Student body ID cards with RFID-embedded chips. Image: Northside Independent School District
Just as the U.S. Department of Agriculture mandates Radio Frequency Identification Device chips to monitor livestock, a Texas school district just begun implanting the devices on student identification cards to monitor pupils’ movements on campus, and to track them as they come and go from school.
Tagging school children with RFID chips is uncommon, but not new. A federally funded preschool in Richmond, California, began embedding RFID chips in students’ clothing in 2010. And an elementary school outside of Sacramento, California, scrubbed a plan in 2005 amid a parental uproar. And a Houston, Texas, school district began using the chips to monitor students on 13 campuses in 2004.
It was only a matter of time. Radio frequency identification devices are a daily part of the electronic age, and are fast becoming a part of passports, libraries and payment cards, and are widely expected to replace bar-code labels on consumer goods.
And it appears that the educational move to Big Brother-style monitoring is motivated mainly by money, despite privacy and health concerns.
Two schools at the Northside Independent School District in San Antonio began issuing the RFID-chip-laden student-body cards when classes began last Monday. Like most state-financed schools, their budgets are tied to average daily attendance. If a student is not in his seat during morning roll call, the district doesn’t receive daily funding for that pupil, because the school has no way of knowing for sure if the student is there.
But with the RFID tracking, students not at their desk but tracked on campus are counted as being in school that day, and the district receives its daily allotment for that student.
“What we have found, they are there, they’re in the building and not in their chairs. They are in the cafeteria, with counselors, in stairwells or a variety of places, some legitimately and some not,” district spokesman Pascual Gonzalez said in a telephone interview. “If they are on campus, we can legally count them present.”
The Spring Independent School District in Houston echoed the same theory when it announced results of its program in 2010. “RFID readers situated throughout each campus are used to identify where students are located in the building, which can be used to verify the student’s attendance for ADA funding and course credit purposes,” the district said.
But privacy groups are wary.
“We don’t think kids in schools should be treated like cattle,” Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said in a telephone interview. “We generally don’t like it. My take on RFID is it’s fine for products, but not so much for people. That’s one of the places where the lines need to be drawn. ”
But there appears to be dozens of companies who see no need to draw such a line and offer their RFID wares to monitor students in what is still a tiny but growing market. Among the biggest companies in the market: AT&T.
“One day soon, home room teachers in your local middle and high schools may stop scanning rows of desks and making each student yell out ‘Here!’ during a morning roll call. Instead, small cards, or tags, carried by each student will transmit a unique serial number via radio signal to an electronic reader near the school door,” AT&T says in its RFID-student advertising materials.
Gonzalez said there has been minimal parental and student opposition to the program at John Jay High School and Anson Jones Middle School. The pilot project could expand to the Northside Independent School District’s 110 other schools, he said.
As for privacy, the system only monitors a student’s movements on campus. Once a student leaves campus, the chips no longer communicate with the district’s sensors.
He said the chips, which are not encrypted and chronicle students only by a serial number, also assist school officials to pinpoint where kids are at any given time, which he says is good for safety reasons. “With this RFID, we know exactly where the kid is within the school,” he said noting students are required to wear the ID on a lanyard at all times on campus.
The lack of encryption makes it not technically difficult to clone a card to impersonate a fellow student or to create a substitute card to play hooky, and makes the cards readable by anyone who wanted to install their own RFID reader, though all they would get is a serial number that’s correlated with the student’s ID number in a school database.
EPIC’s Rotenberg was among about two dozen health and privacy advocates who signed an August position paper blasting the use of RFID chips in schools.
The paper, which included signatures from the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation and, among others, Big Brother Watch, said the RFID systems may have “potential” (.pdf) health risks, too.
“RFID systems emit electromagnetic radiation, and there are lingering questions about whether human health might be affected in environments where the reading devices are pervasive,” the paper said. “This concern and the dehumanizing effects of ubiquitous surveillance may place additional stress on students, parents, and teachers.”
Gonzalez said John Jay High has 200 surveillance cameras and Anson Jones Middle School, about 90.
“The kids,” he said, “are used to being monitored.”
(If you are not up on this issue… follow the thread here from the bottom up)
Update: Religious organizations are already saying that the Obama’s announced compromise is hollow. Catholic Bishops and other religious organizations are moving forward with their protests. The political fallout from this issue could be huge in the 2012 Election among religious groups and Independents. Remember Obama carried the Catholic vote in 2008.
