121 Reasons to Reject Obamacare

From Christmas to January 15th, call your Congressman and tell him you are opposed to the Obamacare bill and you want him/her to vote NO.  Tell him why.  If you aren't sure why, here are 121 reasons you can use:


121 Reasons to Reject Obama-Reid-PelosiCare

We Have Just Begun To Fight!

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here

We Have Just Begun To Fight! December 24, 2009

Dear Gary, The U. S. Senate passed two bills this week, both of which will significantly reduce your freedom and one which will drastically remake the America we have known. The Senate, in a strictly partisan vote in which all Republicans voted NO, raised the national debt ceiling by $290 BILLION.  The National Debt ceiling was $12.1 TRILLION.  That means more taxes will be necessary to cover the interest payments on the increased debt. The other bill, also passed only by Democrats (and two independents) was a healthcare bill that is estimated to cost at least $1.2 TRILLION over the next 10 years.  Since you can always be pretty safe multiplying original government estimates by the power of three, it is likely the healthcare program, in its present form, will cost well in excess of $3 TRILLION.  In order to sustain that kind of expenditure, taxes will have to be greatly increased on all Americans.  The bribery, arm-twisting, special favors, threats and intimidation of each Democrat Senator by their party leaders to get the bill passed were unprecedented in American legislative history. Both of these bills are now Democrat Party bills.  When the public wakes up to the harsh reality of the adverse affect of these bills it will have only the Democrats to blame.

