tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post8928962373290474868..comments2024-03-23T05:55:29.759-04:00Comments on Bonsai from the Right: This Is The Republican Solutions To Health Care Reform And It Doesn't Cost Us A DimeChrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12905362327313044045noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-45798291888335458722009-11-27T16:26:38.002-05:002009-11-27T16:26:38.002-05:00Best way to fight Truth evidently is to IGNORE it,...Best way to fight Truth evidently is to IGNORE it, most the LIES involve BOTH Partys and there lies a LIBS Problem! Most still think Carter was a Great President and cant see the Forest for the Trees! Like Carter this Administration could be a One Termer.<br /><br /> Administration is moving FAST just to get as much of its Agenda in Place Prior to Elections in 2010 and MANY Democrats and a Couple Republicans will be Falling on their SWORDS for this Administration! Liar liar pants are on FIRE! WOWALnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-30886137202834992902009-11-25T18:07:50.567-05:002009-11-25T18:07:50.567-05:00al, no you are fine just the way you are, a follow...al, no you are fine just the way you are, a follower of the deceptiCONS. Your side lies about everything. I'd list them all but i gotta go buy some yellow cake Uranium now. Have a good day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-48004720993745437482009-11-25T14:35:33.315-05:002009-11-25T14:35:33.315-05:00#1 Lies and half TRUTHS Id have to be a LIB!
J...#1 Lies and half TRUTHS Id have to be a LIB!<br /><br /> Just cannot IMAGINE one SMALL group of people ,LIBS, so Very Frightened of ONE Person from ALASKA! They have to be Frightened cause the LIB dogs aint been HOME since Last year during the Campagin but then Again OBAMA is still Campaigning so MAYBE all LIBS are doing the SAME!<br /> Question to Joe What do ONE TERM PRESIDENTS do after 2012 Election,JUST wondering! I bet he could WRITE a BOOK and have all his PHOTO OPS in it!ALnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-62425287270179696012009-11-25T08:49:11.979-05:002009-11-25T08:49:11.979-05:00Al, this biggest screams i have heard about errors...Al, this biggest screams i have heard about errors come from Conservatives and republicans, like Steve Schmidt and the staff that handled Sarah during the campaign and the lady from Alasaka. Don't you get tired of repeating lies and half truths? The best part is that its just rightwing talking points. it even says it above the spot<br /><br />http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576163,00.html<br /><br />But alas, even if they did so what? She lied about so many things it might take eleven people ti find them all. Are you mad that she's a liar or that she got found out?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-71014166673508195012009-11-24T16:31:16.543-05:002009-11-24T16:31:16.543-05:00To Libs Sarah Palin is there WORST FEAR and one th...To Libs Sarah Palin is there WORST FEAR and one thing LIBS do is FEAR Truth! They released their DOGS last year and it will continue until 2012 for in their EYES" They have "Nothing to FEAR but the TRUTH itself"! Associated Press another State Run Out Let has 11 People Fact Checking Her Book for ERRORS!<br /> If ANY Media did this to LIB the DOGS would come a Howling to there door STEP!<br /> Libs have one MISSION with Palin and that sadly is to Destroy Her and her Family if NEEDED. That says VOLUMES for their Agenda and them Personally as CITIZENS!ALnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-30370617684666452522009-11-24T15:02:42.679-05:002009-11-24T15:02:42.679-05:00John I read something just like that on another we...John I read something just like that on another web site. They even gave referance to some racist sites that approve of the abortions and screaning of blacks in some diseases. They even questioned testing of heart disease and other diseases that kill people of color. Many black preachers are going sideways with many of the things in this bill. It sure does look like they are trying to cull the blacks and elderly.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12905362327313044045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-26721341929175386352009-11-24T14:56:53.505-05:002009-11-24T14:56:53.505-05:00Malik it's as if they want everyone to try and...Malik it's as if they want everyone to try and be gay or bisexual. Where will the next generation come from with the govt pushing the gay lifestyle so hard? That is why I send my kid to a Lutheran school. There they learn the golden rule instead of the liberal golden rule of do unto others before they do you.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12905362327313044045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-83731703174164413352009-11-24T14:53:07.096-05:002009-11-24T14:53:07.096-05:00Chris - You are right, the racist liberals are alr...Chris - You are right, the racist liberals are already trying to stamp out black women:<br /><br />Breast Cancer Guidelines' Impact On Black Women<br /><br />White women have higher breast cancer rates overall, but black women get the disease more often before age 40. They also tend to have more aggressive cancers and lower survival rates. That concerns Dr. Marisa Weiss, a Philadelphia oncologist. She tells host Guy Raz how the breast screening recommendations released this week by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force could have an especially rough impact on black women.