USAfamilies.net© Support

Catholics under attack

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-04-30T22:01:23Z

Your browser does not support iframes.

All information is either open to the public or private opinions separate from USAfamilies.net Any purchases or actions taken, are the individuals responsibility. USAfamilies.net is not responsible for those actions and held harmless.

Again,. apologizing for sudden errors on posts

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-04-28T13:53:44Z

We are having problems posting videos Again.
This is beyond USAFamilies.net control. Again,. apologizing for sudden errors on posts

In addition to what was able to be posted, a little note.

All information is either open to the public or private opinions separate from USAfamilies.net Any purchases or actions taken, are the individuals responsibility. USAfamilies.net is not responsible for those actions and held harmless.

Campaign: Obama

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-04-28T13:46:11Z

*Made up to $400,000 a yr prior to his marriage. Poor?
27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep">

All information is either open to the public or private opinions separate from USAfamilies.net Any purchases or actions taken, are the individuals responsibility. USAfamilies.net is not responsible for those actions and held harmless.

White House: Obama would veto GOP student loan plan

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-04-28T13:42:34Z

*How did Mr and Mrs Obama Not pay their student loans for 8 years when they made enough money to pay them back? Lawyers and prior income up to $400,000.00? (see a small history below for background information. It will be in red font)

27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 width=416 height=374>

Washington (CNN) -- The White House said Friday that President Barack Obama would veto a Republican measure passed by the House to extend lower interest rates on federal student loans because it takes money from a health care fund that benefits women.

A White House statement said Obama's senior advisers would recommend a veto if the House measure, which passed 215-195 on a largely party-line vote, were to win Senate approval and reach the president's desk.

"Women, in particular, will benefit from this prevention fund, which would provide for hundreds of thousands of screenings for breast and cervical cancer," the White House statement said. "This is a politically motivated proposal and not the serious response that the problem facing America's college students deserves. If the president is presented with H.R. 4628, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."

Obama favors extending the current lower interest rates on student loans but would seek a different way to pay the $6 billion cost.

A proposal by Senate Democrats would pay for the measure by ending some tax loopholes for corporations, a move opposed by Republicans. The House plan would instead take the money from the health care fund, which is part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act detested by Republicans.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, proposed the GOP's student loan measure this week in the face of a high-profile campaign by Obama that rallied college students -- a key component of the vital youth vote in November -- to pressure Congress to extend the lower student loan rates.

In addition, certain Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney pinned Boehner and congressional Republicans in a corner by coming out in favor of the lower rates this week.

House Republicans previously backed a budget plan that called for letting the lower interest rates on student loans expire on July 1.

In an emotional floor speech Friday, Boehner labeled the issue a fake fight mounted by Democrats for political advantage.

"People want to politicize this because it is an election year, but my God, do we have to fight about everything?" Boehner said, at times pounding the podium. "And no, now we are going to have a fight over women's health. Give me a break! This is the latest plank in the so-called war on women entirely created by colleagues across the aisle for political gain."

Calling for a review of "the facts," Boehner said Obama's proposed budget called for reducing the same health care fund, which he labeled a "slush fund."

"You may have already forgotten that several months ago, you all voted to cut $4 billion out of this slush fund to pay for the payroll credit bill" that extended a payroll tax cut, Boehner continued, shouting, "So, to accuse us of wanting to gut women's health is absolutely not true."

On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, took exception to Republicans characterizing the health care fund as something inappropriate or sinister.

"You call preventive care a 'slush fund'? I mean, they should be ashamed of themselves," Reid said. "This is saving people's lives, saving the country huge amounts of money."

Asked about the payroll tax vote at a Friday news conference, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said Democrats weren't happy about taking money from the fund for the payroll tax measure at the time and now want to ensure that the rest of the money stays in the fund.

On the House floor, Pelosi said House Republicans were forced by Obama's publicizing of the issue to reverse their previous opposition to keeping the interest rates on federal student loans at the current 3.4% instead of letting them double to 6.8% on July 1.

She said the House budget proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, called for allowing the interest rate to double in July, and that House Republicans had backed the plan as recently as last week.

The new House measure would eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund, Pelosi said, accusing Republicans of protecting tax subsidies for the oil industry while wanting "mom and children to pay the price."

On Wednesday, Obama took on Boehner by name, telling students at the University of Iowa a spokesman in the speaker's office believed the president's focus on student loans is an effort to "distract people from the economy."