THE FIGHT IS NOT OVER Do not despair yet. Despair is as premature as is the victory that the Democrats claim. Let the Democrats do their victory lap.  The bill now goes back to the House for reconciliation with the Senate version.  Remember how close the House vote was.  If three Democrats had voted no instead of yes, the bill would have been defeated in the House. Congressmen now will have the chance to reconsider their initial vote.  There is a strong likelihood that some of the "yes" votes the first time around might switch their votes.  The pro-life Democrats won't like the Senate version.  Other Congressman may be reading the polls and decide they don't want to be on the wrong side of public opinion.  Others may have heard a lot of anger from constituents.  We have a chance to kill the bill in the House.  If we can get three previous "yes" votes to the other column, and if all previous "no" votes hold their position, the bill gets defeated. We cannot give up.  We must now resolve, more than ever, to fight.  I can't think of more appropriate quotes at this time than these from Winston Churchill. "We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." and this one: Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never--in nothing, great or small, large or petty--never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. COURSE OF ACTION BETWEEN NOW AND MID-JANUARY Congress is now on vacation until mid-January.  Here is what needs to be done between now and then.  Your Congressman will most likely be in the district for the next few weeks.  Let him or her know how you feel.  You should, every day, send faxes, make phone calls, write letters to your Congressman.  Let him hear from you.  Let him know that passing this bill is not in the best interests of his constituents, the country or of his re-election.  Go to his local district office where you live.  Organize demonstrations at his office. (Note: for the feminists and gender equality warriors among you, I am following the timeless tradition of using the masculine form to include both masculine and feminine genders) Organize Tea Parties. Write letters to the editor.  Write articles on Facebook.  Write blog articles.  Tweet. Discuss with your neighbors.  Speak up at your book clubs and bridge clubs.  Do not be silent.  Let us make our voices heard. We now have three weeks to get our opinions out and to lobby Congressmen. We can turn some votes.  Let your Congressman know that it will take great hubris, unmitigated arrogance and complete disregard for public opinion for him to vote this bill in. If there was ever a time for action, now is the time. THE MEDIA AND TALKING POINTS We have allowed the left and its media lapdogs to frame the argument and to label Republicans as "obstructionists who don't want healthcare reform."  I have seen Republican Senators go on talking head programs and allow the host to make Republicans seem like they are opposed to healthcare reform and are opposed to seeing the uninsured get healthcare coverage. I don't understand why our representatives don't say that Republicans are NOT opposed to healthcare reform.  There have been several Republican proposals to reform the healthcare delivery system in a way that will not involve the government and which will be considerably less costly than the Democrat plan.  Further, this bill has nothing to do with reforming healthcare coverage.  Don't let anyone tell you it is.  It is all about enabling the government to take control of the healthcare system in America.  The healthcare system represents about 17% of the gross national product of the country.  If Democrats can gain control of that segment of the economy they will be well on their way to controlling the entire economy of this country.  That is what this is all about.  It is about controlling people and controlling the economy.  Government control of the economy is something the Democrats have been after for decades. The passage of the Democrat "healthcare" bill will result in a few more people getting insurance coverage, but the rest of us will pay dearly in higher insurance premiums, higher co-pays, much higher taxes, and rationed medical coverage.  It would actually be much less expensive to just have the government give those who are uninsured and want insurance a voucher to enable them to buy the insurance.  But, that won't accomplish what the Democrats want.  It isn't about the uninsured.  It is about control. By the way, does it make a difference if your medical insurance premium is somewhat lower but you have to pay much more in taxes as a result?  An unintended consequence of the bill will be the reduction of incentive to innovate in the medical profession.  There are many physicians and health care providers who intend to retire if the bill passes.  Incidentally, have you asked your doctor if he supports it? There is an article in the Wall Street Journal today titled, "What Doctors and Patients Have to Lose Under ObamaCare - Changes to Medicare will give the Feds control of surgical decisions."  It outlines how the government will now be between the patient and his doctor.  Is that a desired result? There is much more in the article that describes how the practice of medicine in this country will be forever changed and how that will result in a lowering of the quality of medical care for Americans in the future.  About the "Healthcare" Bill For those of you who might think that healthcare insurance reform is a good thing, as I do, should know that this bill does not do that.  If you want to know more about the healthcare bill I am including several links to articles that will give you information. Go to The Heritage Foundation where you will find many informative  and specific articles about the ObamaCare bill. Another good place to get information is Docs4patientcare.org. Having read a lot about the bill, and much of the bill itself, I can tell you that the result of the passage of the bill will be: a) Higher taxes, increasing every year that the program is in effect. b) Eventually higher insurance premiums c) A reduction in the number of doctors d) A lessening of the quality of medical care in this country. e) A rationing of medical care, particularly to seniors. f) A reduction in medical care innovation, and new pharmaceutical innovation. g) The imposition of a value-add tax in addition to the income tax h) A significant change in the role of government in this country i)  Unsustainable national deficits that will devalue the dollar and cause hyperinflation, creating additional economic hardship on American citizens. j)   A reduction in personal freedom in the United States There will be many more adverse affects of this bill, some not even considered yet.   One important one is the question of how many illegal immigrants will be covered under the plan and what will the effect of that be on the planned expenditures?  The CBO has not even considered that cost in their estimates.  Since we don't really know how many millions of illegal aliens are in the country, it is impossible at this time to estimate the effect on the new healthcare expenditure budget. We must do what we can to get this bill defeated in the House.  We cannot let the Marxists in the Democrat Party take over and change forever our beloved America.

Passage of the Obamacare bill benefits no one except those Senators and Congressmen who got massive payoffs and bribes for their vote with taxpayer money. Call, write and pester your Congressmen.  We just have to convince a handful of Congressmen to vote no.  We can do it, if we are persistent and don't falter.  Let's head to victory in 2010.  Victory means defeating the Democrat's Obamacare bill in the House, and getting conservatives elected to Congress and the Senate so that the Democrats aren't, any longer, in a position to be able to pass odious legislation that expands the role of government despite Republican and public opposition. Sincerely, Gary Aminoff President San Fernando Valley Republican Club www.sfvrc.org

Peace or appeasement?

Construction freeze in Judea and Samaria based on erroneous assumptions

.

By Yoram Ettinger

1. A freeze will not soften – but will intensify - President Obama's criticism of "settlements" in particular and Israeli policy in general. For instance, Prime Minister Netanyahu's June 14, 2009 Two-State-Solution-speech triggered exacerbated pressure by Obama. Moreover, Netanyahu's willingness to exchange hundreds of Palestinian terrorists for Gilad Shalit was followed by US pressure to release more terrorists.

