The successor to politics will be propaganda. Propaganda, not in the sense of a message or ideology, but as the impact of the whole technology of the times.*
Weekly Republican Address Ron Johnson 11/16/13 FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT VIDEO
Weekly Republican Address Bill Johnson 03/15/14 FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT PODCAST VIDEO - WASHINGTON, DC – Delivering the Weekly Republican Address, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) calls on President Obama to address the devastating impact his health care law is having on the nation’s seniors, who – despite his promises – are paying higher premiums and losing access to their doctors.
"Good morning. My name is Bill Johnson, and I’m proud to represent Eastern and Southeastern Ohio in the House of Representatives."
Republican Address to the Nation State of the Union LIVE VIDEO
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 Full Text and Analysis
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 Full Text and Analysis -
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Senate Budget Committee chairman Patty Murray (D-WA) and House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) announced that they have reached a two-year budget agreement in advance of the budget conference’s December 13th deadline.
“I’m proud of this agreement,” said Chairman Ryan. “It reduces the deficit—without raising taxes. And it cuts spending in a smarter way. It’s a firm step in the right direction, and I ask all my colleagues in the House to support it.”
Carly Fiorina Weekly Republican Address 12/05/09 VIDEO FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT
Remarks by Carly Fiorina, California Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, as provided by the Senate Republican Communications Center.
Hello. This is Carly Fiorina. And today I’d like to speak to you as one of the more than two and a half million women in America who have been diagnosed with breast cancer — and beaten it.
Like everyone else who’s diagnosed with cancer, I never thought it would happen to me. I was fit, healthy, and active. I even got regular check-ups. But earlier this year, just two weeks after a clear mammogram, I discovered a lump through a self-exam. Soon after that came the diagnosis, the surgery, the long and difficult treatment regimen, and the painful experience of wondering whether I would make it, whether I’d pull through.
I’m fortunate to live near one of the greatest cancer centers in the world. I’m fortunate to have the incredible love and support of family and friends.
And, my diagnosis gave me time to think about my future — because one of the things that happens when you have to face your fears, including the fear of dying, is that you can face your future with renewed hope and enthusiasm. My doctors tell me I have won my battle with cancer. And I realize that this makes me one of the lucky ones. Last year alone, more than 40,000 Americans died from breast cancer. Aside from lung cancer, breast cancer is the most fatal form of cancer for American women. Nearly 200,000 new cases were reported last year alone.
That’s why a recent recommendation on mammograms by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government-run panel of health care professionals that makes recommendations on prevention, struck such a nerve.
The task force did not include an oncologist or a radiologist, in other words, cancer experts did not develop this recommendation. They said that most women under 50 don’t need regular mammograms and that women over 50 should only get them every other year. And yet we all know that the chances of surviving cancer are greater the earlier it’s detected. If I’d followed this new recommendation and waited another two years, I’m not sure I’d be alive today. What’s more this task force was explicitly asked to focus on costs, not just prevention. As it turned out, costs were a significant factor in this recommendation. Will a bureaucrat determine that my life isn't worth saving?
All this takes on even greater urgency in the midst of the ongoing health care debate in Washington. We wonder if we are heading down a path where the federal government will at first suggest and then mandate new standards for prevention and treatment. Do we really want government bureaucrats rather than doctors dictating how we prevent and treat something like breast cancer?
The response we’ve gotten to these questions has been less than encouraging. In the face of a national outcry over the recent task force recommendations, the Secretary of Health and Human Services said the Preventive Services Task Force doesn’t set federal policy. The real question, though, is whether bodies like this would set policy under the $2.5 trillion, 2,074-page plan that’s now making its way through Congress?
Unfortunately, the answer to that question isn’t encouraging either. The health care bill now being debated in the Senate explicitly empowers this very task force to influence future coverage and preventive care. Section 4105, for example, authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to deny payment for prevention services the task force recommends against.
Another section requires every health plan in America to cover task force recommended preventive services. In fact, there are more than a dozen examples in the bill where this task force is empowered to influence care. There is a reason American women with breast cancer have a higher survival rate than women in countries with government-run health care. Unlike those countries, our government doesn’t dictate what prevention and treatments women can get.
While some defend the idea of a government task force, my experience with cancer tells me it’s wrong. Cutting down on mammograms might save the government some money that it will then spend on something else. But it won’t save lives. And isn’t that what health care reform was supposed to be all about?
This is just one in many examples of serious problems with this healthcare reform legislation. Rather than remaking the entire national healthcare system at the cost of higher taxes and exploding deficits, we should build on what works, such as expanding access to integrated care and to community clinics that will give those most in need appropriate care at a reasonable price.
Congress should reform medical malpractice to match what we have in California where frivolous lawsuits are a thing of the past. We should permit consumers to purchase health insurance from any company in the country, expanding consumer choice and driving down cost and unnecessary mandates.
People want to know that their care will stay where it belongs: in the hands of doctors and patients. Unfortunately, the path Congress is on in this debate is not giving us the confidence that it will. Thank you. ###
Kirk Statement on Resignation of Defense Official Responsible For Gitmo Move to Thomson.
Congressman Mark Kirk
NORTHBROOK, Ill. - U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk released the following statement following news that the defense official charged with moving the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to Thomson, Illinois – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Policy Phillip Carter – unexpectedly resigned on Friday.
“Last Thursday, members of the Illinois congressional delegation submitted specific security and legal questions to the Secretary of Defense on issues surrounding the proposed military detention of Al Qaeda detainees on U.S. soil. We now understand that the key official responsible for answering our questions resigned the following day. Phillip Carter’s resignation raises further questions.