RUSH: Everybody's reporting that Obama's caving on this mandate that the Catholic services provide abortion and all. There's not a cave here! There may be an accommodation, but there's no big cave-in here. It's still the government mandating this stuff happen. They're just changing the provider. It's not done by the church. He says he gave them a way out of it by mandating the insurance companies do it, but that's not the point here.
Snip
So everywhere I'm reading that Obama is caving on the mandate in Obamacare that Catholic churches -- well, not churches, but the schools and hospitals are mandated to provide contraceptives and abortion-related services that they religiously disagree with. "What's happened here is that Obama's caved! He has seen, he has heard, and now he's gonna shift that burden to the insurance companies!"
Snip
Obama is not doing what he's doing to make Barbara Boxer happy or the pro-abortion crowd happy or the Democrat Senate Caucus happy. He knows that's gonna happen. What he's doing is violating the Constitution. He is coalescing extra-constitutional power. He is making a power grab here that is unprecedented in the history of the presidency. (interruption)
Thomas Edsall, that's right. Thomas Edsall wrote that piece in the Nuev Orc Times, former Washington Post columnist. So I don't think... This has been my if you then argument with the Republican establishment from the get-go with Obama. I don't think this is traditional politics at all. I don't think traditional politics has anything to do with why Obama's doing this. This is about fundamentally transforming this country from a representative republic to a pure, straight democracy with the president assuming he's the majority and therefore can do whatever he wants to do. We're not dealing with the average, "Okay, the Democrats won the White House. They're gonna have it for four or eight years. We gotta try to stop 'em however we can and we'll get power back."
There's something unprecedented going on here.
Woodrow Wilson dreamed of this.
FDR dreamed of this.
Obama is doing this.
The White House will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women!!!
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Everybody's reporting that Obama's caving on this mandate that the Catholic services provide abortion and all. There's not a cave here! There may be an accommodation, but there's no big cave-in here. It's still the government mandating this stuff happen. They're just changing the provider. It's not done by the church. He says he gave them a way out of it by mandating the insurance companies do it, but that's not the point here. Great to have you. It's Friday. Let's go to! JOHNNY DONOVAN: Live from the Left Coast at our satellite studios in Los Angeles,...
WASHINGTON, February 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work. The plan, touted as a concession to freedom of religion and conscience, was immediately denounced by pro-life Rep. Chris Smith. “The so-called new policy is the discredited old policy, dressed up to look like something else,. said Smith. .It remains a serious violation of religious freedom. Only the most naï or gullible would accept this as a change...
UPDATE, 12:14p: More evidence the “compromise” stinks: Planned Parenthood likes it. UPDATE, 12:02p: From a House source: This “new policy” is a distinction without a difference. The services the religious organization opposes won’t be listed in the contract, but the insurance companies will give it the employees anyway. Insurance companies will justify providing the coverage that the religious charity opposes by swearing that birth control coverage doesn’t actually cost anything because it’s cheaper than pregnancy services, so it’s just a free perk. The administration will argue that people of faith should be fine with this arrangement, because they can tell...
(Reuters) - U.S. health insurers said on Friday they feared President Barack Obama had set a new precedent by making them responsible for providing free birth control to employees of religious groups as he sought to defuse an election-year landmine. "We are concerned about the precedent this proposed rule would set," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's trade group. "As we learn more about how this rule would be operationalized, we will provide comments through the regulatory process." Zirkelbach said insurers "have long offered contraceptive coverage to employers as part of comprehensive, preventive benefits that...
With regards to government intervention into religion, the First Amendment to the US Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” First, Congress is the Constitutional body that has the authority to make laws for the United States of America. Second, it is to steer clear of anything pertaining to freedom of religion.
WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — The Blaze has covered the religious freedom issues surrounding the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate extensively. President Barack Obama will announce a plan to accommodate religious employers outraged by a rule that would require them to cover birth control for women free of charge, according to a person familiar with the decision.
Obama was expected to make the announcement at the White House Friday. ABC has more regarding what sources are saying the president is poised to present:
The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance. [...]
One source familiar with the decision described the accommodation as “Hawaii-plus,” insisting that it’s better than the Hawaii plan — for both sides.
