying premiums and get their sickness taken care of. No insurance will be able to deny them insurance due to the law (Wilson will vote for) which will not let people with "pre-existing" conditions be denied insurance. HMM... this is going to save money how???
I could go on. This can be summed up with this: Bad bill +
horrible representation = bad law.
All he has to do is vote no. But he won't. He's tied at the hip with our embarrassment in chief to grow a back bone of his own and vote to protect his district from this monstrous, debt increasing, states rights infringing, baby killing bill.
Charlie Wilson is no "conservative pro-life democrat". He will vote exactly like Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.
He will be voting to use your tax money to kill babies. What has our country come to when our representative can justify killing innocent babies because he thinks this bill has some good things in it. I say "he thinks" because he hasn't read it. No one has had time to read it. Yet, he'll vote for it.
He is going to vote for a bill that is unconstitutional. No where is this allowed in the constitution. The 10th Amendment specifically denies it. He swore to uphold the constitution, yet he is going to lie to us with this one vote.
He is going to force young people to pay thousands for health insurance, even though this is one group that does not need it. It's a choice that needs left up to individuals, not government. Then if folks don't get insurance, they'll pay a fine. The fine will be small enough that many will just pay the fine rather than the thousands for the privilege of being in a government run health care system. Then, when these people that don't get insurance do get sick, they can just start paying premiums and get their sickness taken care of. No insurance will be able to deny them insurance due to the law (Wilson will vote for) which will not let people with "pre-existing" conditions be denied insurance. HMM... this is going to save money how???
I could go on. This can be summed up with this: Bad bill +
horrible representation = bad law.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Media=Idiots / Idiots = Media
Here's an Associated "press" "story".
It's related to Idaho passing a bill directing their Attorney General to sue the Federal Government when / if "health care" is passed.
This is the sentence that really proves that the media have no clue about our government or our Constitution.
"Constitutional law experts say the move is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states."
Two thoughts:
It's related to Idaho passing a bill directing their Attorney General to sue the Federal Government when / if "health care" is passed.
This is the sentence that really proves that the media have no clue about our government or our Constitution.
"Constitutional law experts say the move is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states."
Two thoughts:
- You don't have to be a "constitutional law expert" (whatever that is) to know that the federal government only have specified (in the constitution) powers. If they are not specified in the constitution (see 10th amendment) they have no power over the states. (of course the states let themselves be rolled by the feds because the fed can print their own money and bride states to go along with dumb and totalitarian ideas.
- Anyone can hire an "expert" on any subject with any view point you want to pay for.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Ohio Congressman Charlie Wilson to vote for pro abortion "health care" bill
One has to assume this since he voted for the original House bill and is not on record of opposing the Senate's bill.
CNN does not have him listed as a "NO" vote.
The Senate bill will allow tax payer funded abortions. Apparently our Congressman Wilson thinks killing babies is OK?
CNN does not have him listed as a "NO" vote.
The Senate bill will allow tax payer funded abortions. Apparently our Congressman Wilson thinks killing babies is OK?
Monday, March 15, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
