My NRLC Congressional Questionnaire

ABORTION

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) believes that unborn children should be protected by law, and that abortion should be permitted only when necessary to prevent the death of the mother. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that abortion should be legal?

(a)Only to prevent the death of the mother (the NRLC position). (b)To prevent the mother’s death, in cases of incest committed against a minor, and in reported cases of rape involving force or threat of force.

(c) Other (please explain):

Phil Jennerjahn: (C) None.

ROE V. WADE

In its 1973 rulings in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court created a “right to abortion” for any reason until “viability” (into the sixth month), and for any “health” reasons – including “emotional” health – even during the final three months of pregnancy. This ruling invalidated the abortion laws that were in effect in all 50 states at that time. In the 1992 ruling of Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the “core holdings” of Roe v. Wade, and said that any law placing an “undue burden” on access to abortion would be struck down.

(1) Do you advocate changing the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, so that elected legislative bodies (the state legislatures and Congress) may once again protect unborn children by limiting and/or prohibiting abortion?

Phil Jennerjahn: Yes.

UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE

In 2004, Congress enacted the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which recognizes a “child in utero” as a legal victim if he or she is injured during the commission of any of 68 federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

(2) Would you vote against any attempt to repeal or weaken the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), and do you generally support the underlying principle embodied in UVVA, that federal laws that protect born persons should, wherever possible, also recognize and protect unborn children as members of the human family?

Phil Jennerjahn: I would not weaken UVVA. I support the underlying principle.

GENERAL ABORTION- RELATED POLICIES

(3) Would you vote against any legislation that would weaken any pro-life law or policy that is in effect on the day that you are elected?

Phil Jennerjahn: I would not support legislation or policies that are not pro-life.

(4) Would you vote against any federal legislation (for example, the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act”) that would place new limits on the ability of states to enact and enforce abortion-related laws?

Phil Jennerjahn: I would not support legislation or policies that are not pro-life.

PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION LEGISLATION

There is now compelling scientific evidence that at least by 20 weeks after fertilization, if not earlier, the unborn child is capable of experiencing pain when subjected to abortion. On this basis, in 2010, Nebraska enacted the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to prohibit abortions after that point (with narrow exceptions). A number of other states subsequently enacted similar bills, and legislation along the same lines could be introduced in Congress.

(5) Would you vote for legislation to strictly limit abortion from the point in development that evidence suggests an unborn child has the capacity to feel pain?

Phil Jennerjahn: No, I feel this distinction is ridiculous, and only a liberal would argue to the contrary. I support stopping abortion from conception.

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES FOR ABORTION

On May 4, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3). This bill would establish a permanent policy against funding abortions and health plans that cover abortions, consistent with the principles of the Hyde Amendment, to all federal programs, including those created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. No. 111-148) (“ObamaCare”).

(6) Would you vote for the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act?

Phil Jennerjahn: I do not support spending taxpayer money on abortions. Never have, never will.

Congress votes from time to time on the “Hyde Amendment,” a law that prohibits federal Medicaid money from being used to pay for abortions or for health care plans that include abortion, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. Other similar provisions of law restrict federal subsidies for abortion in certain other federal health programs, including those covering the military and federal employees.

(7) Would you oppose any legislation that would weaken the Hyde Amendment and other current laws that restrict federal subsidies for abortion, and would you support legislation to ensure the fullest possible enforcement of such laws and the application, wherever appropriate, of their underlying principles?

Phil Jennerjahn: I do not support spending taxpayer money on abortions. Never have, never will.

The District of Columbia is an exclusively federal jurisdiction. Article I of the Constitution provides that Congress must exercise “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over the District. In December 2009, at the urging of President Obama, Congress effectively repealed a longstanding ban on government funding of abortions in the District. However, in April 2011, at the insistence of congressional Republican leaders, a prohibition was restored to prohibit any use of government funds for abortion in the District, whether designed as “federal” funds or so-called “local” funds (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). This issue will continue to arise during future congressional appropriations cycles.

(8) Would you vote to preserve the prohibition on public funding of abortion in the District of Columbia – applicable to all government funds however they are labeled – and would you vote against any legislation that would permit a resumption of government-funded abortion in the District?

Phil Jennerjahn: No federal money for abortions in D.C. -- or anywhere else.

The federal government annually provides many millions of dollars to organizations that operate abortion clinics. For example, roughly one-third of the aggregate income of clinics operated by affiliates of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) comes from selling abortions (PPFA-affiliated clinics perform more than 300,000 abortions annually). Yet, PPFA affiliates are also major recipients of funds from various federal programs, including the Title X “family planning” program and Medicaid.

(9) Would you vote for legislation that would make organizations that operate abortion clinics (not bona fide hospitals), including Planned Parenthood, ineligible to receive federal funding?

Phil Jennerjahn: I think no federal money should go to abortion providers.

FOREIGN AID FOR ABORTION

The U.S. spends about $600 million annually for birth-control programs overseas. Under President Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, executive orders collectively referred to as the “Mexico City Policy” established that

in order to be eligible for U.S. population-control funds, a private overseas organization must agree not to perform abortions (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest) or to “actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.” However, in January 2009, President Obama overturned this pro-life policy by executive order. In congressional testimony on April 22, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the Administration’s international policy is to “protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care,” and that “reproductive health includes access to abortion.”