2. A freeze will not moderate – but will whet the appetite of - the PLO (Abbas) or Hamas (Haniyeh); it will radicalize their demands and fuel their terrorism. Former Prime Minister Barak's sweeping concessions, offered to Arafat and Abbas in October 2000, were greeted by the PLO-engineered Second Intifada. Furthermore, Prime Minister Olmert's unprecedented offer of concessions (including the return of some 1948 refugees) was rebuffed by Abbas.

3. A freeze re-entrenches the misperception of Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria as an obstacle to peace. It diverts attention and resources from the crucial threat to peace: Abbas-engineered hate education - the manufacturing line of terrorists - and Arab rejection of the existence – and not just the size – of the Jewish state.

4. A freeze and the adherence to presidential dictate will not transform the White House position on Iran-related matters. Besides, a freeze and the adherence to presidential dictate do not constitute a prerequisite to maintaining constructive strategic relations with the US (e.g. supply of critical military systems and crucial strategic cooperation). In fact, a freeze and a serial submission to presidential pressure – just like any other form of retreat - erode Israel's strategic posture in Washington and in the Middle East. Such an attitude ignores the role and power of Congress – especially when it comes to the Jewish state - at the dire expense of Israel's national security.

Is Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria an/the obstacle to peace?

1. In September 2005, Israel uprooted 25 Jewish communities from Gaza and Samaria. Gaza became Judenrein. It paved the road to the meteoric rise of Hamas, and induced more smuggling, manufacturing and launching of missiles at Jewish communities in Southern Israel.

2. President Obama defines Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria as a root cause of Arab hostility toward Israel. However, Jewish communities were established in Judea and Samaria after the wars of 1967, 1956 and 1948, after the 1949-1967 campaign of Arab terrorism, after the 1964 establishment of the PLO, after the 1929 slaughter of the Hebron Jewish community and the 1929 expulsion of the Gaza Jewish community, after the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s slaughter of the Jewish community of Gush Etzion, etc.

3. President Obama considers the 300,000 Jews (17%), who reside among Judea and Samaria's 1.5 million Arabs, an obstacle to peace. Why would he, then, view the 1.4 million Arabs (20%), who reside among pre-1967 Israel's 6 million Jews, as an example of peaceful coexistence?!

4. Obama urges the uprooting of Jewish communities from Judea and Samaria, in order to supposedly advance peace and human rights. Would he, therefore, urge the uprooting of Arab communities from pre-1967 Israel?!

5. Since Obama tolerates Arab opposition to Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria would he tolerate Jewish opposition to Arab presence in pre-1967 Israel?! While any attempt by Jews to reside in Palestinian Authority-controlled areas would trigger a lynching attempt, Arabs have peacefully resided within pre-1967 Israel. Doesn't such a reality highlight the nature of Arab intentions and the real obstacle to peace?!

6. Obama pressures Israel to freeze Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, in order to avoid unilateral creation of facts on the ground. Shouldn't Obama demand a similar freeze of Arab construction in Judea and Samaria, which is 30 times larger than Jewish construction?! Doesn't the absence of a balanced approach, by Obama, prejudge of the outcome of negotiation?!

7. The 1950-67 Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria was recognized only by Britain and Pakistan. The most recent internationally-recognized sovereign over Judea and Samaria was the League of Nations-authorized 1922 British Mandate, which defined Judea and Samaria as part of the Jewish National Home, the cradle of Jewish history. Article 6 of the Mandate indicates the right of Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria. Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, determined that Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria was rooted in self-defense and therefore did not constitute "occupation." Eugene Rostow, former Dean of Yale Law School and former Undersecretary of State and co-author of UN Security Council Resolution 242, asserted that 242 entitled Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria. The Oslo Accord and its derivatives do not prohibit "settlements." Moreover, Israel has constrained construction to state-owned – and not private – land, avoiding expulsion of Arabs landowners.

Freeze of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria is not a peace-enhancer; it is an appeasement-enhancer