In Hawaii the employer is responsible for referring employees to places where they can obtain the contraception; Catholic leaders call that material cooperation with evil. But what the White House will likely announce later today is that the relationship between the religious employer and the insurance company will not need to have any component involving contraception.
The exact nature of the clarification remains unclear, but any accommodation could largely follow what exists in a majority of states, like in Illinois where DePaul University, the largest Catholic university in the country, offers an employee health plan that does cover contraception. Georgetown University offers a similar plan.
The shift is aimed at containing the political firestorm that erupted after Obama announced in January that religious-affiliated employers had to cover birth control as preventative care for women. Churches and houses of worship were exempt, but all other affiliated organizations were ordered to comply by Aug. 2013.
Republican leaders and religious groups, especially Roman Catholics, responded with intense outrage, saying the requirement would force them to violate church teachings and long-held beliefs against contraception.
The issue also pushed social issues to the forefront in an election year that had been dominated by the economy. Abortion, contraception and any of the requirements of Obama‘s health care overhaul law have the potential to galvanize the Republicans’ conservative base, critical to voter turnout in the presidential and congressional races.
Republicans vowed to reverse the president’s policy, with House Speaker John Boehner accusing the administration of violating First Amendment rights and undermining some of the country’s most vital institutions, such as Catholic charities, schools and hospitals.
The measure also sparked an internal debate at the White House. Vice President Joe Biden, then-chief of staff Bill Daley and deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough, all Catholics, raised concerns about how the administration proceeded on the policy. On the other side, senior White House advisers Nancy-Ann DeParle, Pete Rouse and David Plouffe argued for the need to ensure coverage for all without exception, as a matter of women’s health and fairness.
The Obama administration clearly underestimated the response it would receive from Catholics and non-Catholics, alike, after implementing a universal mandate on health plans that requires coverage of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.
As the Blaze has extensively documented, the response has been swift and hard-hitting. Many liberals who traditionally support these options for women have been jumping ship to side with Catholic leadership in agreement that the administration has overstepped its bounds — an event that so rarely happens in theological and political circles.
But it’s important to note that, despite very boisterous outcries, Obama does have support from some liberals on this issue; many of them are pointing to the fact that nearly all Catholic women use contraceptives as a defense. Using this argument, those who favor the mandate claim that the Church is out of touch and not accurately speaking for its followers on this important women’s health issue.
But is this the proper lens through which to view the issue? Free and religious speech advocates would argue that usage has little to do with views on government intervention in church affairs. In the end, it’s a complicated scenario with political capital for whichever side wins the public over. At the moment, the situation may not be as favorable for Obama as he would like. In an article published on Wednesday, Religion News Service’s David Gibson provides five reasons that the president may be losing the battle.
First, the debate, despite what the mandate’s supporters say, is about religious freedom — not contraception. Regardless of where one stands, the main issue at hand is whether the government has the right to interfere in church affairs and dictate what will be covered in health care plans. Gibson writes:
The bishops don’t have as much credibility with the laity as they used to, thanks to the clergy sex abuse scandal, among other things. But Catholics are still a potent tribe, and if outsiders are seen as attacking the church, Catholics can get defensive – and they can get even.
Then there’s the fact, as mentioned, that some liberal Catholics have abandoned the president on the issue. Regardless of where these individuals stand on use of these health care options, forcing Catholic institutions (among other faith-based groups) to violate their conscience just isn’t sitting right.
Now, let’s talk about those other faith groups. Many times, people of different religious traditions have a tough time coalescing, but on this issue, individuals with varying theological ideals are coming together. After all, it’s one thing to sit back and watch an attack on a rival faith group unfold, but when considering what could happen, should this mandate go unchecked, many religious people are fearful: “What’s next?,” they’re wondering. Gibson continues:
Even though evangelicals and other conservative Protestants generally don’t have religious objections to contraception, they do have a big problem with “big government” and with perceived infringements on religious freedom. Evangelicals – both their leaders and their troops – have never been big Barack Obama supporters anyway, so they were happy to provide any electoral and rhetorical muscle the Catholic hierarchy could not muster.
The fourth reason Gibson highlights is the fact that the “attack on religion” frame the issue is being explored through is an appealing one for Republicans. While many conservatives are wondering why Obama would approach this subject in an election year to begin with, others are noticing just how effective religious freedom rhetoric will be for the GOP nominee.
