Ben Nelson’s Bribery Flip-Flop?

Ben Nelson was another Democrat senator on the fence for the Senate Health Care bill. He was up in the air based on his pro-life stance and the abortion mandates being slipped into the bill.

There have been reports that Ben Nelson was apparently offered somewhere between $300-$500M worth of earmarks for his state of Nebraska.

The White House and Democratic Leadership in the Senate has told Senator Nelson they will close every military base in Nebraska — a threat that is not credible, really — but they have also offered Senator Nelson between $300 million to $500 million in earmarks, according to key hill health care operatives. These hundreds of millions will be available for whatever he wants to spend them on in Nebraska.

Earlier, as mentioned above, there was a report that the White House and other Democrats were threatening to close Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. 

A Nelson aide has not only discredited the AFB threat, but has also stated the earmark bribery is an erroneous report.

As the Senate health care debate enters crunch time, the pressure from all sides continued to grow today, with Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., right in the middle.

His spokesman quickly dismissed a report by conservative columnist Michelle Malkin that Nelson was even being threatened with “closure of an air force base,” presumably Offutt Air Force Base, which is south of Omaha and home of U.S. Strategic Command. Malkin also said Nelson has been promised a “bribe bigger than Sen. Landrieu’s.”

That’s a reference to Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Democrat and one of the last holdouts on the vote to begin the health care debate. The legislation includes a provision to increase Louisiana’s Medicaid funds that Landrieu says is worth $300 million.

I wonder who we should believe? Another politician or people legitimately concerned about the future of the country? Excuse me if I’m not ready to concede that the bribery is false, given the fact that so many politicians seem to have lost all sense of decency, integrity and any connection to the people they supposedly represent.

2 Comments

Filed under Congress, Corruption, Democrats, Health Care, ObamaCare

Holder the Hypocrite; Geneva Convention? What Geneva Convention?

Hypocrite, Eric Holder, in 2002, says the Gitmo terrorists aren’t covered under the Geneva Convention.  What article in the Geneva Convention you ask? Well, it’s Article IV and it goes a little something like this:

Click here for the Eyeblast video

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:  

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.  

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government [not a deity] or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. 

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. 

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: 

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. 

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention. 

In summary, these terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention because they are not normal soldiers, conducting war by international rules and guidelines.  They are not regularly uniformed armed forces that abide by this Convention or any other treaties. These terror cells do not act on the behalf of a government, but rather as underground radical factions set up to terrorize other cultures and individuals.  If they were uniformed soldiers, I would agree that they should be treated in a manner that abides by the Convention, however that has not, nor was it ever, the case. 

A lot of thought and legal drafting went into the appropriateness of interrogation techniques used against Al-Qaeda and the terrorists at Gitmo who initiated the attacks on 9/11.  I fail to see where the means of interrogation were unjust and completely inhumane? Waterboarding did not take place for every single prisoner and for those who were waterboarded, they could only be waterboarded so many times, while our men and women serving get waterboarded more often.  Doctors are also required to stand by during a waterboarding session.  As far as bugs in a corner or sleep deprivation – well that just reminds me of college, so what’s the big deal? Did these terrorists consider the lives or feelings of anybody before they attacked innocent civilians? I will never understand how the liberal mind works – and maybe that’s a good thing.

Oh, and it would be nice for all the Bush bashers and the liberal elite media to at least acknowledge the hypocrisy of Holder and this administration…

Leave a comment

Filed under Double Standards, Hypocrisy, Media, National Security, Obama Administration, Terrorism

More Government Malfeasance in Walpin-Gate

Investigations are still ongoing for recently fired IG, Gerald Walpin.  He was fired earlier this year after aggressively investigating the suspected fraud and misuse of funds by an Obama ally, Kevin Johnson and AmeriCorps. 

More information continues to trickle out regarding this case; eventually slow drips can cause a flood.  Darrell Issa & Charles Grassley, 2 senior ranking republicans, have been digging into this matter; to find out whether the firing was valid or if was used to cover-up fraud of a political ally, which seems to be the more likely case. 

The new information coming to the surface involves the head of AmeriCorps and Michelle Obama’s top aide/chief of staff.  

According to Republican investigators, Alan Solomont, then the chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, had denied meeting with Jackie Norris, at the time the First Lady’s chief of staff.  But recently-released White House visitor logs show that Solomont met with Norris on June 9 of this year (as well as on two earlier occasions). President Obama fired Walpin on June 10 after an intense dispute over Walpin’s aggressive investigation of misuse of AmeriCorps money by Obama political ally Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California. 