“Key questions for Illinois remain, including:
Q. Where and how will the civilian trials/military commissions of the estimated 40 detainees be held and secured?
Q. Under what legal authority will another estimated 75 non-POW detainees be held without trial or commission?
Q. How will the families of judges and prosecutors be protected?
Q. Where will surgery or intensive care be offered -- Mercy (9 miles away), Morrison (13 miles away) or CGH Medical Center (21 miles away)?
“This is the second major Administration official in charge of GITMO matters to resign. This month, the White House Counsel, Greg Craig, was let go after the President reversed positions on the release of DoD photos, the use of military commissions and the incarceration of 75 detainees without trial or commission. Secretary Carter was the key Obama Administration official in charge of bringing Guantanamo detainees to Illinois. He led the briefings in Thomson. The Administration is left with many unanswered questions and no key officials to advance this flawed proposal.
“Congressional leaders cannot advance the appropriations bill for the Department of Justice because they fear they will lose on a motion to block the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. At the moment, it appears the Administration lacks key officials or congressional votes to back their proposal.” ###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Aaron Winters, 847-940-0202, 847-691-6744 (cell) Susan Kuczka: 847-940-0202, 847-612-1665 (cell)
WVIT NBC Hartford covered Rob Simmons criticism of Senator Dodd's support for the decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammad on American soil, opening the door to a trial in Connecticut.
Statement on McMahon's Hedge Regarding the Trial of 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad on American Soil.
Rob Simmons Photo by Kate Mercer
Jim Barnett, campaign manager for Simmons for Senate, made the following statement today reacting to news reports that Linda McMahon "hedged her bets" by refusing to state an opinion on the recent decision to grant a civilian trial to self-described mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, stating instead that she will "probably have more firm policy statements after the first of the year":
"The decision to bring the 9/11 masterminds to America, and possibly to Connecticut, and bless them with all the constitutional rights reserved for Americans is a travesty of justice,
and Mrs. McMahon's unwillingness to give a straight answer speaks volumes to her inexperience and raises serious questions about her readiness to serve as U.S. Senator.
"It is deeply disappointing that when given the opportunity to stand firm against Sen. Dodd's dangerous and misguided approach, Mrs. McMahon took a pass. It goes to show that slick campaign ads and an army of high-priced consultants can't buy the experience and judgment necessary to keep our nation safe."
FACTS
Senator Dodd Voted Against Barring Civilian Trials On U.S. Soil For Those Involved In The September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks. "Reed, D-R.I., motion to table (kill) the Graham, R-S.C., amendment no. 2669 that would bar the use of Justice Department funds under the bill to prosecute in a regular federal court anyone linked to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." (H. R. 2847, CQ Vote #: 338: D: 53-4; R 0-40; I 1-1; Motion Agreed To 54-45, Dodd Voted Yea, 11/5/09)
NOTE: All 40 Senate Republicans Unanimously Opposed The Amendment. (H. R. 2847, CQ Vote #: 338: D: 53-4; R 0-40; I 1-1; Motion Agreed To 54-45, 11/5/09)
10 Days Ago, Attorney General Eric Holder Announced Khalid Sheik Mohammad Would Be Transferred To New York City For A Jury Trial. "Five Guantanamo Bay detainees with alleged ties to the 9/11 conspiracy, including accused mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be transferred to New York to go on trial in civilian court, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Friday." ("Accused 9/11 Plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Faces New York Trial," www.cnn.com, 11/13/09)
That Day, Rob Simmons Criticized The Decision And Senator Dodd's Vote. "As a lifelong national security and intelligence official, I am shocked and angered by this stunning announcement. To have the self-described mastermind of the worst attack on American soil receive a jury trial footsteps away from where he murdered thousands of American citizens is beyond the pale. ... Worst of all is Senator Dodd, who demonstrated his reckless desire to appease the left-wing of his party rather than protect American citizens by voting against an amendment that would have barred such a trial." (Simmons For Senate, "Simmons Statement On Announcement Of Civilian Trial For 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed," Press Release, 11/13/09)
Attorney General Holder Admitted The Trial Of Khalid Sheik Mohammad Could Face A Change In Venue To Connecticut. SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): "But isn't it the fact that you won't be the one making that decision ultimately, if the attempt to transfer venue based on the notoriety of this event on 9/11 is such, just like Timothy McVeigh, who killed so many Americans in Oklahoma, he was tried in Colorado. Isn't it a distinct possibility that the judge would transfer this case based on a local prejudice?" ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: "Sure, that's entirely possible. And there may be a motion for a venue change, but just as in the McVeigh case, the new change did not have a material negative impact on the outcome of the trial. He was convicted, and he was executed." (Attorney General Eric Holder, Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, 11/18/09)
But On Saturday, When Asked Her Opinion On Bringing Khalid Sheik Mohammad To American Soil For A Civilian Trial, McMahon "Hedged," Stating: "I'll Probably Have More Firm Policy Statements After The First Of The Year." "[Judy] Hershon stopped McMahon to ask her opinion on the upcoming New York City terrorism trial. Republicans have blasted the Obama administration for deciding to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in federal court in New York City rather than in a military court abroad. Democrats like Dodd have largely supported the decision. One of Dodd's leading Republican challengers, Rob Simmons, blasted him for that position. 'I'm trying to do a poll of any politician I can find on this, since I'm from New York, where the trial's going to actually take place,' she said. McMahon hedged her bets on the issue. While New York 'has certainly tried other terrorists before,' she noted, this trial will cost New York $75 million. 'I'll probably have more firm policy statements after the first of the year,' she said." (Ben Johnson, "Dodd Challenger Crashes The Tailgates," New Haven Independent, 11/23/09)
The Terrorists Plan To Use The Trial As A Platform To "Air Their Criticisms Of U.S. Foreign Policy." "The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday. Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but 'would explain what happened and why they did it.'" ("Lawyer: 9/11 Defendants Will Tell Jury 'Why They Did It,'" The Associated Press, 11/23/09)
Rob Simmons's Background On Intelligence And National Security Makes Him Uniquely Qualified To Serve In The U.S. Senate. Rob Simmons served in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam war and won two Bronze Star Medals. He continued as a Reserve Military Intelligence Officer for 37 years before retiring at the rank of Colonel.