The rhetoric is already ratcheting up. “This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country cannot stand, and will not stand,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said earlier this week.
And, of course, there’s the overwhelming fact that the president will need to secure the Catholic vote to ensure re-election. “While Obama won the overall Catholic vote 54 percent to 46 percent in 2008, he lost the white Catholic vote, 47 percent to 53 percent,” Gibson writes. It‘s hard to imagine the president won’t lose a portion of this important cohort as a result of his refusal, thus far, to compromise.
As GOP Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have both said, “Obama has shown his hand and if he is re-elected, even if they walk this back now, this is the road that his administration will go down!”
Sure, he’s shown “openness” to the ideal of coming up with a viable solution that appeases both sides, but to those so staunchly opposed, such a notion isn’t good enough. The president will need to admit wrongdoing and back away from the mandate, should he wish to appease many of those individuals who feel wronged by the government’s newfound regulations. So far, there’s no evidence that he will take such a course.
There was a time when full tables signified prosperity and thick waistlines were considered attractive. The ability to eat one's fill was what separated the gentry from the peasant making do with a few crusts and salted leftovers. Fat was in because it represented leisure and wealth. Thin meant you were on the road to the poorhouse or to consumption, which meant your body was being consumed, not that you were the one doing the consuming.
Then feudalism went the way of the dodo, agriculture was revolutionized and starvation went extinct in the West. Between the widespread availability of cheap food and social welfare programs covering everything from soup kitchens to food stamps, it became hard to starve. Not only was the availability of food no longer associated with prosperity, but even the poor had begun to eat so well that fat began to carry working class and lower class associations.
Fat was no longer wealth, instead conscientious fitness became a mark of prosperity. The laden table made way for micro portions and exotic but barely edible foods. Thin was in on the plate and the waistline.
In Third World countries where feudalism never ended and the agriculture revolution never mattered, the values often never flipped. Instead of anorexia, teenage girls suffer from being force fed to make them more marriageable. The wealthy are fat and the feasts at the top never end.
In the West, weight stands in for class, at a time when explicit classism has become politically incorrect. When Europeans sneer at how fat Americans are, and American coastal elites sneer at the rest of the country for being fat, it's a class putdown that dressed up longstanding contempt in the colors of the welfare state.
Just because the left and its class warfare worldview, which pretends to be concerned about the plight of the underclass, dominates Western societies does not mean that it is not classist. The left is elitist and its underclass protectionism creates a new wave feudalism with a vast government funded upper and middle class dedicated to caring for the underclass, subsidizing it, caring for it and taxing it to pay for all those services.
The obesity concern trolling is a combination of classism and nanny statism that brings to mind the days when their ideological forebears thought that the way to deal with the poor was to sterilize those who seemed less capable than the rest to improve the breed. There is something equally Darwinian in the sneers aimed at Paula Deen. The breed being culled while the elites try to teach their less evolved cousins to survive by eating their arugula.
The nanny state is built on a technocratic confidence in the ability to create one size fits all solutions, overlaying that on a map of the current medical wisdom leads to the creation of single standards, which often have less to do with health than they do with the status symbols of the leisure class. 19th century popularized medicine created so many of these fads that some of them are still around today. The 20th century created even more.
Death though is not only inevitable, but it cannot be dodged with a one size fits all standard. Fitness guru Jim Fixx who helped kickstart the running craze died in his early fifties of a heart attack. Fixx had quit smoking and lost weight, and still died at an early age. Jackie Gleason who spent his life looking like a walking health attack, smoking and drinking, outlived him by nearly twenty years.
Medicine is individual and the collectivization of medicine is a technocratic solution that leads nowhere except to few doctors and ranks of unionized medical personnel nudging patients into following the script handed down to them by professors who have never actually practiced medicine a day in their life. This is the outcome of a nanny state outlook that sees individuals as dispensable, that is concerned only with group outcomes.
This view requires seeing all people as endowed with certain problems that require broad stroke solutions, like adding calories to menus and other rats in a maze tactics designed to modify human behavior on a national level. The targeting of fast food restaurants, public school meals and food stamps reeks of the same elitist arrogance that drives the nanny state.