The president told a rowdy audience, "Now think about that for a second, because these guys don't get it." He told the cheering crowd, "If you do well, the economy does well. This is about the economy. What economy are they talking about? You are the economy."

A few hours later, Boehner announced a Friday vote on the House measure and hit back at the president saying, "This week the president is campaigning and trying to invent a fight where there is none and never has been on this issue of student loans."

On Tuesday night, Democratic Sens. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Sherrod Brown of Ohio introduced the Democratic proposal. It would freeze the current interest rate for one year and pay for it by closing a loophole on "S corporations," a tax structure Democrats say can be used to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare taxes.

The Republican proposal in House also extends the current rate for one year, but it covers the cost by dipping into the health care fund intended to promote wellness, prevent disease and protect against public health emergencies.

http://jdlong.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/barack-obama-law-license.jpg

http://www.wnd.com/images/ardc.jpg

College years

Following high school, Obama moved to Los Angeles in 1979, where he studied at Occidental College for two years.[39] On February 18, 1981, he made his first public speech, calling for Occidental's divestment from South Africa.[39] In the summer of 1981, Obama traveled to Jakarta, Indonesia to visit his mother and sister Maya, and visited the families of Occidental College friends in Hyderabad, India and Karachi, Pakistan for three weeks.[39]

He then transferred to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations.[40] Obama lived off campus in a modest rented apartment at 142 West 109th St.[41][42] He graduated with a A.B. from Columbia in 1983, then worked at Business International Corporation and New York Public Interest Research Group.[43][44]

[edit] Early career in Chicago

After four years living in New York City, Obama moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer. He worked for three years from June 1985 to May 1988 as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland (Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale) on Chicago's far South Side.[43][45][46] During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.[47] Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute.[48] In the summer of 1988, he traveled for the first time to Europe for three weeks then to Kenya for five weeks where he met many of his paternal relatives for the first time.[49]

[edit] Harvard Law School

Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. In an interview with Ebony in 1990, he stated that he saw a degree in law as a vehicle to facilitate better community organization and activism: "The idea was not only to get people to learn how to hope and dream about different possibilities, but to know how the tax structure affects what kind of housing gets built where."^[50] At the end of his first year he was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review based on his grades and a writing competition.^[51] In February 1990, his second year at Harvard, he was elected president of the law review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the law review's staff of 80 editors.^[52] Obama's election as the first black president of the law review was widely reported and followed by several long, detailed profiles.^[52] He got himself elected by convincing a crucial swing bloc of conservatives that he would protect their interests if they supported him. Building up that trust was done with the same kind of long listening sessions he had used in the poor neighborhoods of South Side, Chicago. Richard Epstein, who later taught at the University of Chicago Law School when Obama later taught there, said Obama was elected editor "because people on the other side believed he would give them a fair shake."^[46]^[53]

While in law school he worked as an associate at the law firms of Sidley & Austin in 1989, where he met his wife, Michelle, and where Newton N. Minow was a managing partner. Minow later would introduce Obama to some of Chicago's top business leaders.^[46] In the summer of 1990 he worked at Hopkins & Sutter.^[54] Also during his law school years, Obama spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course on Alinsky methods of organizing.^[46] He graduated with a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991 and returned to Chicago.^[51]

[edit] Settling down in Chicago

The publicity from his election as the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations.^[55] In an effort to recruit him to their faculty, the University of Chicago Law School provided Obama with a fellowship and an office to work on his book.^[55] He originally planned to finish the book in one year, but it took much longer as the book evolved into a personal memoir. In order to work without interruptions, Obama and his wife, Michelle, traveled to Bali where he wrote for several months. (Bali is an Indonesian island located in the westernmost end of the Lesser Sunda Islands, lying between Java to the west and Lombok to the east. )The manuscript was finally published as Dreams from My Father in mid-1995.^[55]

