pattygreen

The founding fathers believed in freedom of religion, NOT freedom from religion. In fact, they believed that the Christian religion was essential to good government and that the principles and ethics by which the gov. would conduct itself should come directly from the bible. "It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the bible". (George Washington) "Religion is the basis and foundation of government." (James Madison) "Religion and virtue are the only foundations of republicanism and all free government." (John Adams) The term separation of church and state refers to the idea that the church and government are to remain institutionally seperate. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... This part was put in there so that Congress would not patronize any one Christian denomination as the National Church. At the time of the writing of the bill, some states still had established religion. These states did not want their state churches to be dominated by a national church. Today, some like you, have taken the separation of church and state to extremes, calling for the separation of religion from government. But this was never the intention of the men who wrote the bill of rights. The prevalent view of separation of church and state is not only unconstitutional, it is unbiblical. The character of of American people is the cornerstone of American government. As American Statesman, Daniel Webster, once said, "Our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot be safely trusted on any other foundation than religious principal, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits... Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens." Good civil government begins with proper self government, with individual self control and self discipline. The more righteous that people are internally, the fewer restraints they require externally. Liberty is imposssible without morality and morality is impossible without faith. Even God has said in Psalms 33:12 Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he has chosen for his own inheritance." Those without faith have few morals. For God has laid down in his word what is right and what is wrong. Homosexuality, abortion, stealing from the rich (or anyone) and giving to the poor, is WRONG! If you vote for politicians who are for any of those things, then you are are not right. period. (Whether republican or democrat.) People should vote according to the candidates moral charachter and experience not his experience alone. Sometimes all you can do is vote for the lesser of the two evils if there is no candidate who lives a Christian lifestyle.

Funding for APPC (factcheck) comes through an endowment established by the Annenberg Foundation, as well as the generous support of federal agencies and foundations. This info was found on thier 'about us' page. Enough said.

There is no doubt that they want to be back in the office. The dems and the reps differ so much on what they feel is fair and moral and constitutional. Not all, mind you, but reps are generally christians who use the bible to back up what they feel is right and wrong and the dems use their own human moral compass. The bible teaches that homosexuality is a wrongful act and the marriage committment is for a man and a woman, abortion is murder, stealing by taking from the rich and giving to the poor is wrong, to name a few. Generally dems don't have any issue with any of those wrongs. They even say it's not wrong and tell those that think it is that they are bigots and haters because they believe what God says to be true. So, of course this Christian Nation would love to reclaim the WH and bring this nation back to some form of moral restraint. It will never be perfect till Jesus returns, but until he does, we should try our best to live according to his words.

If 45,000 of the 406 million people that live here ( a tiny fraction) die each year because they don't have HI, that is a sad reality. Just like the sad reality of the million who die each year from abortions, and the small fraction of people who die each year from cancer and the tiny fraction of the 406 million who die each year from child abuse, and on and on I could go. People die, it's a fact. But for the federal government to bankrupt us and cause our freedoms and rights to be taken away to help this small fraction of people by allowing the country to have that kind of control over our health is an infringment on all peoples freedoms and rights. They can help that small fraction by raising the income guidelines for medicaid, so that those who are uninsured can get on it. There is no need to overhaul the whole insurance industry to get their goal accomplished. They are not introducing a HC public option to help that small fraction of Americans, they are doing it to get ALL americans on their HC plan eventually after they knock all other Health insurance carriers out of business with their not for profit public plan. Their goal as I have said is to be the ONLY plan available, than after that they can control everything else about the people. What you can eat or not. High taxes on potato chips and soda because they're not healthy for you. "Hey, the government has to pay your health bills, so they have the right to tell you what you can and can't put into your body ya know." They can decide who will get that hip replacement and who will get the heart transplant, the young healthy man or the elderly, on his way out anyway guy. The whole thing is not about health REFORM, but about control.

My plan was for the gov. to raise the income eligibility for people. Then those who are borderline income could get on it. And those who make enough money to purchase HI yet choose to spend their 'extra' cash on a new car or TV instead will go without due to their own choice.

Larraine, I want affordable health care for all Americans. I don't want our government to be that insurance company. The government has the power to make laws and they should enforce these laws that they can make on private insurance companies. They should drop the law that states you can't cross state lines for medical insurance because that would encourage competition between states. They should enforce tort reform, because that would stop all trial lawyers from making these multi million dollar cases. There should be caps on ins. payouts. Then doctors wont have to perform unneccessary tests just to cover their butts should someone choose to sue them. They should make it a law that noone can be denied health coverage or pay a higher premium because of pre-existing conditions. There are many ways to enforce the private insurance industries to comply. They don't want to do this because the lawyers and the insurance companies are lining these politicians pockets to keep the laws from ruining their greedy wealth. Maybe they could make a law that puts a cap on insurance premiums. If you don't have the ability to pay for ins., then you can apply for medicaid, which is government ins. that is already set up for those who can't afford to pay. The gov. can simply raise the income guidelines for people who can't get on it because they are borderline income and don't meet the eligibility. God wants us to be good stewards with our money and the government has shown us many times over that they can't be. When the government runs something, they don't have a care about waste. It's not coming from their pocket, so why should they care? Just look at medicare or social security, both are bankrupt. So, as a christian, it's not that I am against helping the unfortunate that don't have insurance, for I do want help for them. Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you." What about the 450,000 who die every year from tobacco, should we help them, how about the hundreds of thousands who die every year from alcohol, should we help them? This list could go on and on forever, but you get my point. The government should not be in the business of social wellness. Roosevelt did a bad thing when he started welfare in the government. Handouts in the government far exceed what the people here can afford. If the gov. stopped giving away all our money, then we would have more for our own health care and living exenses and will be able to give to the charities of our choosing. We wouldn't be indentured servants to China and other countries either. Your great grandchildren will be paying for their deeds in the future.