The politicization of food by the elites of the left always comes down to class, no matter how it may be disguised in liberal colors. From exotic to locally grown, the trajectory of food politics follows the upselling of food prices The only difference is that the dominance of the left has wrapped the added cost with no added value in their own politics. The more affordable food becomes, the more the left finds ways to add cost to food, without adding value.
But the politicization of food goes beyond the fair trade and locally grown fetishes of the politically correct elites, the more politics ends up on your plate, the more the elites are driven to involve everyone else in their food fights. What begins as a way of raising prices while diminishing value to assert wealth and privilege becomes imposed on everyone in the name of their political morality. Once everyone else is paying more and getting less, then the classist left demands new ways to set its superior moral eating habits apart. Instead of everyone ending up with more food, everyone ends up with less.
The cultural ascendance of the left has meant that instead of conspicuous consumption, the consumption has to be disguised with conspicuous political pieties. The food may cost twice as much, but it's locally grown on a farm run by handicapped union workers who visit Cuba to receive free health care or by the indigenous peoples of Tuba-Tuba with the proceeds going to a complete sonic library of their chants and ceremonies. The entire thing is meaningfully meaningless, but it disguises the consumption in a hairshirt, which is the entire point.
Conspicuous consumption is now for the poor while conspicuous conservation is for liberal elites. Al Gore may live in a mansion but he still has the carbon footprint of a mouse. The problem is the truck driver whose vehicle emissions are killing the planet. Whole Foods is just fine, but we need to do something about McDonald's.
Conspicuous conservationism has made America a poorer country, destroyed millions of jobs and outsourced them overseas. Now it's beginning to make America a hungrier country. In a moment of horrifying tone deafness that makes Marie Antoinette seem enlightened, the left is cheering that fewer Americans are eating meat, without seeming to understand that it's because fewer Americans are able to afford it because of their economic policies.
What the left's food police can't accomplish with nudges and shaming, they can finish off with policies and regulations that end up raising the price of food or by making it too difficult to sell. As the left tries and fails to sell the general public on conservation as a status symbol, it moves in the heavy bureaucratic artillery.
It isn't unusual for elites to use the legal system to enforce their own values on the general public, though it was the kind of thing that the universal franchise was supposed to put a leash on, but there is something grim about their growing preoccupation with the habits and mortality of the population. It's the kind of concern that has a habit of ending in eugenics and the more medicine is universalized, the easier it is to start cutting off access to medical treatment for those who haven't been nudged far enough in the right direction.
Social medicine politicizes food consumption and a globalized economy politicizes food production. And the politicized American plate has less on it and at a higher price. While the left obsessively pursues its mission of destroying fast food in the name of lowering social medicine costs and being fairer to farmers, what they are truly accomplishing is to take affordable and filling food off the shelves, as they have done with countless other products that they have targeted.
By the time the left was done with Russia, it had gone from a wheat producer to a wheat importer and many basic food staples were hard to come by even in a country filled with collective farms. Finding modern day examples of that isn't hard. We only have to look as far south as Venezuela to see empty store shelves under the weight of government food policies. But one day that may be the local grocery store if the left gets its way.
CRIMEARE U.S. COPS PREPARING WIDESPREAD USE OF FACIAL RECOGNITION IPHONE?
Starting as early as September, cops across the country may be using a new iphone-based device to identify people based on a picture of their face, iris scan, or a fingerprint reader, raising concerns about how the data will be gathered, stored, and used.
The device in question is called the MORIS, which stands for Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System. Made by BI2 Technologies of Plymouth, Mass, it runs on the iphone platform. The company states that it has contracts with 40 government agencies to deliver 1,000 devices this fall.
Unlike other currently used biometric technologies, the MORIS does not require a separate digital camera or upload time, and automatically scans known databases for criminal warrants and other relevant history. The Wall Street Journal gives specifics on how this new device works:
“To scan a person’s iris, police officers can hold the special iris-scanning camera on device, called MORIS, about 5 to 6 inches away from an individual’s irises. After snapping a high resolution photo, the MORIS system analyzes 235 unique features in each iris and uses an algorithm to match that person with their identity if they are in the database.”
“For the facial recognition, an officer takes a photo of a person at a distance of about 2 feet to 5 feet. Based on technologies from Animetrics Inc., the system analyzes about 130 distinguishing points on the face, such as the distance between a person’s eye and nose. It then scans the database for likely matches.”