<br /><br />RAZ: Dr. Weiss, you have publically expressed that you worry that these recommendations will have a devastating impact particularly on African American women. Why is that?<br /><br />Dr. WEISS: Yes. Well, because already, African American women experience this disease uniquely. They are more likely to get breast cancer under the age of 40. They are not using - utilizing the benefits of early detection as much as other women do. They have cancers that are more - tend to be more aggressive. For example, this cancer called triple-negative breast cancer. That's about two to three times more common in African American women and that comes with a much more aggressive, life threatening type of cancer.<br /><br />And so if these women, if they don't start getting their mammogram at age 40, then we will have missed the opportunity, I believe, to save their lives.<br /><br />RAZ: So what you're saying is that because African American women are at higher risk of developing breast cancer often under the age of 40 that the recommendations by the taskforce will be sending a message that they no longer should be screened until the age of 50, and that's the risk.<br /><br />Dr. WEISS: Yes. That's what I've been hearing this past week. We've seen a significant cancellation rate for mammograms at our hospital and...<br /><br />RAZ: Because women are basically saying: Well, I shouldn't do this until the age of 50.<br /><br />Dr. WEISS: That's right.<br /><br />Liberals. Formerly known as the KKK.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-45579531703942722792009-11-24T14:51:33.938-05:002009-11-24T14:51:33.938-05:00John these Democrats in office are nuts. They atta...John these Democrats in office are nuts. They attack Palin like she is Al Quida and the terrorist are treated like the protical son. We can't call a terrorist a terrorist any more but we can put our focus on the right wing when it comes to Homeland Sec. And now the Obama admin wants schools to teach about facial love between two boys and two girls and multiple partners. That is what you get when you put a sexual deviant in as the School Safty Czar.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12905362327313044045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-10237516365748126852009-11-24T14:45:44.353-05:002009-11-24T14:45:44.353-05:00Bonsai, what do you think about these sick pervert...Bonsai, what do you think about these sick perverted "progressives" (aka liberals)? This is just the kind of thing that all these liberal nutbags support.<br /><br />Progressive Leftists and the Wisdom of Twilight Fans<br /><br />A progressive leftist group called "Answer" is based at Rutgers University and is devoted to the cause of promoting teen promiscuity. "Answer" produces a magazine called "Sex, Etc" aimed at teenagers. It is distributed in public libraries over the objections of parents. Answer's websites includes a comic strip called "I Am Horny" about a frustrated bisexual girls as well as quizzes on orgasms and oral sex aimed at kids 12 and up.<br /><br />Answer justifies their cause by saying, “teens are responsible decision makers.”<br /><br />Consider that sentence for a moment. "Teens are responsible decision makers?" Really? Then, why is the drinking age 21? There's something severely detached from reality in people who believe that “teens are responsible decision makers,” but adults cannot be allowed to make their own health care decisions.<br /><br />Also, how is it liberals argue on the one hand, "Teens are going to have sex anyway, so we should accommodate them by giving them all the information they want," but on the other hand, "Smoking is harmful, and so we have to do everything possible to discourage teens from smoking." This includes making cigarettes difficult to obtain and severely restricting tobacco advertising. But birth control and pronography are freely available. (The American Library Association fought tooth-and-nail against pronography filters.) Are the health consequences of smoking worse than the consequences of STD's or unplanned pregnancies?<br /><br />Liberals use television and film to encourage politically correct attitudes on environmentalism, racial attitudes, animal rights, and whatever other cause is trendy. Many loftily claim that the got into the media business in order "to make people think," or even, "to change the world," because they think their words and images can create messages that affect behavior; they sell billions in advertising based on this theory. Yet, at the same time, they insist that saturating media with adolescent sexual imagery has no effect on teenage behavior. You're not allowed to depict a Muslim as a terrorist, or a black man as a criminal because they claim that imagery would affect people's attitudes. But they can show teenagers and twenty-somethings having promiscuous, consequence-free sex and claim it won't influence people's behavior.<br /><br />Because “teens are responsible decision makers.”<br /><br />Right.Maliknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-65391871307535724792009-11-24T14:44:13.678-05:002009-11-24T14:44:13.678-05:00Are you saying Obama,Pelosi and Reid haven't m...Are you saying Obama,Pelosi and Reid haven't made it worse not better? Yeh JoeC it's all Bush's fault. We are a country more divided then ever and you want to point out that Bush started it. So what Bush started it but it actually didn't start until Pelosi and Reid took over. But whatever you say JoeC.