After being presented with the visitor logs, investigators say, Solomont explained that he met with Norris to discuss Corporation business but did not discuss the Walpin matter.  When pressed, Solomont said he might have made an offhand comment or a mention in passing, about the Walpin affair, but that he and Norris did not have a discussion about it.

Solomont’s explanations have left both Rep. Darrell Issa, ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Sen. Charles Grassley, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, frustrated and vowing to continue their investigation of the Walpin matter. In a letter to Solomont, sent Friday, Issa wrote that he has “serious questions about the veracity of your…testimony.”  In a statement Saturday, Grassley said he is “concerned about the accuracy and completeness of Mr. Solomont’s answers to questions.”

Ruh – Roh, Mr. Jetson!

Leave a comment

Filed under Corruption, Double Standards, Hypocrisy, Michelle Obama, Obama Administration

Narcissist in Chief Gives Himself a B+ for the Year

Jake Tapper Reports:

“Good, solid B-plus,” the president said. 

Explaining, he said, “we have inherited the biggest set of challenges of any president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 

“We stabilized the economy, and prevented possibilities of a Great Depression or a significant financial meltdown. The economy is growing again.

“We are on our way out of Iraq. I think we’ve got the best possible plan for Afghanistan.

“We have reset our image around the world.

“We have achieved an international consensus around the need for Iran and North Korea to disable their nuclear weapons.

“And I think that we’re going to pass the most significant piece of social legislation since Social Security, and that’s health insurance for every American,” he concluded.

Pressed by Oprah as to why only a B-plus, the president said, “B-plus because of the things that are undone. Health care is not yet signed. If I get health care passed we tip into A-minus.”

If this doesn’t scream sheer ego and arrogance, I don’t know what does.  Most intelligent individuals usually know that when a question of this sort is thrown at you, the proper response would be “I believe the American people are more apt at giving me a grade than I would be…” But of course, Mr. Mirror, mirror on the wall, had to answer and gave himself a high score.

If recent polls like Gallup or Rasmussen are any indication of how the American public actually feels about him and his grade, it would seem that he really needs some extra credit or maybe some one-on-one time with his professor, the public.  Obama’s approval rating has taken a nose dive while he sits at only 44% approval and he technically still has 1 more month until he reaches his one year mark.

All of the things that Obama mentions are outright lies as far as being accomplishments or things that most people look at much differently than he does. 

Take for example the assertion that he has stabilized the economy; many argue that just because stocks are rising that does not mean the economy has stabilized or gotten better.  We are on unprecedented territory and the unemployment rate is still in double digits.  Stocks also correct themselves for inflation which is what would appear to be happening, as well as the fact that many businesses have had to cut their workforces and become more efficient with less people.  For now, companies are reaping the rewards of more efficiencies, but eventually that will plateau if they want to move forward and stay ahead of their competition. There is still a chance that the economy could experience a double dip, and if it doesn’t, the most likely situation will be heavy inflation or Japanese style deflation with no growth for years to come.

How long until people get fed up with his blame game rhetoric that he has inherited this situation?  He has inherited the situation from every corruptocrat dating back more than just Bush’s 8 years.  We should throw in Greenspan, Clinton and even Carter for that matter if we want to really get at the heart of the issue.  He should also include himself since was in fact legal council for ACORN and lead the charge in the 90’s to obtain a settlement on a lawsuit indicating that credit scores are apparently discriminatory and the CRA should be expanded – hence subprime… I could go on, but I’ve vented enough on that topic.  I just can’t stand people who continuously play the victim, meanwhile, as they point the finger, opportunities and life pass them by.  I have no respect for individuals who can’t take responsibility – and this is supposed to be the leader of the only super power left in the world!?

I’m not sure where he comes off saying that we are pulling out of Iraq?  I’ll believe it when I see it.  Seems like he is carrying out Bush’s policies for now.  I think that stating his plans for Afghanistan are the best are delusional at best.  Maybe, if he had listened to his general in the first place, we wouldn’t have had so many killed over the couple of months (more so than any time when Bush was in office).  He still did not give them the # of troops requested but merely cut the request in half – I will forever call it Halfghanistan.

We have reset our image around the world? Funny, those whom I know living abroad who were excited about Obama, even after I tried to tell them the truth about his record and his ideology, are only now realizing what a disaster he is.  He continues to snub our allies, bow to other leaders, and apologize for all of America’s perceived wrongs on his travels abroad — this has made him a laughing-stock.  The liberal media lets him get away with it, but I don’t expect it to continue forever, if he continues to decline in the polls — eventually real sentiment will bubble to the surface.