He married Michelle LaVaughn Robinson in 1992^[56] and settled down with her in Hyde Park, a liberal, integrated, middle-class Chicago neighborhood with a history of electing reform-minded politicians independent of the Daley political machine.^[57] The couple's first daughter, Malia Ann, was born in 1998; their second, Natasha (known as Sasha), in 2001.^[58]One effect of the marriage was to bring Obama closer to other politically influential Chicagoans. One of Michelle's best friends was Jesse Jackson's daughter, Santita, later the godmother of the Obamas' first child. Michelle herself had worked as an aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley. Marty Nesbitt, a young, successful black businessman (who played basketball with Michelle's brother, Craig Robinson), became Obama's best friend and introduced him to other African-American business people. Before the marriage, according to Craig, Obama talked about his political ambitions, even saying that he might run for president someday.^{[46].............}

[edit] 1992–1996

Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer for four years (1992–1996), and as a Senior Lecturer for eight years (1996–2004).^[62] During this time he taught courses in due process and equal protection, voting rights, and racism and law. He published no legal scholarship, and turned down tenured positions, but served eight years in the Illinois Senate during his twelve years at the university.^[63]

In 1993 Obama joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 12-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002.^[43]^[64] The firm was well-known among influential Chicago liberals and leaders of the black community, and the firm's Judson H. Miner, who met with Obama to recruit him before Obama's 1991 graduation from law school, had been counsel to former Chicago Mayor Harold Washington, although the law firm often clashed with the administration of Mayor Richard M. Daley. The 29-year-old law student made it clear in his initial interview with Miner that he was more interested in joining the firm to learn about Chicago politics than to practice law.^[57] During the four years Obama worked as a full time lawyer at the firm, he was involved in 30 cases and accrued 3,723 billable hours.^[65]

Obama was a founding member of the board of directors of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife, Michelle, became the founding executive director of Public Allies Chicago in early 1993.^[43]^[66] He served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund Obama's DCP, from 1993–2002, and served on the board of directors of The Joyce Foundation from 1994–2002.^[43] Membership on the Joyce and Wood foundation boards, which gave out tens of millions of dollars to various local organizations while Obama was a member, helped Obama get to know and be known by influential liberal groups and cultivate a network of community activists that later supported his political career.^[57] Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995–2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995–1999.^[43] He also served on the board of directors of the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center.^[43] In 1995, Obama also announced his candidacy for a seat in the Illinois state Senate and attended Louis Farrakhan's Million Man March in Washington, DC.^[67]

http://jdlong.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/barack-obama-law-license.jpg

http://www.wnd.com/images/ardc.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Obama
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981163168

Hardball: Election ads

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-04-28T10:46:47Z

*When did Obama start truely attempt to 'succeed' in showing a bit of American support? Add a bit of frosting on the cake and what do have? Election time.

27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 width=420 height=245>

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Video: What’s Romney’s vision? (elections)

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-04-28T10:27:34Z

*Election - I personally feel this video should have a different title. To me it should be more about Obama's record and election ads
27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 width=420 height=245>

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

msnbc News:Rights group: US and China in talks over blind activist

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-04-28T10:15:21Z

Rights group: US and China in talks over blind activist

Chen Guangcheng is under U.S. protection in Beijing after escaping house arrest and talks with Washington about him are under way, unconfirmed reports claim.

AFP - Getty Images
An image grab taken from a video uploaded on YouTube on Friday shows Chen Guangcheng, a blind Chinese lawyer, speaking following his escape from house arrest in Beijing.

By Alastair Jamieson and msnbc.com news services

Blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng is under U.S. protection in Beijing after an audacious escape from 19 months under house arrest, a U.S.-based group said on Saturday, in a drama that threatens to ignite new tensions between the two governments.

The United States has not given any public confirmation of reports that Chen, who slipped away from under the noses of guards and bristling surveillance equipment around his village home in Shandong province, fled into the U.S. embassy.

China has also declined direct public comment on Chen's reported escape, which threatens to overshadow a two-day meeting with top Obama administration officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in Beijing from Thursday.

Cont'd
http://behindthewall.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/28/11441671-rights-group-china-us-in-talks-over-blind-activist-chen-guangcheng?lite

msnbc.com News:Talks with Pakistan break down when US refuses to apologize for airstrike

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-04-28T10:02:02Z

*Oh what a tangle web he weaved.
US envoy leaves Islamabad with no agreement after two days of discussions

By Declan Walsch, Eric Schmitt and Steven Lee Myers

updated

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The latest high-level talks on ending a diplomatic deadlock between the United States and Pakistan ended in failure on Friday over Pakistani demands for an unconditional apology from the Obama administration for an airstrike. The White House, angered by the recent spectacular Taliban attacks in Afghanistan, refuses to apologize.