He is past commander of the 434th Military Intelligence (MI) Detachment New Haven, CT, which won the Reserve Officers Associations Outstanding Small Unit Award in 1996. In 1998, Rob was recognized by for his contributions to the Military Intelligence Corps with the Knowlton Award for "Integrity, Moral Character, Professional Competence and Selflessness.
Following his active duty service in the Army, Rob joined the Central Intelligence Agency, working as an Operations Officer for a decade, including five years on assignment overseas in East Asia where he participated in difficult and dangerous missions to protect Americas national security.
Upon his return from East Asia, Rob left the CIA to join the staff of Senator John H. Chafee (R-Rhode Island) where he was Legislative Assistant for Military, Foreign and Veterans Affairs.
In 1981, he was assigned as a staff member to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and soon thereafter was appointed by Chairman Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona) to serve as Staff Director of the full committee. Rob worked with the committee and the Reagan Administration on some of the most important national security challenges of the Cold War. CIA Director Casey presented him with the Agency Seal Medallion its highest civilian award in 1985.
In Congress, Rob served on the Armed Services, Transportation, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security Committees. Rep. Simmons also served as the Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment and Veterans' Health Subcommittee.
TEXT CREDIT: Paid for by Simmons for Senate* 12 Roosevelt Ave, 2nd Floor, Mystic, CT 06355* Tel: 860-415-4633 | Fax: 860-415-4629 info@joinrobsimmons.com
Ron Paul "This Belief Is A Dream! That Will Become A Nightmare! For All Americans!
TRANSPARENCY AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE -- (House of Representatives - December[[ 01, 2009)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke does not want us to know any the details of the Fed's secret operations. This position is not surprising and has been typical of all central bank chairmen. Bernanke's stated goal is ``to design a system of financial oversight that will provide a robust framework for preventing future crises.''
During its 96 years of existence, the Federal Reserve has played havoc with our economy and brought great suffering to millions through unemployment and price escalation. And it has achieved what only a central bank can: A steady depreciation of our currency. Today's dollar is now worth 4 cents, compared to the dollar entrusted to the Federal Reserve in 1913. Ninety-six years should have been plenty of time for the Fed to come up with a plan for preventing economic crises.
Since the Fed is the source of all economic down turns, it's impossible for any central banker to regulate in such a manner to prevent the problems that are predictable consequences of his own monetary management. The Federal Reserve fixes interest rates at levels inevitably lower than those demanded by the market. This manipulation is a form of price control through credit expansion, and is the ultimate cause of business cycles and so many of our economic problems, generating the mal-investment, excessive debt, stock, bond, commodity, and housing bubbles.
The Federal Reserve's monetary inflation, indeed, does push the CPI upward, but concentrating on the government's reports of the CPI and the PPI is nothing more than the distraction from the other harm done by the Federal Reserve's effort at central economic planning through secret monetary policy operations. Real inflation, the expansion of our money supply, is greatly undercounted by these indices. In response to our latest financial crisis, the Federal Reserve turned on its printing press and literally doubled the monetary base. This staggering creation of dollars has yet to be reflected in many consumer prices, but will ultimately hit the middle class and poor with a cruel devaluation of their savings and real earnings.
The Fed has clearly failed on its mandate to maintain full employment and price stability. It's time to find out what's going on. Instead of assuming responsibility for the Fed's role in the crisis, Bernanke brags about, ``arresting'' the crisis.
I would suggest to Mr. Bernanke that it's too early to brag. Bernanke decries any effort to gain transparency of the Fed's actions to find out just who gets bailed out and who is left to fail. Instead, he proposes giving even more power to the Fed to regulate the entire financial system.
What he does not recognize--nor does he want to admit--is that he is talking about symptoms while ignoring the source of the crisis: the Federal Reserve itself. More regulations will never compensate for all the distortion and excesses caused by monetary inflation and artificially low interest rates. Regulation distracts from the real cause while further interfering with the market forces, thus guaranteeing that the recession will become much deeper and prolonged.
Chairman Bernanke's argument for Fed secrecy is a red herring. It serves to distract so the special interests that benefit from the Fed policy never become known to the public. Who can possibly buy this argument that this secrecy is required to protect the people from political influence?
My bill, H.R. 1207, has nothing to do with interference with monetary policy. This was explicitly stated in the amendment voted on in the Financial Services Committee. Bernanke's argument for protecting the independence of the Fed is his argument for protecting the secrecy of the Fed. Chairman Bernanke concludes that ``America needs a strong''--think cartel--``nonpolitical''--think Goldman Sachs--``and independent''--think secret--``central bank with the tools to promote financial stability, in the midst of a horrendous financial crisis, and to help steer our economy to recovery without inflation.''
This belief is a dream that one day will become a nightmare for all Americans unless we come to our senses, stop our wild spending, runaway deficits, printing press money, massive bureaucratic regulations, and our unnecessary world empire. A crucial step towards fixing these problems will be transparency of the Federal Reserve.