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12905362327313044045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-19314567353604115882009-11-24T14:41:04.339-05:002009-11-24T14:41:04.339-05:00Remember that census worker that was found hanging...Remember that census worker that was found hanging dead with Fed writen on him? Do you remember what those fools on the left said? They said it was proof that conservatives are dangerous and Americans should be afraid. Well it turns out he was a liberal nutjob trying to make it look like conservatives killed him so his family would get the insurance money. Bruce if I remember right you trumpeted the fake fear of conservatives. Once again proof that it is the left that we need to fear. G20 was full of left wing rioters and don't forget the liberal that distroyed Obama headquarters to make it look like we on the right did it. These liberals/Democrats will do anything to get what they want. How many protesters were beaten by these liberals/Democrats. I wouldn't put it past them to start killing people and putting Obama sucks on them. And we know they would do it to an African-American because of their racism towards blacks.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12905362327313044045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-37317893258048943492009-11-24T14:39:12.626-05:002009-11-24T14:39:12.626-05:00Chris, sorry but you can't have the grand cany...Chris, sorry but you can't have the grand canyon of american rifts during the last admin and suggest that Obama has done it. If anything the right has maintained its nasty partisanship that began with Shrub.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-5324075007540773182009-11-24T14:38:43.546-05:002009-11-24T14:38:43.546-05:00Malik - Great post, I think you about covered all ...Malik - Great post, I think you about covered all of Bruce's talking-point lies with those! Of course there are uncountable more lies told by Whoresain Obama, but I guess those 5 are some of the top ones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-47190322663951954962009-11-24T14:36:55.924-05:002009-11-24T14:36:55.924-05:00Chris - Get a load of the head whore, trying to li...Chris - Get a load of the head whore, trying to line his pockets by using the left's fear of, of all people, PALIN against them!! ROFLMAO, why are the libertards SO afraid of Palin!!!! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA... and Barack WHOREsain Obama is still campaigning; doesn't this whore have a country to run or something!?<br /><br /><br /><br />Chairman Zero Tries to Raise $500,000 to Attack Sarah Palin<br /><br />Posted by Van Helsing at November 24, 2009 7:29 AM<br /><br />As deficits and entitlement spending suck our country down the drain into economic ruin, Chairman Zero is busily trying to raise money — for attacks on Sarah Palin. Matthew Cook reports from his in-box:<br /><br />Another e-mail from info@barackobama.com hit my inbox yesterday. The subject: Sarah Palin.<br />It begins: "Right now, Sarah Palin is on a highly publicized, nationwide book tour, attacking President Obama and his plan for health reform at every turn."<br /><br />The mail goes on to say "It's dangerous. Remember, this is the person who coined the term "Death Panels" — and opened the flood gates for months of false attacks by special interests and partisan extremists."<br />"Whatever lie comes next will be widely covered by the media, then constantly echoed by right-wing attack groups and others who are trying to defeat reform [i.e., government seizure]."<br /><br />"So we're setting a big goal: $500,000 in the next week to help push back against Sarah Palin and her allies… We need to be prepared. And we're counting on you help."<br /><br />Sarah Palin and her nefarious allies must be stopped before they can prevent Obama et al. from nationalizing the healthcare industry, the astronomical cost of which ought to seal the deal on their Cloward-Piven economic strategy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-40033879758011914912009-11-24T14:18:21.661-05:002009-11-24T14:18:21.661-05:00Common sense is something few Democrats in Washing...Common sense is something few Democrats in Washington have Now as Malik said there are a lot of lies. Obama has fractured this nation like no president before him. An with Pelosi and Reid in the mix we are lucky there isn't a larger revolution then we already have.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12905362327313044045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-51899340219907651782009-11-24T13:59:25.201-05:002009-11-24T13:59:25.201-05:00Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationin...Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationing.<br /><br />Obama has been insisting, including during his ABC Town Hall event last week, that the rationing patients would face under a government-run system wouldn't be any more draconian than what they currently confront under private plans. This is complete nonsense.