The Obama administration’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Marc Grossman, left the Pakistani capital Friday night with no agreement after two days of discussions aimed at patching up the damage caused by the American airstrikes last November that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on the Afghanistan border.

Banaras Khan / AFP — Getty Image

Protesters with the Defense Council of Pakistan demonstrated in Quetta against reopening NATO supply lines into Afghanistan.

Both sides insist that they are now ready to make up and restore an uneasy alliance that at its best offers support for American efforts in Afghanistan as well as the battle against some extremist groups operating from Pakistan. The administration had been seriously debating whether to say “I’m sorry” to the Pakistanis’ satisfaction — until April 15, when multiple, simultaneous attacks struck Kabul and other Afghan cities.
Has the Taliban fallen on tough times?

“What changed was the 15th of April,” said a senior administration official.

American military and intelligence officials concluded the attacks came at the direction of a group working from a base in North Waziristan in Pakistan’s tribal belt: the Haqqani network, an association of border criminals and smugglers that has mounted lethal attacks on foreign forces in Afghanistan. That confirmed longstanding American mistrust about Pakistani intentions — a poison that infects nearly every other aspect of the strained relationship. That swung the raging debate on whether Mr. Obama or another senior American should go beyond the expression of regret that the administration had already given, and apologize.

Complex demands
The negotiations are complicated by a complex web of interlocking demands from both sides. Without the apology, Pakistani officials say they cannot reopen NATO supply routes into Afghanistan that have been closed since November.

The Americans, in turn, are withholding between $1.18 billion and $3 billion of promised military aid — the exact figure depending on which side is speaking.

The continuing deadlock does not bode well for Pakistan’s attendance at a NATO meeting in Chicago in three weeks, assuming it is even invited. The administration has been eager to cast the event as a regional security summit meeting, and Pakistan’s absence would be embarrassing.

'Lawmaker a lawbreaker': Pakistan PM convicted

Administration officials acknowledged Friday that the stalemate would not be resolved quickly. “This is the beginning of the re-engagement conversation,” Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman, said in Washington. “We’re going to have to work through these issues, and it’s going to take some time.”

The two countries at least are relieved to have started talking. A series of visits and discussions in recent weeks included a meeting between Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of a nuclear summit meeting in Seoul, South Korea, last month. Since the Pakistani Parliament completed a review of relations with the United States, Americans have repeatedly vowed to respect the will of Pakistan’s lawmakers, even though they demanded an end to American drone strikes, which the United States sees as crucial in fighting militants hiding in Pakistan’s border areas.

Aside from the apparently intractable issues of drones and the apology, the two countries focused on four specific areas of potential cooperation: counterterrorism, the NATO supply lines, military aid payments and the Taliban peace process.

Slideshow: Pakistan: A nation in turmoil (on this page) *[msnbc.msn]

Yet there was an undeniable sense of wariness, driven by the pressures of domestic politics, with Mr. Obama facing re-election this year and Pakistan due for elections in the coming months. Pakistanis’ rage has been rising since a shooting in Lahore in January 2011 that involved a C.I.A. employee and fueled common fantasies about being overrun by rogue spies. The American operation to kill Osama bin Laden a few months later was taken as a stunning breach of Pakistan’s sovereignty.

An American apology is also problematic given Republican pressures weighing on Mr. Obama and the hostility of a Congress with little patience for Pakistan. “The politics of election year in both countries are slowing down the resolution of admittedly vexed issues in an environment of persistent mistrust,” said Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador to Washington.

Focus on Haqqani network
The Haqqani network has re-emerged as a focal American issue, particularly after the April 15 attacks. The next day, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told Pakistan’s foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, that “there has to be a concerted effort by the Pakistanis with the Afghans, with the others of us, against extremists of all kinds.”

American officials refused Friday to say whether there were any links between Pakistan’s main spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISI, and the Haqqani network’s latest attacks. One said the intelligence on the issue was “constantly evolving.” Others in Washington say they have not yet found any such ties.

New details about the attacks have emerged in the past two weeks, according to Afghan and American officials. While it is possible that some fighters were smuggled into Afghanistan over time and in small numbers, and that some weapons and ammunition were pre-staged, many may have been brought in from Pakistan only a day or two before the attacks, said a senior American military officer in Afghanistan.