Tags: Ron Paul Adam Kokesh Maresco Federal Reserve Gold Silver Judge Naplolitano Glenn Beck 912 Tea Party trillion Lew Rockwell Robert Gates Council on Foreign Relations CFR Campaign for Liberty HR1207 end the Fed
WASHINGTON – The Republican National Committee announced a new web video on moderate Senate Democrats sacrificing their principles to give Harry Reid a victory that brings America dangerously closer to having a government-run health care system. The web video, entitled “Dead of Night,” can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbIFmg68zTA.
“On Saturday night, a number of moderate Senate Democrats sacrificed their principles to bring America dangerously closer to government-run health care. Ben Nelson sold out his conscience and voted in favor of federally funded abortions. Blanche Lincoln sold out her principles by voting in favor of a government-run insurance plan, something she previously said she opposed. And Mary Landrieu simply sold her vote to the highest bidder after Harry Reid added a $300 million earmark just for Louisiana. Voters elected these Senators to represent their best interests. Instead they voted in the dead of night for a health care experiment that will increase taxes, raise premiums, cut Medicare, and use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. This is not the representation Americans deserve. It’s time for these Senators to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves who they really work for – their constituents or liberal Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.” – RNC Chairman Michael Steele
“DEAD OF NIGHT” SCRIPT
Time: 01:00
Voice: “Saturday night.”
Voice: “As Americans laid down for sleep.”
Voice: “Moderate Democrats lay down their beliefs.”
Chyron: LAY DOWN THEIR BELIEFS
Voice: “Sold out their constituents.”
Chyron: SOLD OUT THEIR CONSTITUENTS
Voice: “Rolled by pressure from Barack Obama and Harry Reid.”
Voice: “They voted to move forward a government-run health care bill our nation does not want and can't afford.”
Chyron: OUR NATION DOES NOT WANT AND CAN’T AFFORD
Voice: “One member sold her vote to the highest bidder.”
Chyron: SHE SOLD HER VOTE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER
Chyron: MARY LANDRIEU LOUISIANA
Voice: “One member sold out his principles.”
Chyron: VOTED TO FUND ABORTIONS
Chyron: BEN NELSON NEBRASKA
Voice: “Two more - lost what little credibility they had on fiscal responsibility.”
Chyron: LOST WHAT LITTLE CREDIBILITY THEY HAD ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Chyron: BYRON DORGAN NORTH DAKOTA
Chyron: EVAN BAYH INDIANA
Voice: “Another put the interests of the left of his party before his own state.”
Chyron: HE PUT THE LEFT OF HIS PARTY BEFORE HIS OWN STATE
Chyron: HARRY REID NEVADA
Voice: “And another voted one way after saying she was for another.”
Chyron: VOTED FOR THE BILL WHEN, SHE SAID SHE WOULD OPPOSE IT
Chyron: BLANCHE LINCOLN ARKANSAS
Voice: “It's no wonder why Democrats voted in the dead of night.”
Chyron: DEMOCRATS
Chyron: VOTED
Chyron: IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT
Chyron: LEARN MORE AT: GOP.COM
Onscreen Disclaimer: PAID FOR BY THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE. NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE’S COMMITTEE. WWW.GOP.COM
Washington, D.C., - U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann released the the following statement after President Obama delivered an address in which he called for a new strategy involving 30,000 additional U.S. forces in Afghanistan:
"After several long months of deliberation, I'm pleased that the President has not turned his back on Afghanistan. As the President has said, the war in Afghanistan is a war of necessity. However, I sincerely hope that the President is truly committed to victory. While it’s important to acknowledge that U.S. forces will not be in Afghanistan forever, we must not have a concrete time line for withdrawal as it will ultimately hurt our effort and energize our enemies.
"Clearly, it’s in the vital interests of the United States to defeat the Taliban, destroy Al Qaeda, and establish a free, sovereign Afghanistan that can govern and look after its own people. Anything less and we’re guaranteeing almost certain instability and chaos in the region. But going forward, we must be in it to win it because if we engage in this effort halfheartedly, then the war is already lost."
President Obama to Outline new Afghan war strategy Live Streaming Video LIVE C-SPAN FEED in Windows Media format and LIVE C-SPAN FEED in Real Media Format
Tonight, President Barack Obama will deliver a national address from the United States Military Academy at West Point. The President will lay out his plan for U.S. troop levels and American involvement in the war in Afghanistan. He is likely to announce an order to deploy 30,000 more troops and detail the Kabul government's changing role in the war.
President Barack Obama walks across the South Lawn after getting off of Marine One on his return to White House following a trip to Walter Reed Army Medical Center to visit with Wounded Warriors. President Obama awarded two Purple Hearts during the trip. November 6, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT
Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans,
I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan, the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusions.
It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point, where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security and to represent what is finest about our country. To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place.
We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station.
Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington and killed many more. As we know, these men belonged to Al Qaeda, a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban, a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against Al Qaeda and those who harbored them, an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98-0; the vote in the House was 420-1.
For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5, the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies, and the world were acting as one to destroy Al Qaeda's terrorist network and to protect our common security.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan.
Within a matter of months, Al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope.
At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that, for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention, and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform.
Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, Al Qaiea's leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.
Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with Al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war.
Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops.
After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.
Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on Al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and although it was marred by fraud, that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.
Yet huge challenges remain: Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years, it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population.
Our new commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short, the status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your commander-in-chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined and worthy of your service.
And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.
Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military, and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners.
And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people and our troops no less. This review is now complete. And as commander-in-chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.
We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you, a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens.
As president, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I've visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place.
I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.
So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by Al Qadda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.
This is no idle danger, no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and Al Qaeda can operate with impunity.