<br /><br />The left has been trying to address fears of rationing by trotting out an old and tired trope, namely, that rationing is an inescapable fact of life because every system rations whether by price or fiat. But there is a big difference between the two. If I can't afford caviar and champagne every night, any rationing involved is metaphoric, not real. Genuine rationing occurs when someone else controls access--how much of a particular good I can consume.<br /><br />By that token, Obama's stimulus bill has set in motion rationing on a scale unimaginable in the land of the free. Indeed, the bill commits over $1 billion to conduct comparative effectiveness research that will evaluate the relative merits of various treatments. That in itself wouldn't be so objectionable--if it weren't for the fact that a board will then "direct financing" toward approved, standardized treatments. In short, doctors will find it much harder to prescribe newer or non-standard treatments not yet deemed effective by health care bureaucrats. This is exactly along the lines of the British system, where breast cancer patients were denied Herceptin, a new miracle drug, until enraged women fought back. Even the much-vilified managed care plans would appear to be a paragon of generosity in comparison with this.<br /><br />Obama has repeatedly asked for honesty in the health care debate. It is high time he started showing some.Maliknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-316226828450858362009-11-24T13:58:17.557-05:002009-11-24T13:58:17.557-05:00Lie Four: A public plan won't be a Trojan hors...Lie Four: A public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly.<br /><br />Obama has repeatedly claimed that forcing private plans to compete with a public plan will simply "keep them honest" and give patients more options--not lead to a full-blown, Canadian-style, single-payer monopoly. As I argued in my previous column, this is wishful thinking given that government programs such as Medicare have a history of controlling costs by underpaying providers, who make up the losses by charging private plans more. Any public plan modeled after Medicare will greatly increase this forced subsidy, eventually driving private plans out of business, even if that weren't Obama's intention.<br /><br />But, as it turns out, it very much is his intention. Before he decided to run for office--and even during the initial days of his campaign--Obama repeatedly said that he was in favor of a single-payer system. What's more, University of California, Berkeley Professor Jacob Hacker, who is a key influence on the Obama administration, is on tape explicitly boasting that a public plan is a means for creating a single-payer system. "It's not a Trojan horse," he quips, "it's just right there."<br /><br />But even if Obama wanted to, it is simply impossible to design a public plan that could compete with private insurers on a level playing field and without "feeding off the public trough" as Obama claims.<br /><br />At the very least, such a plan would always carry an implicit government guarantee that, should it go bust, no one in the plan would lose coverage. This guarantee would artificially lower the plan's capital reserve requirements, giving it an unfair edge over private plans. What's more, it is simply not plausible to expect that the plan wouldn't receive any start-up subsidies or use the government's muscle to negotiate lower rates with providers. If it eschewed all these things, there would be no reason for it to exist--because it would be just like any other private plan.Maliknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-74366106631943836512009-11-24T13:57:07.350-05:002009-11-24T13:57:07.350-05:00Lie Three: Government can control rising health ca...Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than the private sector.<br /><br />Ignoring the reality that Medicare--the government-funded program for the elderly--has put the country on the path to fiscal ruin, Obama wants to model a government insurance plan--the so-called "public option"--after Medicare in order to control the country's rising health care costs. Why? Because, he repeatedly claims, Medicare has far lower administrative costs and overhead than private plans--to wit, 3% for Medicare compared to 10% to 20% for private plans. Hence, he says, subjecting private plans to competition against an entity delivering such superior efficiency will release health care dollars for universal coverage.<br /><br />But lower administrative costs do not necessarily mean greater efficiency. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office analysis last year chastised Medicare's lax attitude on this front. "The traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but may raise its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach," it noted on page 93.<br /><br />In short, extending the Medicare model will further ruin--not improve--even the functioning aspects of private plans.Maliknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-46880835524399948032009-11-24T13:53:03.105-05:002009-11-24T13:53:03.105-05:00Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.