“Our initial assessment is they probably moved them in a last moment to avoid detection,” said the officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the continuing inquiry.

Officials have also identified a possible intelligence gap. Ethnic infighting at the top of Afghanistan’s intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security, may have resulted in key people failing to pass on information that could have helped derail the attacks.

At this week’s meetings in Islamabad, new ideas were gently sounded out.

A senior Pakistani official said his country was offering a “wide menu of counterterrorism options” in a bid to at least slow down the rate of drone strikes. Pakistan has also offered to send F-16 fighter jets to strike Taliban and Qaeda targets in the tribal belt.

Pakistan: Drone strikes 'illegal'
United States officials have said that if Pakistan would not or could not strike insurgents in places like Miram Shah, the capital of North Waziristan, then the drone attacks would have to continue. With Pakistan refusing at least publicly to condone the strikes, the two sides seem at an impasse.

Pakistani villagers look at the debris from a plane crash on the outskirts of Islamabad on April 20, 2012. All 127 people on board were killed after a Boeing 737 crashed while trying to land in bad weather near the Pakistani capital Islamabad. (Farooq Naeem / AFP - Getty Images) Share

“The policy of the government is very, very clear,” Pakistan’s foreign secretary, Jalil Abbas Jilani, said Thursday. “We consider drones as illegal, counterproductive and, accordingly, unacceptable.”

Another Pakistani official, however, conceded, “Privately, we know they are unlikely to stop.”

The reopening of NATO supply lines is important for the United States military to support troops currently in Afghanistan, but also to help withdraw tons of weapons and matériel out as a major drawdown approaches in 2014. But, the senior Obama administration official added, Pakistan’s support for the NATO lines was about politics as much as logistics. “Our NATO partners see them as increasingly problematic, not as a partner,” he said. “If they don’t restore this, those feelings will become intensified over time.”

This story, "United States Talks Fail as Pakistanis Seek Apology," originally appeared in The New York Times.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47214058/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

Illinois governor proposes plan to rein in Medicaid

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-04-20T03:58:21Z

*It's no wonder so many doctors are turning people away, not taking on new patients, retiring etc.. -dropping rates paid to providers- Check the .pdf list. It may include some who get Medicare with added assistence. Here are some ways to contact the Govenor and your representatives.

Governor's Proposal to General Assembly, April 19, 2012
http://www2.illinois.gov/gov/Documents/Medicaid/Medicaid%20Spending%20Reductions.pdf

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/19/us-illinois-medicaid-idUSBRE83I1A520120419

The Democratic governor's $2.7 billion plan calls for saving $1.35 billion a year by reducing eligibility and coverage, eliminating programs, and other efficiencies. It also calls for dropping rates paid to providers to save another $675 million, and increasing the state's cigarette tax by $1 per pack to raise $335.7 million annually.

Money from the tax hike would in turn boost federal matching funds for Medicaid by a like amount....

http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=2&RecNum=10175

Illinois.gov - Illinois Government News Network (IGNN) - Search the News Results
www.illinois.gov

Illinois.gov - the Illinois Government News Network is your online source for St...
State of Illinois, State Agencies
......Illinois General Assembly
Illinois House Democrats
Illinois House Republicans
Illinois Senate Democrats
...See More

State of Illinois Home : State Agencies
www2.illinois.gov

Nursing homes

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1225&ChapterID=21
210 ILCS 45/ Nursing Home Care Act.
www.ilga.gov
Illinois Compiled Statutes Table of Contents.
http://www2.illinois.gov/gov/Pages/ContacttheGovernor.aspx

Governor : Contact the Governor
www2.illinois.gov
http://www.elections.illinois.gov/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx

District/Official Search - By Address
www.elections.illinois.gov

abc News: Health

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-04-18T23:19:54Z

Dr. Besser

Arthritis News

USAFamilies.net update

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-04-18T22:58:57Z

USAFamilies.net does not endorse nor support any comments by viewers.

All and any are independent from this site or domain especially from those who are do not support the USA by way of public, national or independent nature.

In the event a comment is made that does not support the USA in a positive and valid manner by way of their web sites, representatives, country, owner or administration and any of thereof, USAFamilies.net administration and owners are not in agreement and are held harmless.

Anyone using USAfamilies.net by way of email fraud, use of domain name, blog or any other illegal means, USAFamilies.net is requesting to cease and remove any past or current use.