We must keep the pressure on Al Qaeda. And to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, Al Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that Al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny Al Qaida a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months. The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010, the fastest possible pace, so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead.
Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility; what's at stake is the security of our allies and the common security of the world. Now, taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.
We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country. Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy so that the government can take advantage of improved security. This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance.
We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas such as agriculture that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
Now, the people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign Al Qaida fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes.
So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand: America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect, to isolate those who destroy, to strengthen those who build, to hasten the day when our troops will leave, and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan. We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. And that's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence.
But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan, and there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. And those days are over.
Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
And I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard and which I take very seriously. First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history.
Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.
To abandon this area now and to rely only on efforts against Al Qaeda from a distance would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on Al Qaeda and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have, but this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort, one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost and what we need to achieve to secure our interests.
Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
As president, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one.
Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who, in discussing our national security, said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children.
Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce, so we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. And going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military; it underwrites our diplomacy; it taps the potential of our people and allows investment in new industry; and it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open- ended: because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.
Now, let me be clear. None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict, not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where Al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships. And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them, because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons. True security will come for those who reject them.
We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world, one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity. And, finally, we must draw on the strength of our values, for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That's why we must promote our values by living them at home, which is why I've prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights and tend for the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are; that is the source, the moral source of America's authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades, a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.
What we have fought for, what we continue to fight for is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.
As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was president. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people, from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue, nor should we. But I also know that we as a country cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
It's easy to forget that, when this war began, we were united, bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe...
I believe with every fiber of my being that we, as Americans, can still come together behind a common purpose, for our values are not simply words written into parchment. They are a creed that calls us together and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.
America, we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
Kay Bailey Hutchison: “I’m fighting everything that the Obama administration is doing from overspending, from the stimulus packages, from the healthcare takeover to cap and trade; I am fighting that. What I meant was the majority in Congress are doing things that are wrong for this economy. And I think Secretary Geithner is doing the wrong things in leading the effort, and I think the President is where the buck stops.”
As Thanksgiving festivities wind down we contemplate all we have to be thankful for as free Americans! We head into the Christmas season wishing for leadership in Washington that reflects our commitment to the values and ideals that have built the freest and most prosperous and generous nation on earth.
Heading into December and Tuesday’s announcement of our nation’s strategy in Afghanistan, I ask the President to reassure us that the administration is in this War on Terror to win.
And I’ll pass along the following from Harold B. Estes, a 95-year-old member of the Greatest Generation: “I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you’re the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you’re not in this fight to win, then get out.”
Thank you, Mr. President. Please tell us on Tuesday that America is in it to win.
State Senator Scott Brown has led the fight in Massachusetts against wasteful government spending and higher taxes. He is a free-market advocate who believes our strength as a nation flows from its people.
He believes in a culture of family, patriotism and freedom. At his September 12 announcement of candidacy for the U.S. Senate, Senator Brown articulated a core set of beliefs that guide his thinking.
* Government is too big and that the federal stimulus bill made government bigger instead of creating jobs * Taxes are too high and are going higher if Congress continues with its out-of-control spending * The historic amount of debt we are passing on to our children and grandchildren is immoral * Power concentrated in the hands of one political party, as it is here in Massachusetts, leads to bad government and poor decisions * A strong military and vigorous homeland defense will protect our interests and security around the world and at home * All Americans deserve health care, but we shouldn't have to create a new government insurance program to provide it
Senator Brown is a proud member of the Massachusetts National Guard, where he has served for nearly three decades and currently holds the rank of Lt. Colonel in the Judge Advocate Generals (JAG) Corps. Brown was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service in homeland security following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. His career in public service began as selectman in Wrentham. He then went on to serve three terms as a State Representative and won his current State Senate seat in a special election in 2004. He is currently in his third Senate term.
In 2004, Senator Brown received the Public Servant of the Year Award from the United Chamber of Commerce for his leadership in reforming the state's sex offender laws and protecting the rights of victims. He has also been recognized by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) for his work in creating an environment that encourages job growth and expansion in Massachusetts.
Senator Brown is a graduate of Wakefield High School, Tufts University, and Boston College Law School. He lives in Wrentham, MA with his wife Gail and their two daughters, Ayla, a student at Boston College, and Arianna, a student at Syracuse University.
ORLANDO, FL -- State Representative Jennifer Carroll announced her endorsement of businessman Armando Gutierrez for Congress today.
"The Republican Party has been searching for innovative young leaders, and we have found one in Armando Gutierrez. He's what the GOP needs in Washington to bring fresh ideas and strong conservative leadership," stated Representative Carroll. "We need a bold and aggressive leader to take on Alan Grayson. Armando Gutierrez has what it takes to win."
"Jennifer Carroll is a true asset to the Republican Party," said Gutierrez. "She's a businesswoman, a veteran, a mother, and a role model for our youth. I'm honored to have her support as I fight to bring common sense leadership to Florida's Eighth Congressional District"
Representative Jennifer Carroll was elected in 2003 as the first African American female Republican elected to the Florida House of Representatives. Carroll serves as Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida African American Republican Leadership Council. She enlisted in the United States Navy in 1979 and served for 20 years. Carroll served as a jet mechanic and worked her way up through the ranks to retire as a Lieutenant Commander Aviation Maintenance Officer; receiving Meritorious Service Medal; two Navy Commendation Medals; two Navy Achievement Medals; National Defense Service Medal; Overseas Ribbon; two Coast Guard Special Operation Ribbons; and Expert Pistol Medal. Carroll also served as Executive Director of the Florida Department of Veterans Affairs under Governor Jeb Bush and was appointed by President George W. Bush to the Veteran’s Compensation and Disability Commission.