As for the usage of the devices, the law does not appear settled on whether police need consent to take a person’s photo. Generally speaking, the law does not prohibit taking photos of people in a public place. But taking and storing photos for law enforcement purposes- particularly if the subject is in custody- could trigger a different standard of rules. The law becomes even more vague on issues such as whether an iris scan constitutes a search.
Below is a video presentation for the Brockton Police Department showing facial recognition and iris scanning technologies that have been demoed and will soon be in use by various law enforcement units in Massachusetts. The presenters show the devices, discuss the database, and describe the features designed to help law enforcement officers.
US Troops overseas have used a variety of biometric tools for years to vet allies and identify insurgents and terrorists. But the MORIS is poised to become the first widespread, mobile usage of such technology here in the US by local and federal law enforcement.
Law enforcement analysts believe the device could prevent the wrong inmates from obtaining prison release, to identify accident victims and keep track of the homeless. While there are many privacy and civil liberties concerns associated with law enforcement’s widespread use of facial recognition devices, the landscape of biometrics is already rapidly changing with programs such as Facebook Facial Recognition:
Are Republican Senators rolling over and playing dead? Are they"compromising" on the Obama-Pelosi so-called "stimulus" bill and essentially giving President Obama and extreme liberals in CongressEXACTLY what they want?
Unless you drive the message home, RIGHT NOW, the answer may unfortunately be "YES."
You know what we're talking about.
We're talking about the bill that radio host Sean Hannity calls the"European Socialist Act of 2009" or "The End Capitalism As We Know It Act of 2009."
We're talking about the bill that we call the "Obama-Pelosi Theft Act of 2009."
We're talking about BILLIONS of dollars in taxpayer-funded "payoffs" to groups like ACORN (ACORN should be INDICTED, not REWARDED).
In reality, the above descriptions don't do justice to the Obama-Pelosi Theft Act of 2009! To speak frankly, this so-called "stimulus bill"(which has nothing to do with stimulating the economy and has everything to do with pork and payoffs to liberal special interests)is just PLAIN EVIL!
But there is hope. Make no mistake, Congress IS hearing you loud and clear. Because of your actions, our elected officials now know that the American people oppose thisObama-Pelosi Theft Act of 2009.
But they have NOT totally gotten the message. Instead of scrapping this evil bill, in typical fashion, they're trying to tinker with it... hoping to make it better by amending it here and amending it there.
That's NOT what the American people want. The American people DON'T want this evil bill "fixed." The American people want this evil bill DEAD... PERIOD... END OF SENTENCE!
Republican Senators should know better! Putting lipstick on this pig of a bill is NOTgoing to make it any less socialist... any less egregious... any more palatable to the American people.
Our elected officials need to hear from you RIGHT NOW.
Use the hyperlink below to send your 42 personalized faxes to Barack Obama and the Republican Members of the United States Senate!
Tell them in no uncertain terms that the American people DON'T want them to "tinker" with this evil bill or to try to "fix" it. The American people do not want any "compromises" or "amendments" or ANY AMOUNT OF LIPSTICK PUT ON THIS PIG OF A BILL.
The American people want the Obama-Pelosi Theft Act of 2009 DEAD... A STAKE DRIVEN THROUGH ITS EVIL HEART! Tell them - to borrow a phrase from former First Lady Nancy Reagan - they just need to say "NO" and stop this liberal boondoggle!
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Are Senate Republicans Trying To Snatch Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory?
According to The Washington Post; "Senate Democratic leaders conceded Tuesday that they do not have the votes to pass the stimulus bill as currently written."
IT SHOULD BE OVER! The Obama-Pelosi Theft Act of 2009 should be DEAD ON ARRIVAL! We should be popping champagne corks!
But not so fast!
Senator John McCain and a group of Republican Senators just proposed their own $445 billion dollar stimulus plan.
Admittedly, some of the provisions of the plan sound good and it is certain that in the coming hours you will hear some tough sounding rhetoric coming from the mouths of Republicans.
But MAKE NO MISTAKE, alternate proposals are ONLY offered as a precursor to compromise! The name of the game is still "let's make a deal."
The name of the game is STILL, "we give you MOST of what YOU want and the American people get NOTHING!"
Yes... our elected leaders ARE planning to haggle... to negotiate... to give Obama and Pelosi WHAT THEY REALLY WANT!