All information is either open to the public or private opinions separate from USAfamilies.net Any purchases or actions taken, are the individuals responsibility. USAfamilies.net is not responsible for those actions and held harmless.

ABC News

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-04-18T22:35:13Z

Top Story:

Dick Clark Dead at 82

Secret Service Agents Forced Out Amid Scandal

Agents Brought Prostitutes into Contact With Sensitive Info

Obama Attacks GOP on Jobs Aid

George Zimmerman's Judge Disqualified

Romney: Election About 'Jobs Not Dogs'

Ted Nugent to Meet With Secret Service

Heiress' $21M Jewelry Auction

Ill. Mega Millions Winners Claim Jackpot

Nurse Kidnapped Baby After Miscarriage

More ABC News

Shows

Sections

Breaking News Alerts

Military training in Chicago and LAX...

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-04-18T22:30:18Z

http://youtu.be/ghFMZmRGQSs

http://youtu.be/Gx6mYjkGKa0

http://youtu.be/nLeePP9_O9Q

http://youtu.be/wrOrjHbZc38

OBAMA might CANCEL 2012 Elections! Dr. Jerome Corsi, Alex Jones pt 1 & 2

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-04-18T22:21:58Z

You don't own me / Yes Jesus Loves Me

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-03-08T20:53:34Z

But Jesus,...

Morning Bell: Religious Liberty Under Attack

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-03-08T20:16:51Z

*Who are you voting for this election?

Mike Brownfield February 22, 2012 at 9:50 am

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/22/morning-bell-religious-liberty-under-attack/

Today is Ash Wednesday (February 22) — the first day of Lent — the beginning of 40 days of prayer and fasting observed by Christians across the country, culminating in the Easter feast. Likewise in April, Jews will gather to celebrate Passover, one of many traditions observed under the religious freedom that the U.S. Constitution was designed to preserve. Now, though, that freedom is under direct attack by the very government that purports to represent the people, and that is but the first step in Obamacare’s re-writing of America’s blueprint.

This week, two more Christian colleges joined other religious institutions in fighting back against that attack when they filed lawsuits against the Obama Administration for imposing an anti-conscience mandate under Obamacare. The controversial regulation forces almost all employers to provide health insurance coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization, without a co-pay.

Heritage’s Sarah Torre writes that Geneva College, a private institution in Pennsylvania associated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, and Louisiana College, a small Southern Baptist school located in the middle of the state, have deeply held moral objections to the mandate and are left with no choice but to take their case to court:

With an offensively narrow religious exemption that will cover only some formal houses of worship, the mandate leaves many religious employers who hold moral objections to abortion and contraception without recourse. The mandate places the many non-exempted religious employers in an untenable situation: forced either to violate their beliefs by providing coverage of morally objectionable services or forgo providing employee health insurance altogether and pay hefty fines for doing so.

To date, seven lawsuits have been filed in response to this mandate, and those legal actions are but the tip of the iceberg of opposition to the Administration’s despotic directive.

The controversy began last August when the White House announced the anti-conscience policy as an interim final rule. Individuals and leaders from various faith backgrounds, including Roman Catholic, Jewish, evangelical, and Protestant traditions spoke out, prompting President Obama to announce an “accommodation” in response. But the proposal announced at a February 10 press conference would have done nothing to resolve the moral problem at the heart of the matter. In fact, more than 300 leaders to signed a letter deeming the gesture “unacceptable.”

Moreover, the so-called “accommodation” turned out to be nothing more than a smokescreen, since the Obama Administration ultimately finalized the August version of the rule that had caused the controversy in the first place. Adding insult to injury, the White House finalized the rule within hours of holding a press conference in which the President implied further changes — repeating the disregard for accountability to the American people first seen when they were told that Congress would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it.

The fight, though, extends beyond the issue of the anti-conscience mandate and speaks to the dangerous, endemic flaws at the root of Obamacare. In a new Heritage video, several political leaders speak out against the anti-conscience mandate while warning that this first assault on religious freedom is but a taste of what’s to come under the President’s health care law. George Weigel, a prominent Catholic scholar, says that Obamacare puts our society’s core in jeopardy:

What is at stake here ultimately is whether civil society will survive, and whether voluntary institutions or voluntary associations ranging from the traditional family to multimillion member organizations like the Catholic Church to small businesses will be allowed to function only if they imitate the government, only if they imitate the state.