:rolleyes:Of course it's about Obama and wanting him to fail. You know, that's the excuse every liberal has for the opponent. It can't be that we just disapprove of his doings. It must be that we are haters or racists.:thumbup: No one wants Obama to fail, for that would mean our country would fail right along with him. Come on! I understand that Bush caused alot of debt, and I think that all the government spending is out of hand, BUT, In just 11 months of his presidency he has spent MORE , do you hear me? More than ALL,(yes, all, including Bush) the presidents put together since George Washington!!!!!!!!!! He seems to have no concern for our debt whatsoever.

I never said ONLY black people voted for him. Many, many, many white people shared the dream of having a black man reach the highest office in this country, myself included. I didn't vote based on his skin color though. IMO, As wonderful as it was to have the initial thrill of seeing that a black man could make it to be president, that was the only thrill that came from his election. It has given hope to all minorities that this country is more mature and stronger where the race issue is concerned. Hopefully his election will put that issue behind most of us now, but you shouldn't vote for someone to be President simply because you wanted that issue resolved or because you wanted to be a part of 'history', and I know ALOT of young college students and black people who never voted before who registered specifically because a black man was on the ballot. A group of black women that I work with at the convelescent home gathered and talked about Obama during the campaign on our breaks and openly shared that they didn't care about his experience, but they wanted a 'black' president. My own daughter registered for the first time JUST to vote for a black man, so don't tell me that he won because he was the most deserving candidate. If those numbers (the blacks and 18-25 age group) didn't get out and register especially for that historic election, Mccain would have had it. Even many white people voted for him because he was a black man and they wanted to see a black man reach the WH. Believe me, I wanted to see that, too. But, not at the expense of his policies or what he stood for.

You mean you don't know? truly? Obama had a vast majority of the young naive people, college students who never cared about voting before and still probably don't know a thing about politics, and he also got nearly every black american who never voted ever before cuz they didn't care who got in prior to the first black man to ever get on the ballot. Obama had NO prior experience to run the country. My daughter is 22, and black. She registered for the first time and voted for him because he would be the first ever black person to be the president. Absolutely no other reason. She actually didn't know a thing about him and didn't even care to know. That's the honest truth. When I reveal to her the things he is doing to this country and how he has indebted us into oblivion, she actually wishes she knew more about him before she made her vote. I joke with her and say," oh well, he's black, and that's really all that matters, right?" lol. He also spoke alot about "change", and I believe the people thought he meant change in the WH where government and pork spending, corruption and the like would be halted. That's the 'change' I thought he was campaigning about. But now we know that the change he spoke about was a change to socialism and exhorbitant spending.

These kind of protests go on with every president. Am I to conclude that these anti-Bush policy and agenda protestors were radical leftwinged hater racists?! Get real, okay?

I, personally, witnessed him speaking during his early campaigning days on TV say that it would take about 12 years or so to complete his plan of government insurance for all. After the slack he started to get he changed it to a public "option". He then started to say you can still keep your own doctor, etc. He didn't dare let the people know at that time what his 'true' goal was. Government run HI for ALL. How do you expect that other HI companies will be able to stay in business and make a profit with a government run HI company competing with them and not concerned about profits at all. Be realistic! They won't be able to. I had a daycare at one time. In order to make more money in the long run, I started out charging moms the lowest rate in town. My business picked up dramatically. Others had to lower their rates to compete with me. Imagine if I wasn't concerned about making a profit? The other daycares in town would have lost their kids to me if there wasn't a cap on how many I could care for at one time. It's only a matter of time before the government run public option would be the ONLY option. Obama knows it, Congress knows it and anyone with a thinking brain could see it down the road. Now, How is that competition? How is that "You can keep your insurance you have now if you like it?" And why do they 'deserve to go out of business' if they don't come down on their premiums and lose their own profit? And when they put all the other HI companies out of business and expand, like you say, who will pay those government employees salaries and government extravagant benefits and pensions? Who? The government already has more than enough people on their payroll. We can't afford it!

msrojacks, well said. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

If they are soooooo wrong about everything, then why do most people watch them? They have the highest ratings because people will watch what they agree with. Looks like you're way of thinking is in the minority. When I turn on MSNBC or CNN, I can't agree with their liberal, stupid way of thinking and it makes me sick to watch them. "How can anyone think that way?" is all I can say while I view their stand on politics. Face it. Many more Americans are in agreement with what FOX news commentators have to say about our government than with the seemingly other liberal stations. So, I guess you are outnumbered. Could your views be wrong?