Obama...Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.<br /><br />Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, to the mat for suggesting that it might be better to remove the existing health care tax break that individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage, but return the vast bulk--if not all--of the resulting revenues in the form of health care tax credits. This would theoretically have made coverage both more affordable and portable for everyone. Obama, however, would have none of it, portraying this idea simply as the removal of a tax break. "For the first time in history, he wants to tax your health benefits," he thundered. "Apparently, Sen. McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too."<br /><br />Yet now Obama is signaling his willingness to go along with a far worse scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the $1.6 trillion or so it will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama's allegations, McCain's plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase because he intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised by scrapping the tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told Sen. Baucus that he would consider the senator's plan for rolling back the tax exclusion that expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored plans enjoy, in order to pay for universal coverage. But, unlike McCain, he has said nothing about putting offsetting deductions or credits in the hands of individuals.<br /><br />In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out to do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time in history.Maliknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-74395167093788714422009-11-24T13:52:08.491-05:002009-11-24T13:52:08.491-05:00Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies
Shikha Dalmi...Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies<br />Shikha Dalmia, 07.01.09<br /><br />President Barack Obama walked into the Oval Office with a veritable halo over his head. In the eyes of his backers, he could say or do no wrong because he had evidently descended directly from heaven to return celestial order to our fallen world. Oprah declared his tongue to be "dipped in the unvarnished truth." Newsweek editor Evan Thomas averred that Obama "stands above the country and above the world as a sort of a God."<br /><br />But when it comes to health care reform, with every passing day, Obama seems less God and more demagogue, uttering not transcendental truths, but bald-faced lies. Here are the top five lies that His Awesomeness has told--the first two for no reason other than to get elected and the next three to sell socialized medicine to a wary nation.<br /><br />Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.<br /><br />During the campaign, Obama insisted that he would not resort to an individual mandate to achieve universal coverage. In fact, he repeatedly ripped Hillary Clinton's plan for proposing one. "To force people to buy coverage," he insisted, "you've got to have a very harsh penalty." What will this penalty be, he demanded? "Are you going to garnish their wages?" he asked Hillary in one debate.<br /><br />Yet now, Obama is behaving as if he said never a hostile word about the mandate. Earlier this month, in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he blithely declared that he was all for "making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and making employers share in the cost."<br /><br />But just like Hillary, he is refusing to say precisely what he will do to those who want to forgo insurance. There is a name for such a health care approach: It is called TonySopranoCare.Maliknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-4382197304663104282009-11-24T13:50:17.232-05:002009-11-24T13:50:17.232-05:00Social Security Lies
by Walter Williams (Novembe...Social Security Lies<br /><br />by Walter Williams (November 5, 2000)<br /><br />Here's what the 1936 government pamphlet on Social Security said: "After the first 3 years -- that is to say, beginning in 1940 -- you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. ... Beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. ... And finally, beginning in 1949, 12 years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year."<br /><br />Here's Congress' lying promise: "That is the most you will ever pay."<br /><br />Having read the government pamphlet, I consulted Webster's Dictionary. The definition for the word ever contains descriptions like: "at all times," "always" and "at any time." Had Congress lived up to its promise, our maximum Social Security tax this year would be $90 instead of over $6,000. The Social Security Act of 1935 would have never been enacted had Americans back then known that we'd be subject to a $6,000 tax.<br /><br />Another lie in the Social Security pamphlet is, "Beginning Nov. 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. ... The checks will come to you as a right." Americans were led to believe Social Security was like a retirement account and money placed in it was our property. President Clinton, Vice President Gore and their sycophants want you to continue to believe that. The fact of the matter is you have no property right whatsoever to your Social Security "contributions."Matthewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-42253294750011258452009-11-24T13:44:55.976-05:002009-11-24T13:44:55.976-05:00This whole Health Care Bill is about ONE thing Mor...This whole Health Care Bill is about ONE thing More GOVERNMENT POWER Period!<br /><br />Why else would you Start a Completely NEW Program with 1900 pages of "there fores" which down the ROAD will POP up and bite FREE CITIZENS in the ASS! Its like DOG poop you may not see it BUT you can Smell it!