Armando Gutierrez is endorsed by a growing number of Republican leaders, such as former RPOF Chairman Al Cardenas, George P. Bush, Congressman Tom Rooney, Congressman Gus Bilirakis, Congressman Aaron Schock, State Senator Steve Wise, State House Majority Whip Carlos Lopez-Cantera, State Representative Chris Dorworth, State Representative Bryan Nelson, State Representative Charles Van Zant, State Representative Erik Fresen, State Representative Mike Weinstein, former State Representative Randy Johnson, former Orange County Commissioner Tom Dorman, GOAA Board Member Jose Colon, and the Florida Federation of Young Republicans.
Gutierrez for Congress P.O. Box 2863 Orlando, FL 32802 email: info@gogutierrez.com phone: 407.749.0272 Paid for by Armando Gutierrez for Congress
Rand supports fiscal security. Published on 27 November 2009 by David Adams in General News
Kentucky voters are learning that Rand Paul is the one U.S. Senate candidate who will stand for them on economic issues against professional politicians of both parties owned by special interests.
From The New York Times:
“Dr. Paul said he intended to keep his campaign focused on the federal bailout, taxes and jobs, which, he said, are topics that concern Kentucky voters far more than social issues.”
That’s why the average contribution to Rand’s campaign is still under $100 despite the fact he is leading in the polls. Kentuckians understand government helps create jobs by getting out of the way, not by “stimulating” the economy with money borrowed from foreign lenders.
SERVICE MEMBERS HOME OWNERSHIP TAX ACT OF 2009 MOTION TO PROCEED. Text From the Congressional Record.
Mr. COBURN. Probably not. But the Senator sparks one question. Think about this, and I have experienced this as a physician.
I care for patients and they lose their job, they have a financial catastrophe, and all of a sudden they become dependent on Medicaid. We continue to see those patients. But do you know what normally happens?
You lose your insurance, you loss your job, you come on hard times and go on Medicaid. You can't go back to the doctor you had before because they are not taking new Medicaid patients. So somebody you have been with for 15 years, all of a sudden you can't get back in because they are not going to pay enough for them to care for you. It is a discriminatory system that says we will send you down the line.
That doesn't mean there are not truly caring physicians in this country, but it has to be said, outside of pediatrics, if you want to look at quality parameters, the Medicaid population ends up going to the less-qualified, the less-experienced, the less-good-outcome physicians in this country.
The video and text of the congressional proceedings are in the public domain.
Congressman Mike Pence Weekly Republican Address 11/26/09 VIDEO FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT
I’m Indiana Congressman Mike Pence.
Across the country gas prices and home utility bills are on the rise again. During these difficult economic times, higher energy prices impose a great hardship on families struggling to make ends meet. Unfortunately, the Democrat majority in Congress is embracing a national energy tax that will lead to even higher energy prices and massive job losses for the American people.
President Obama even admitted that under his energy plan, utility rates would ‘necessarily skyrocket.’ If the Democrats’ cap-and-trade bill were to become law, estimates suggest that the average American family would face up to $4,300 a year in extra energy costs and anywhere between 1.8 [million] and 7 million American jobs could be lost.
That’s a heavy price to pay for a plan that will do very little to clean up our environment, since manufacturers will probably ship their plants, and their pollution, to countries with less stringent environmental safeguards. This national energy tax amounts to an economic declaration of war on America’s families, small businesses and family farms. The American people know we can do better.
This past week, House Republicans introduced the American Energy Act. It’s an ‘all of the above’ energy plan that offers energy independence, more jobs and a cleaner environment, without imposing a national energy tax.
The Republican energy plan calls for more domestic exploration for oil and natural gas, a renewed commitment to clean, emissions-free nuclear energy, investments in renewable and alternative energy technologies, and incentives to spur greater conservation among individuals and businesses.
The American Energy Act is the comprehensive energy solution this country desperately needs to achieve energy independence, create good jobs and help our environment.
During these difficult times, the American people don’t want a national energy tax out of Washington, D.C. We want a 21st century answer to our nation’s energy needs. The ‘all of the above’ strategy of the American Energy Act is that answer. For more information about the American Energy Act, log on to http://gop.gov. I’m Mike Pence. Thanks for listening.
This photo was taken in front of the Mobil gas station where Doug worked as a teenager. Today this property serves as his campaign headquarters.
Dear Friends,
Today, Tuesday, November 24, 2009, it is with a heavy heart that we declare this election over. We will formally end this election and not ask for a recount. This was a difficult choice to make because so many people have put their faith, hope and aspirations into our campaign.
Yes, there seem to have been many vote counting problems, missed vote counts and, as was recently reported by the Gouvernour Times, software problems in the computerized voting machines.
Despite these incidents, I do not believe the voters of NY-23, or New Yorkers in general, would be well-served by a disruptive and costly recount that would most likely not change the election outcome.
I know many are disappointed and even angry. To those I say now is not the time to look back, but to focus on the future and ensure that next year we win back this district decidedly. Know this decision was not an easy one. I did not want to let down those who worked so hard, donated so much and shared their enthusiasm for retaking our country with common-sense conservative values.
And rest assured, our energies are now directed toward 2010. This election, in which a third party candidate narrowly lost, showed that principles do matter. Special interests do have an Achilles’ heel, the American people. Main-street conservatism’s voice is now echoing through the government chambers and boardrooms that shape America. By most measures, this campaign was a success and I have you all to thank for this. And all of us have to thank the Conservative Party of New York State for nominating a candidacy like ours.