When has Obama done anything about North Korea or Iran? His foreign policy seems to be avoidance.  He has not called for harsher sanctions, he is not using anything other than words to try to disarm Iran.  While he stares at himself in the mirror and relishes the media attention, Iran is creating weapons of mass destruction with their plutonium/uranium enrichment plants.

Health care legislation will definitely be significant but significance doesn’t always mean good.  It is absolutely maddening that those in DC could care less about the polls on health care. Most of America disapproves of this bill and the way the government is handling it.  I’ve seen the way government has screwed up business, the economy, and everything else it has touched, there is no way I want them making decisions about my health! 

So continue to grade yourself a B+ Mr. Ego… I can only hope that one of these days somebody in the media has a ‘Come-to-Jesus’ moment of clarity and decides to do his/her job for the good of the country. 

I suspect that the true grade will come for Mr. President in November 2010 – EPIC FAIL.

Leave a comment

Filed under Economy, Health Care, Media, MSM, National Security, Obama, Obama Administration, Progressivism

Crikey! The Government Is Monitoring Twitter & Facebook

*Banging head against the keyboard* – the government is monitoring the internet more now than ever.  If I wasn’t so politically charged, I probably wouldn’t care, nor would I really hear much about this, but much of my twitter and Facebook use is for political activism and pontificating on the issues of the day. If that gets me into trouble with the government, then so be it.  I’d rather get carted off for practicing my first amendment right of free speech than for doing something that was truly illegal like stealing my neighbor’s car. 

Both parties are at fault for this obvious breach of personal privacy, but I believe one could make the argument where there are certain circumstances that warrant wire tapping or other similar techniques if it saves lives and stops terrorism.  However, the slippery slope is easily becoming not just a theory, but a reality.  I do not see the need to monitor Facebook or twitter.  These are mainly tools used by citizens to get short points across that consist of 140 characters.  Some people tweet articles, some tweet opinions, some tweet their daily activities, while others tweet photos – why should that be monitored by the government?  Does the government seriously care that I just got back in touch with Sally Muckenfuch from 3rd grade? 

I don’t want to seem like a ‘Debbie Downer’ but would terrorists really be using twitter? “Just strapped a bomb onto my back, headed to airport, can’t wait for virgins.” I am not naive, either, and believe that anything could be used for the wrong purpose, but twitter just doesn’t seem like the place to strategize and plan an attack.  Information can definitely be sent out to meet up, but whole terror plots are difficult to type in 140 characters or less, let alone hope that ADD riddled people already tweeting will follow.  Based on the latest NY Times editorial, however, that is not the intent of the government’s monitor at all though:

The government is increasingly monitoring Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites for tax delinquents, copyright infringers and political protesters. A public interest group has filed a lawsuit to learn more about this monitoring, in the hope of starting a national discussion and modifying privacy laws as necessary for the online era.

Wired magazine reported in October:

America’s spy agencies want to read your blog posts, keep track of your Twitter updates — even check out your book reviews on Amazon.

In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the CIA and the wider intelligence community, is putting cash into Visible Technologies, a software firm that specializes in monitoring social media. It’s part of a larger movement within the spy services to get better at using ”open source intelligence” — information that’s publicly available, but often hidden in the flood of TV shows, newspaper articles, blog posts, online videos and radio reports generated every day.

This is what scares common sense independents about the government — we allow them to have more power than ever should have been necessary and our rights and personal freedoms continue to disappear right from under us because we allow them to be taken PROGRESSIVELY… funny how we appear to be turning into those much storied frogs that are unable to jump out of a pot of luke warm water after it has boiled.

And as Noel Sheppard of Newbusters points out, the fact that this isn’t being reported as much as it would be if a Republican was in office, is just another hypocritical chink in the liberal media’s armor:

So be careful with your next Tweet or Facebook status, for you never know who’s watching.

On the other hand, it will be interesting to see how Obama-loving media follow this story.

After all, the press were constantly bashing the Bush White House concerning electronic surveillance designed to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

The Times might be pleased with itself by publishing an editorial on this subject in its opinion section, but under the previous administration, this would have resulted in a front page story with thousands of words.