Truly, the state will attempt to refashion society using Obamacare as its cudgel and awl. Matthew Spalding, vice president of American Studies at The Heritage Foundation, writes that this new, unaccountable regime of unelected bureaucrats — with regulatory authority over one-sixth of the American economy — will issue regulations that will fundamentally alter Americans’ way of life. Spalding says the anti-conscience mandate is but one of the ways that individuals will be affected under this new order of governmental dominance:

What is happening has little to do with health care or even public policy and everything to do with the role of government in the most immediate and intimate matters of our lives. All is subject to government control, regulatory dictate, and administrative whim. Nothing will be allowed outside of the new regulatory scheme: no independent state programs, no individuals or businesses permitted not to participate, no true private market alternatives.

In announcing his school’s Obamacare lawsuit, Louisiana College president Dr. Joe W. Aguillard declared, “The time for silence is over. Louisiana College will not sit by and allow this or any government to usurp our God-given religious freedoms and our time-honored Baptist heritage.” Like Louisiana College, Americans collectively are witnessing their time-honored liberties being trampled upon. They should not sit idly by, either. And Congress should repeal Obamacare forthwith in order to preserve the people’s freedom.

Click here to watch our new video, Religious Liberty: Obamacare’s First Casualty, to learn more about this issue.

Obamacare's Impact on Doctors

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-03-08T20:06:18Z

for the video below (Sorry, the blog you were looking for does not exist. However, the name healthcareplan2010 is available to register!)
Uploaded by WhiteHouseReform on Apr 21, 2010
http://healthcareplan2010.blogspot.com/
http://healthcareplan2010.blogspot.com/
The White House released an edited version of President Obama's health care speech.

U.S. v. Arizona Amicus Brief Filed

Ro@usafamilies.net (Moderator) — 2012-03-08T19:25:17Z

This is strictly information from a great reference. please click here for complete article. A new window will open to http://libertylegalfoundation.org

U.S. v. Arizona Amicus Brief Filed

February 22, 2012

One of President Obama’s first actions upon taking office was to order his Department of Justice to sue the State of Arizona. Arizona was accused of following existing Federal immigration law. Sounds absurd, doesn’t it? It sounds absurd because it is absurd, but those are the facts of U.S. v. Arizona.

Unfortunately there’s even more to be upset about in U.S. v. Arizona. If this were a simple disagreement between a state and the federal government about who and how immigration law is to be enforced, it would be interesting, but not shocking. However, in U.S. v. Arizona the Obama administration actively violated existing Federal law (and continues to do so today). Federal law, passed by Congress before Obama took Office, prohibits any government agency from limiting access to INS information about the immigration status of any person. Yet the lawsuit filed by the Obama administration asked the Arizona Federal Court to do exactly what Federal law specifically said that no government agency can do.

But wait, it gets better: A liberal Federal Judge granted the Obama administration an injunction against Arizona. The Judge’s order ALSO violated clear Federal law. The law that Obama pointed to in support of his case, and that the Judge cited in her order, is literally the same Federal code section that states that no governmental agency can do what the Court did.

Here is the Federal code at issue in this case, quoting directly from 8 U.S.C. §1373, subsections (a) & (b).:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual…no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) …requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service”

Now for the truly outrageous irony, both the Arizona Court and the Obama administration cite subsection (c) of the same law and claim that it allows them to prohibit Arizona from requiring Arizona police from requesting “information regarding the citizenship or immigration status” of individuals in police custody. Subsection (c) simply requires the INS to respond to any such requests. You see, the Arizona Court and Obama both reason that because subsection (c) requires the INS to respond, if Arizona police make too many requests, then the INS will be too busy to “pursue other priorities,” as determined by Obama.

To summarize the argument: Because Federal law requires us to do this, if you make us do it we won’t be able to not do it. And that argument won the day.

This argument essentially asks the Judicial branch to validate the Executive branch’s decision to ignore the Legislative branch’s mandate. Do you see the danger to our entire form of government?

(link within article is: Oops! Page Not Found Sorry, the page you were looking for could not be found. This sort of thing happens a lot these days)

All information is either open to the public or private opinions separate from USAfamilies.net Any purchases or actions taken, are the individuals responsibility. USAfamilies.net is not responsible for those actions and held harmless.