It might not be a stretch to acknowledge that the other side asked for MORE than they really wanted from the get-go, knowing that Republicans would foolishly seek"compromise," thus giving them EVERYTHING they really wanted in the first place!
Senator Lindsey Graham acknowledged as much. At least, he's playing "let's make a deal:"
"Get us all in a room. That's what you do with a major piece of legislation."
And Graham is not the only one sounding the trumpet of compromise! According to The Minneapolis St. Paul Star Tribune:
"Senate Republicans will propose a panoply of amendments to make the bill more palatable... Such changes, if accepted, could win support for the plan from conservative Democrats as well as Republicans."
Senator Mitch McConnell issued the following statement:
"We look forward to offering amendments to improve this critical legislation and move it back to the package President Obama originally proposed."
EXCUSE ME?
Lawrence Kudlow wrote the following on TownHall.com several days ago.
"McConnell might be willing to change his mind if the package changes, but he told me he didn’t expect that to happen."
Well guess what? The package HAS changed! Does that mean that McConnell is NOWwilling to change his mind?
We can't let that happen! We cannot allow our elected officials to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
They need to hear from you right now! They need to know you want them to stand firm and KILL the Obama-Pelosi Theft Act of 2009!
Use the hyperlink below to send your 42 personalized faxes to Barack Obama and the Republican Members of the United States Senate!
Tell them in no uncertain terms that the American people DON'T want them to "tinker" with this evil bill or to try to "fix" it. The American people do not want any "compromises" or "amendments" or ANY AMOUNT OF LIPSTICK PUT ON THIS PIG OF A BILL.
The American people want the Obama-Pelosi Theft Act of 2009 DEAD... A STAKE DRIVEN THROUGH ITS EVIL HEART! Tell them - to borrow a phrase from former First Lady Nancy Reagan - they just need to say "NO" and stop this liberal boondoggle!
If the above hyperlinks do not work, please copy and paste the first hyperlink into your browser address bar.
Is It Perhaps Best To Do Nothing?
Let's be frank! We've already tried recklessly throwing taxpayer money at our problems to the tune of $700 billion. IT HASN'T WORKED!
Job losses continue. Foreclosures continue. Credit is still tight!
And now we're supposed to believe that spending MORE MONEY (money we don't have) to fund liberal causes and pet projects WILL work?
Glenn Beck with FOX News said it best:
"So, the question is, when will America finally say, 'You know, I think I’ve learned my lesson. Enough is enough?'"
Senator Richard Shelby told CNBC that Washington should just "shelve the stimulus package."
Even economist Martin Feldstein, who initially supported a "stimulus plan" is singing a different tune and wrote in The Washington Post:
"It would be better for the Senate to delay legislation for a month, or even two... . We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake."
Admittedly, people are suffering under the strain of this economic downturn.
But history teaches us that government meddling may only extend what could be short term misery!
Former President Ronald Reagan cautioned us that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
George Will, in a recent column titled "Same Old New Deal?" echoes those sentiments and insinuates that the New Deal turned a short-term recession into the Great Depression which lasted more than a decade!
"The assumption is that the New Deal vanquished the Depression. Intelligent, informed people differ about why the Depression lasted so long. But people whose recipe for recovery today is another New Deal should remember that America's biggest industrial collapse occurred in 1937, eight years after the 1929 stock market crash and nearly five years into the New Deal. "
We don't need compromises! We don't need fixes! We don't need alternative plans that will move America towards SOCIALISM!
Demand that our elected officials stand firm and KILL the Obama-Pelosi Theft Act of 2009!
Do it NOW!
Use the hyperlink below to send your 42 personalized faxes to Barack Obama and the Republican Members of the United States Senate!
Tell them in no uncertain terms that the American people DON'T want them to "tinker" with this evil bill or to try to "fix" it. The American people do not want any "compromises" or "amendments" or ANY AMOUNT OF LIPSTICK PUT ON THIS PIG OF A BILL.
The American people want the Obama-Pelosi Theft Act of 2009 DEAD... A STAKE DRIVEN THROUGH ITS EVIL HEART! Tell them - to borrow a phrase from former First Lady Nancy Reagan - they just need to say "NO" and stop this liberal boondoggle!
Attention, Catholics, Protestants, and everyone who cares about the causes of life, religious freedom, and freedom of conscience! 