Leave a comment

Filed under Big Brother, Constitution, Double Standards, Hypocrisy, Media, MSM, Progressivism

Green Oath Takers: Climate Scientists Pledge Allegiance to GloBULL Warming

“I pledge allegiance to global warming and the corruption for which it stands.  One scam; incomprehensible, with tyranny and poverty for all.” 

The London Times reports:

The Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furore over stolen e-mails.

More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.

One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

Funny, I think I might feel uncomfortable signing an oath to not speak ill of data I’m trying to research and prove as fact.  This is not a settled science as much as anybody would like to claim it is.  Theories exist and until they are proven as fact, they merely remain as theories – which is why science seems to take forever.  The idea that man can play such a huge role in something as large as our globe and the climate is sheer arrogance and egoism.  Climate change is a naturally occurring event that has ebbed and flowed for decades if not eons.  The more emails, the more proof, the more information that comes out on this hoax, the better for everybody.  That’s not to say that people who disagree do not believe in taking care of their environment, it just means that the skeptics have serious doubts as to the legitimacy of any type of man-made climate change.  I’d like to know how liberals can rail against big oil but seem to have no problem when their own side of the aisle is in the tank for Green Corporations and have much to gain from cap and tax – how is that any different?

Signing a pledge such as the one above seems to worsen the credibility and cause conflict of interest among people who became scientists to prove and disprove based on factual evidence.  What if, at some point, global warming is proven to be a hoax? Scientists should not be held down by some oath that forces them to hide significant information from the public.  There are other times in history when people had to pledge their allegiance to a cause, and that usually didn’t end very well…

The problem with the petition as a form is also a problem with the Met Office petition’s substance. The purpose of the petition is to shore up scientists’ authority by vouching for their integrity. But signing a loyalty oath under pressure from the government is itself a corrupt act. Anyone who signs this petition thereby raises doubts about his own integrity. And once again, the question arises: Why should any layman regard global warmism as credible when the “consensus” rests on political machinations, statistical tricks and efforts to suppress alternative hypotheses?

IMHO, any scientist who signs this petition has lost all credibility to be fair, reasonable, balanced, and able to report fact – not some fiction in which they signed onto.

Leave a comment

Filed under Cap and Tax, Cap and Trade, Corruption, Double Standards, Hypocrisy, Progressivism

While You Were Out: A $447B Omnibus Chock Full of Earmarks Passed

Photobucket

 

Just when you thought the government couldn’t spend any more the House passes the second Omnibus of the year, full of 5,912 earmarks – for ‘jobs,’ I’m sure.

The omnibus is a little different from normal since it rolls 6 spending bills into 1 in order to pass this massive earmark legislation as quickly as possible. The House only passed the bill by a 221-202 vote with no Republican support and 28 Democrats who dissented.

The Hill reports:

The spending bills in the package are the ones for: the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development departments; the Commerce and Justice departments and federal science funding; financial services and general government agencies; the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education departments; military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs; and the State Department and foreign operations.

Congress has a Dec. 18 deadline to get the conference report signed into law to avoid a government shutdown. A continuing resolution, which allowed government to operate without approved funding after the Oct. 1 start of the fiscal year, expires on that date.

GOP members raised concerns that the bills will contribute to a 12 percent discretionary spending increase over last year.

Democrats contend that this bill will help the economy and create those much heralded and almost legendary ‘jobs’ they love to tout.

An example of delusion:

“The country is struggling to overcome the longest and deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.).

“The bill before us today is one of the key measures Congress will pass this year to help address those problems and provide relief for millions of hardworking Americans caught in a struggle for economic survival,” Obey added in a statement.

I am still trying to figure out how much spending needs to take place in order for the economy to revive itself – and more than that, I’m trying to understand how government can revive anything when they produce nothing and get a majority of their revenues through taxes – the same people they are trying to ‘help.’

Here is a list of some of the thousands of earmarks (it should be noted that this is chock full of Democrat and Republican goodies):

If you want to see what your lawmakers are up to, here is a list of the bills that will be included in this Omnibus, and a link that lets you check out what’s in each part. These are all pdf files.

* Transportation & Housing – http://bit.ly/7jSVIv

* Commerce, Justice, Science – http://bit.ly/7pAWlc

* Financial Services – http://bit.ly/5nq65O

* Labor, Health, Education – http://bit.ly/5RJ1rn

* Military Construction & Veterans – http://bit.ly/5vMLpu

* State Department & Foreign Aid – http://bit.ly/7oEYgX

Five of the six bills have earmarks (there are none in the foreign aid bill) and by my count, there are 5,912 in all, with Labor at 1810, Transportation at 1548 and Commerce at 1515.