<br /><br />The Medicare/Medicade Programs that Bruce takes Credit for are Trillions in DEBT. One would think the way to FIXING Health Care would be to ADJUST what we have. Sen. Boehner stated very CLEARLY what could be done to start the FIXING so Why would this Administration take such a STAND on this TRILLIONS of Dollar Program and it may not work down the road which is what these Socialist I beleive are hoping for.<br /><br /> The Economy should have been the FIRST thing that this Administration Tackled and my QUESTION is WHY havent they and where are they GOING! I thin they want OUR Economy to Fail,what other EXPLANATION can there BE! You dont have to be Econamist to figure out that without a STRONG Economy and JOBS all this is just SMOKE and MIRRORS ! Power/Control Cradle to Grave Government Control Period!<br /> Voter please VOTE for Canadates who put COUNTRY FIRST not Party AGENDAS!ALnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-35808188271944998362009-11-24T13:34:15.244-05:002009-11-24T13:34:15.244-05:00This bill looks like someone with common sense wro...This bill looks like someone with common sense wrote it! Good thoughts here!Marihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06289456727508305342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7705675907060089073.post-22315549159011799032009-11-24T12:55:03.993-05:002009-11-24T12:55:03.993-05:00The union bosses are counting on their handpicked ...The union bosses are counting on their handpicked leaders -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- to deliver.<br /><br />What Big Labor wants is simple but frightening: monopoly control over every public safety worker in the country.<br /><br />And now, with control of the White House to go along with large majorities in Congress, the union bosses believe their time has come.<br /><br />It’s up to you and me to make sure they don’t get their way.<br /><br />That’s why it’s vital you sign our petition to your Congressman and Senators IMMEDIATELY.<br /><br />I'll give you the link in just a moment, but first I want you to understand how serious this situation is.<br /><br />You see, Big Labor’s politicians in Washington are primed and ready to ram the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill (H.R. 413) through Congress NOW.<br /><br />In fact, the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill has already been introduced, and could come up for a vote within weeks.<br /><br />As you know, the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill is designed to FORCE every firefighter and police officer in the country under union boss control -- and is just the first step toward forcing ALL state and local public employees under Big Labor’s thumb.<br /><br />The truth is, passage of this Big Labor power grab would mean: <br /><br />*** State and local governments -- who are already experiencing budget shortfalls during these troubled economic times -- will be forced to pay the salaries and perks of union bosses. <br /><br />In the Post Office alone, taxpayers have been forced to fund over 1.75 million hours of union organizing. <br />*** Small communities that depend on volunteer police and firefighters for their safety will be forced to do without them.<br /><br />Or communities will have to deal with mammoth tax hikes to pay for union boss-controlled public safety workers. <br />*** The Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill will do nothing to stop crime or make our communities safer. <br /><br />On the contrary, forcing police and firefighters under the control of power-mad union bosses tends to drive many of the best men and women out of their jobs.<br />Big Labor’s dangerous scheme is designed to impose union monopoly bargaining on all state, county and local public safety workers.<br /><br />That means that no matter what your state and local officials say, every police officer and firefighter in every town and city in the whole country will ultimately be handed over to union boss control.<br /><br />And if your town won’t go along with that, the Federal Government will step in and turn over your first responders to Big Labor anyway.<br /><br />And, of course, history shows us, police and firefighter monopoly bargaining has all too often led to strikes.<br /><br />Violent. Destructive.<br /><br />Bloody.<br /><br />This legislation would pit honest taxpayers like you against the very people you count on to protect you.<br /><br />When your police are ordered out on strike, who will defend your home and loved ones?<br /><br />When union militants set up picket lines around fire stations, who will put out the fires?<br /><br />That’s why it’s vital you act TODAY!<br /><br />The fact is, especially during these troubled economic times, passage of the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill is the LAST thing we need.<br /><br />Just take a look at California for the results of this madness.<br /><br />Last year, the City of Vallejo went bankrupt after nearly 75% of its budget was spent on unionized police and firefighters!<br /><br />And today, despite a $26 billion state budget deficit, out-of-control public sector union bosses aren’t shouldering cuts or taking blame for the problems they’ve caused -- they’re threatening strikes!<br /><br />In other states where union bosses have been granted monopoly bargaining privileges over public sector workers, we’re seeing the exact same thing.Local 228noreply@blogger.com