We take away lessons from this year’s campaign that will make us stronger and more competitive in the future. Next time we will be better prepared. Many people forget that our campaign only began in earnest three months ago. Most campaigns of this stature take at least a year to prepare. In three months, we almost toppled an entrenched political system and successfully defied the conventional thinking of the elite political punditry. Citizen government is making a comeback in America.
I thank everyone who participated in this campaign and urge each one of you to stand with me in the future. We have a calling that we must answer. My opponent in this race quickly abandoned the promises he made to his voters. Within the first hour of being sworn in by Nancy Pelosi, Bill Owens broke 4 campaign promises … so much for change in Washington. We must resoundingly defeat him next year and, with your help, I promise to help restore our nation’s faith in elected officials when we win.
But there is more to do than just win back NY-23 in 2010. We must work to help other like-minded citizen candidates win across the country. We need to make time to help other candidates who are working for the principles we hold dear… other fiscal, common-sense conservatives. Together we can successfully take back our great nation, one legislator and one member at a time. We need more than one common-sense conservative voice in the echo chamber of liberal, spend thrift cacophony if we are to redirect our great country.
I would also like to commend those election commission officials who worked tirelessly and may have taken offense to an unfortunate and poorly worded fundraising email that was sent out toward the end of our campaign. As we tried to make sense of the false vote counts and stories of so/ftware viruses in the voting machines, we never intended to imply the election commissioners had somehow acted improperly. This was never our intention and, on the contrary, the election commissioners went above and beyond to uphold their duty to ensure a fair election took place. I owe them a debt of gratitude for all they have done.
So where to now? Full speed ahead to 2010. This gives us time to carefully articulate and communicate thoughtful positions on issues that impact the great people of our district and ensure that our campaign promises are NOT broken. Best of all, it allows me to work hand-in-hand with the many supporters who shared their ideas, their concerns and their dreams with me.
We need to continue to stand united because we cannot spend our way out of recession or tax our way to prosperity. We must continue to fight to protect our liberties and protect those who are yet to be born. We must protect our country against terrorists and protect the sanctity of marriage. We must fix our corrupt tax code, our immigration policy and our educational system. Most of all we must defend the free enterprise system that made America the greatest and most prosperous country in the world. Although I’m conceding an election today, I do it with the certainty that we will win back this seat a year from now. I am certain of this because our mission is too big, the country’s problems too dire and the American people are too smart.
Thank you for all you have done and will continue to do. “We the people” are retaking America.
Really? A tax on national defense? I hear liberal Congressional proposals and I, like most Americans, wonder if they’re serious. We’re going to put a price tag on security?
With Congress and President Obama spending money on everything at breakneck speed, it’s interesting that they are only now getting nervous about spending – but only when it comes to providing the necessary funds to complete our mission in Afghanistan. They don’t need a new “war tax” to fund a strategy for victory in the war zone. They simply need to prioritize our money appropriately.
I find it telling that the Pelosi-Reid Congress is only cost-conscious when it comes to our national defense. Scary. Nonsensical. Unacceptable.
In case you haven't heard, convicted felon Martha Stewart today launched into an attack on Gov. Sarah Palin in an interview with CNN Headline News' "Showbiz Tonight" program. Stewart called Palin "boring," "very dangerous," and "a real problem" among other things.
This is where things stand in America - where the news media propagates attacks made by liberal Hollywood or New York celebrities against any meritorious conservative who poses a threat to their political agenda. And yes, Martha Stewart, Gov. Palin is indeed "a real problem" for liberals like yourself, and that is why you attack her so viciously.
Video: From CNN: Martha Stewart Calls Sarah Palin A "Dangerous Person" - 11/21/09 and NewsPoliticsAmerica
Text: Paid for by Our Country Deserves Better PAC - TeaPartyExpress.org Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks (as prepared) on the Senate floor Friday regarding the importance of getting it right on health care reform:
“Democrats have spent six weeks behind closed doors putting together a trillion-dollar experiment in government-run health care that raises premiums, raises taxes, and cuts Medicare. We’ve now had less than 48 hours to look through this 2,074-page bureaucratic nightmare. But here are 10 things that every American should know about this bill.
• The Democrat bill includes nearly half a trillion dollars in new taxes that hit virtually every American, including middle class families making less than $250,000 a year.
• The Democrat bill would increase insurance premiums for individuals and families.
• The Democrat bill cuts Medicare for seniors by nearly half a trillion dollars ($465 billion) and limits the choices that millions of seniors now enjoy.
• The Democrat bill won’t lower health care costs according to the Congressional Budget Office.
• The true cost of this bill over 10 years, when fully implemented, is about $2.5 trillion.
• Under the Democrat bill, if you like the health insurance you have, you may not be able to keep it.
• The Democrat bill would let government bureaucrats dictate what kind of health plans Americans must purchase and what benefits they can receive.
• The Democrat bill creates a government plan that CBO has said would have higher premiums.
• The Democrat bill would, for the first time in history, allow federal programs to pay for elective abortions.
• Finally, Americans should know that this bill doesn’t have the common-sense reforms that they have been asking for all along, like getting rid of junk lawsuits and leveling the playing field when it comes to health care taxes.
“Americans want reform. But higher premiums, higher taxes, and cuts to Medicare to create more government isn’t reform. Yet that’s precisely what they’d get with this Democrat bill.” ###
Senator Mike Crapo Weekly Republican Address 11/21/09 VIDEO FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT
This is Senator Mike Crapo from Idaho. Americans are calling on Congress for health care reform because they can no longer tolerate its skyrocketing cost.
They want us to stop the punishing increases in insurance premiums and health care costs that, year after year, are driving families across this nation to the edge. And, they want us to ensure that they have meaningful access to quality health care.
But, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finally revealed the 2,074-page bill that has been crafted for weeks now behind closed doors, that’s hardly what we got.
This two-thousand page bill will:
• Drive up the cost of health care insurance and medical care, not down; • Increase taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars; • Cut Medicare for senior citizens by hundreds of billions of dollars; • Grow the federal government by over $2.4 trillion in new spending; • Push the needy uninsured into a failing Medicaid system; • Impose a damaging unfunded mandate on our struggling states; • Leave millions of Americans uninsured; and • Establish a massive governmental intrusion into management of our health care economy.
This is not true health care reform, and it is not what the American people want. This bill will result in higher premiums and higher health care costs for Americans - period.
A significant number of these provisions violate President Obama’s promise to the American people, namely that lower- and middle-class Americans would not see a tax increase under his proposals.
And, yet, this bill clearly breaks that promise as it taxes a wide range of Americans: the uninsured and the insured; families with so-called high value insurance plans; employers who create jobs or provide retiree drug coverage; individuals who need medicines or medical devices; and many others. It also levies fines and penalties on individuals, families and businesses.
Medicare faces cuts of nearly $500 billion to create the new government entitlement, even though Medicare is already facing enormous unfunded liabilities and looming insolvency. These cuts will reduce access to and the quality of care our seniors receive from a number of Medicare providers, including hospitals, nursing homes, home health and hospice services.
And, as they see their access to and quality of care reduced, seniors enrolled in the popular Medicare Advantage plans will also lose many of the benefits that they enjoy today.
We are already experiencing record deficits and debt, and yet, this bill creates a massive expansion of government, growing the size of the federal government by over $2.4 trillion over ten full years of implementation.
The legislation pushes 15 million people into the failing Medicaid system rather than giving them access to health insurance.
And, in addition to forcing the neediest of the uninsured into a failing entitlement program, this expansion will result in $25 billion in unfunded Medicaid mandates on the states, which are already struggling financially. This mandate further jeopardizes state budgets as it forces them to drive up spending.
The bill creates a government option insurance company and establishes unprecedented expansion of governmental control over health care. It establishes the government as the determiner of what kind of insurance Americans can purchase. It also imposes new federal mandates on all Americans.
The first mandate would apply to the individual: buy insurance or the IRS will collect a fine from you. Then, on employers: face a penalty if you don’t provide a government-approved health plan. The bill imposes $28 billion in new taxes on employers who don’t comply. Those new taxes would be passed along to employees in the form of reduced wages and lost jobs.
You’re going to hear a lot about this bill. That’s why I encourage you to read the bill yourself and form your own opinion.The bill is available on my website as well as a number of other Internet sites. Take a close look at how the bill is funded and who and what it covers and doesn’t cover and how it may impact you and your family. It’s a real eye-opener!
In recent months, I’ve heard from many Idahoans in my home state about health care, and they echo what Americans want in health care reform--lower costs and better quality.
What Americans really want is the kind of step-by-step reforms that Republicans have been advocating for years — common-sense ideas like the ability to purchase insurance across state lines, allowing small businesses to pool together to offer more affordable health insurance to their employees; changing the incentives in our system from numbers of procedures to quality of outcomes; eliminating pre-existing condition limitations, equalizing the tax treatment of insurance; eliminating waste, fraud and abuse and promoting wellness and prevention programs that encourage people to make healthy choices.
These are the kinds of reform that make sense and would really make a difference for all Americans. Thank you for listening. ###
Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers expresses her concern about the new federal mammogram guidelines which will turn back the clock on the war on breast cancer.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Screening for Breast Cancer
Summary of Recommendations: The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. Grade: C recommendation.
The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years. Grade: B recommendation.
The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. Grade: I Statement.
The USPSTF recommends against teaching breast self-examination (BSE). Grade: D recommendation.
The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination (CBE) beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older. Grade: I Statement.
The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer. Grade: I Statement.
BOWLING GREEN, KENTUCKY – Leading United States Senate candidate Rand Paul today criticized the Obama administration’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and try terrorism suspects in United States Civil Courts.
“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”
Dr. Paul believes in strong national defense and thinks military spending should be our country’s top budget priority. He has also called for a Constitutional declaration of war with Afghanistan.
For Immediate Release, November 19, 2009
Image Licence: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License. In short: you are free to share and make derivative works of the file under the conditions that you appropriately attribute it, and that you distribute it only under a license identical to this one. Official license Attribution: Gage Skidmore
Washington, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul (TX-14) is pleased to announce that his and Congressman Grayson’s amendment based on HR 1207 has passed in the Financial Services Committee by a vote of 43-26 and will be included in major banking reform legislation.
The Paul/Grayson amendment: · Removes the blanket restrictions on GAO audits of the Fed · Allows audit of every item on the Fed's balance sheet, all credit facilities, all securities purchase programs, etc. · Retains limited audit exemption on unreleased transcripts and minutes · Sets 180-day time lag before details of Fed's market actions may be released · States that nothing in the amendment shall be construed as interference in or dictation of monetary policy by Congress or the GAO
“While HR 3996, if passed, will grant sweeping new powers to the Federal Reserve, at least with this amendment attached, it won’t be acting in secret anymore. This is a major victory for Federal Reserve transparency and government accountability. I am very grateful to Congressman Bachus and all the other Members who were so supportive and helpful in this effort," stated Congressman Paul. ###
WASHINGTON – House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., released the following statement on the low ObamaCare enrollment numbers released today.
“The 27,000 enrollments through federally facilitated exchange pale in comparison to the millions of Americans who have lost their health insurance under ObamaCare,” Issa stated.