If you want to search for earmarks in your state, here is a little trick to find them more quickly: search by using comma, space, and the two letter abbreviation for your state.

If you want to see some of the earmarks from the first omnibus you can look here.

As an FYI, this bill was immediately passed to the Senate today after it passed the House.  Reid is hoping to pass this bill before the weekend, however, there may be good news since it has been delayed by various Senators.  Melt the phones if you are concerned about the superfluous spending!

1 Comment

Filed under Congress, Government Spending, National Debt

Gorebbels Reads a Climate Change Poem to CNN

Meet the new Robert Frost; Al Gore:

I think CNN may have had a Gore-basm… Sad, really.

Leave a comment

Filed under MSM

Grateful That My Name Isn’t Babs: Mikulski & Boxer The Epitome of “Huh?”

Babs Mikulski and Babs Boxer, two Democrat females from Maryland and California respectively have said some interesting things this past week, which should make everyone go “Huh?”

Barbara Boxer earlier this week equated the amendment to continue the ban of federal funded abortions to denying men Viagra.  Now, I’m not quite sure if it is just me, but I don’t really see how these two are comparable.  On the one hand you have an actual disorder; erectile dysfunction, on the other, you have pregnancy, which I don’t find to be a disorder.  (Spare me mother’s health, rape/incest – those are already covered). 

Barbara Mikulski created an abortion amendment that would call abortion preventative care, placing it in the Senate Health Care bill, which would invariably dump the federal funding ban on abortion.

As the Senate prepares for a possible vote today on the Mikulski amendment to the Senate version of the government-run health care bill, it is drawing more opposition. Americans United for Life joins the National Right to Life Committee in condemning the amendment for calling abortion preventative health care.

As LifeNews.com reported yesterday, NRLC condemned the Mikulski amendment because it would essentially define abortion as preventative care and could persuade private insurance plans to define abortion as such and provide coverage of it.

AUL staff attorney Mary Harned has released her own analysis of the amendment and concurs with NRLC that it presents problems.

“The Mikulski amendment, in pertinent part, requires group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance to provide coverage for and not impose cost sharing requirements on ‘preventative care’ for women ‘as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA),'” she explained.

I would like to ask both Babs’ what they deem preventative care.  I would assume that prevention starts before an individual gets pregnant, i.e. birth control and sex, however, that may just be my naiveté.  Abortion is legal, I’m not sure why it needs to be included in an insurance plan, especially if Americans don’t want to pay for it or agree with it based on moral and religious grounds.  How is a mandatory inclusion of abortions in a government health care system constitutional?  It would seem that forcing all citizens onto a plan that covers abortions would violate first amendment rights for those who are opposed based on religious beliefs. 

To make matters even worse, Mikulski recently stated that health care is a female issue.  Is this just another Democrat showing her true intolerant and segregated beliefs? Mikulski is my Senator, so I have many opinions (not good) about how she operates and what she stands for.  Health care is a human issue, not an individual group’s issue – but here we go again: liberals grouping people by class, race, gender and religion… Stop the insanity.

Leave a comment

Filed under Boxer, Democrats, Health Care, Progressivism

No More Wire Hangers: Berkeley City Council Unhinged Over Anti-Abortion Amendment

It’s time to cue Joan Crawford “No more wire hangers,” or better yet: “Tina, bring me the axe!” Maybe it’s about time to at least bring down the hammer on the city of Berkeley.  The city shows how well government can waste taxpayer money by sending wire hangers to 20 politicians who believe in the sanctity of life, or whom believe that the long-standing ban of federally funded abortions should be retained. 

The San Fran Gate reports:

The city of Berkeley mailed coat hangers to 20 members of Congress on Wednesday in protest of the anti-abortion amendment in the House version of the federal health care bill.

The City Council approved the action 7-1 on Tuesday night. Councilman Gordon Wozniak dissented; Mayor Tom Bates was absent.

Metal coat hangers were mailed with a protest letter to members of the House of Representatives who voted in favor of the amendment but have a history of supporting abortion rights.

The amendment would ban coverage of abortion for those who would receive government-run health insurance. It would also forbid people from choosing a private plan that covers abortion if they receive federal subsidies to pay for the insurance.

I think we should invite her to the city council meetings in the future:

Photobucket

What should we send Berkeley in return? Check out Michelle Malkin’s blog for some great ideas!

Leave a comment

Filed under Health Care, ObamaCare