I don't want the government to outlaw smoking or drinking or to provide for health insurance. The government needs to downsize itself. The point I was making is this.... The government should not have a say in our freedoms. You're sooooo worried about the 45,000 who die every year without health insurance, but don't understand that that many plus even more die every year for many other reasons that are even more important to focus on. Let's ban cigarette companies from existing in this nation. There. We could save 7X as many people AND keep medical coverage down by eliminating the #1 cause of heart related operations needed by American people! (I'm not serious). The government certainly should not be allowed to tell people that they can't smoke if they want to. Just like they should not tell people that they must purchase medical insurance. It takes away our personal freedoms, liberties and rights if they do.

I was not offended by the Lieberman protestors at all. We should all have the right to have our voices heard. I only posted about it because I want to point out that protesting policies is not only one sided. The Tea parties were deemed by yourself and bjean it one time as radical, conservative, right winged, bigots and haters who are trouble making. I posted that to point out that liberals have their protestors who get arrested and cause trouble as well. Somehow in your eyes, it was okay for liberal democrats who protested Lieberman's office, but not okay for conservatives to do the same.

All of a sudden this country is sooooooo concerned about the so called 45,000 deaths a year from lack of medical insurance. How come we never heard of this before? Did you know that 435,000 people die every year from tobacco, Thats 7X more the amount of people annually who die from lack of insurance, but does the government step in and take control and outlaw cigarettes and chewing tobacco? NO! How about the people who die annually in this country from alcohol. The number is 85,000 every year. (twice as many than those who die without insurance) But no, you can't take the 'fun' away from society. Give me a break! the government wants to be in control of what we can and can't do. They are not concerned about your health or mine! P.S. I meant to say a million abortions annually.

Did anyone hear about the protestors that were arrested at Lieberman's office? They were charged with unlawful entry. They would not leave and the police had to respond. One of them said: "As an independent, we expected him to be voting with Democrats," she said, later adding, "When the people's lives are at stake, there shouldn't be any hesitation." "the people's lives are at stake??!!" Show me ONE person whose life is at stake?! Sickos. Total priority confusion. They don't have one care in the world over the millions, YES! millions, of lives that are snuffed out daily by abortions, yet if we don't get this public option that the government is forcing down our throats "lives are at stake". Talk about ignorant.

Well said Plain. The deficit we already have is unsustainable for us. We can't afford it. And even if we could, why should we? Where does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate? Nancy Pelosi was asked that question and all she could respond was, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" and then she shook her head and took a question from another reporter. Imagine if some reporter asked here where specifically the Constitution granted Congress the authority to outlaw peaceable assembly and she answered, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" and then ignored the question. And then later on someone from her office sent you a press release, as was sent to CNS News, saying Congress has "broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce," pointing out demonstrations cause traffic jams and therefore interfere with interstate commerce. They are all ignorant in the Senate, starting with her. It's not a matter of whether you are for or against their Health care proposals or whether you are liberal or conservative, black or white, man or woman, it's about whether we are going to remain a relatively free people or permit the government to take away our liberties. If Congress gets away with forcing us to buy health insurance, what else down the road will they force us to buy? Or do you naively think they will stop at that? Less than 15% of Congress supports a measure "To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the US Constitution for the enactment of laws and other purposes". That percentage demonstrates the kind of contempt our reps have for the rules (the Constitution). Are we headed toward more liberty or for greater government control in this country? The answer is obvious.

...........................................................................

If they don't have ins., all they need to do is apply for medicaid, or purchase it themselves. If they can't afford it, it's probably becuase they'd rather make their new car payment every month. There isn't a person in this country who is denyed care if they need it. You can walk into any ER and get care without insurance.

Last year at this time, did you think that we would be where we are today? A 'czar' appointed by the president is cutting the pay of execs in private businesses by 50 or 90%?, Another 'czar' talking about resisting talk radio, A plan floating around to subsidize newspapers, to create a situation where some newspapers, in order to survive, would need to depend on the government liking what they publish?, The governemnet "experts' who will decide who can and can't get life saving medical treatment? Obama has talked about the idea of a National police force. That seems more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American. How far this president will go depends on how much resistance he gets. The direction he is trying to go tells us so much about him. The people he has associated with all his life have expressed their hostility to the values, principals and people of this country. Rev. Wright said it with his words,"God damn America!" And don't forget that Obama sat at his feet every Sunday for 20 years in his church. Bill Ayers said it with bombs he planted. The Czars he has appointed have praised enemy dictators like Mao, have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to most American's values. Why should we assume that Obama didn't know what these people were like? especially since he had been associating with them for decades. His involvement with Acorn prior to his candidacy speaks volumes. Acorn is a dispicable program that cheats and defrauds with government funds. This country better react to his plan of socializing America. Let's pray that the public option health care bill doesn't get through the senate, for if it does, those democrats will be jobless in 2010.