(10) Would you vote for legislation to codify (enact into permanent law) the principles of the “Mexico City Policy,” to deny U.S. “family planning” funds to overseas organizations that perform or actively promote abortion?

Phil Jennerjahn: The U.S. should not be supplying foreign countries with funds for abortion.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) participates in China’s population control program, which relies heavily on coerced abortion. The UNFPA also promotes expanded access to abortion in developing nations, and has promoted the abortion pill, RU 486. The administrations of Presidents Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and George W. Bush cut off U.S. funding to the UNFPA because of its role in China, but the Obama Administration restored U.S. funding to the UNFPA.

(11) Would you vote for legislation to prevent further U.S. funding of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)?

Phil Jennerjahn: The U.S. should not be supplying foreign countries with funds for abortion.

PARENTAL NOTIFICATION/CONSENT FOR MINORS’ ABORTIONS

Laws are already in effect in about half the states that require notification or consent of at least one parent (or authorization by a judge) before an abortion can be performed on a minor. However, these laws are often circumvented by minors who cross state lines in order to evade parental notification requirements (often with the aid of older boyfriends, abortion clinic staff, or other adults lacking parental authority).

The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), sponsored by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.) (H.R. 2299) and Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) (S. 1241), would require any abortionist, encountering a minor client from another state, to notify one parent before performing an abortion, unless presented with authorization from a court, or in cases of life endangerment, or in cases of sexual or physical abuse or neglect by a parent, in which case the appropriate state agency must be notified instead of a parent. The bill would also make it an offense to transport a minor across state lines to evade a parental involvement requirement.

(12) Would you vote for the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act?

Phil Jennerjahn: I would have to read this bill very carefully. There is troubling language here involving third parties...who may not know that someone else is underage or pregnant. I am interested in protecting human life, but I am not interested in inflicting tyranny on others.

ABORTION: CONSCIENCE PROTECTION

Across the nation, pro abortion officials and advocacy groups have sought to use the compulsory powers of government to compel health care providers to participate in abortion. As one response, in 2004 Congress first attached the “Hyde-Weldon Amendment” to the appropriations measure that funds the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The amendment prohibits state and local governments that receive federal HHS funds from discriminating against any health care professional, hospital, HMO, insurance plan, or other “health care entity” because of that provider’s decision not to perform, cover, or pay for induced abortions. However, the Obama Administration has greatly weakened enforcement of the law. Moreover, this restriction must be renewed annually. In contrast, the “Abortion Non-Discrimination Act” (ANDA) (H.R. 361, S. 165), as proposed in the 112th Congress, would permanently codify the principles of the Hyde-Weldon provision, and would provide for private lawsuits to enforce its provisions.

(13) Would you vote for legislation, such as the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA), to increase protections for health care providers who do not wish to participate in providing abortions?

Phil Jennerjahn: I believe every health care provider in America should be able to follow their conscience and refuse to participate in abortions.

“EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT” (ERA)

The proposed “Equal Rights Amendment” (also called the “Women’s Equality Amendment”) (H.J. Res. 69 in the 112th Congress) would amend the federal Constitution to invalidate any law or government policy that discriminates “on account of sex.” In some of the states that have already added similar provisions to their state constitutions, courts have used them to invalidate limits on abortion. For example, the New Mexico Supreme Court in 1998 unanimously ruled that the New Mexico ERA required state funding of abortion.

NRLC opposes the federal ERA unless the following “abortion neutral” amendment is added to ensure that the ERA will not change abortion policy in either direction: “Nothing in this article [the ERA] shall be construed to grant, secure, or deny any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof.”

(14) Would you vote against the proposed federal ERA, if it does not contain this “abortion-neutralization” amendment?

Phil Jennerjahn: I don't like the phrasing here. I think this "abortion neutral" language is Big Government meddling designed to counteract even Bigger Government meddling. The Constitution and BIll of Rights do a fine job of protecting individual rights without being sex-specific.

PROTECTION OF HUMAN EMBRYOS

The right to life of human beings must be respected at every stage of their biological development. Human individuals who are at the embryonic stage of development should not be used for harmful or lethal medical experimentation. This applies equally to human beings whether their lives were begun by in vitro fertilization, by somatic cell nuclear transfer (human cloning), or by any other laboratory techniques.

NRLC opposes harvesting “stem cells” from living human embryos, since this kills the embryos. Note: NRLC is NOT opposed to other research on “stem cells” that are obtained without killing embryos – for example, stem cells harvested from umbilical cord blood and from adult tissue.

In 2001, President George W. Bush issued an executive order to prevent the federal government from funding research that would encourage the destruction of human embryos, and vetoed bills that would have overturned that policy – but in 2009, President Obama issued a new executive order that nullified the previous pro-life policy, and has allowed federal funding of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos.

However, embryonic stem cell research has not produced therapies, while other types of stem cells, obtainable without killing human embryos, are producing breakthroughs. On November 14, 2011, Geron Corporation, which had been the world’s leading embryonic stem cell company, announced that it “will discontinue further development of its stem cell programs.”

(15) Would you vote for legislation to prevent federal support of research that harms or destroys human embryos, or that uses cells or tissues that are obtained by harming or killing human embryos?

Phil Jennerjahn: I generally support the policies of President Bush on this issue. No Federal money to destroy embryos.

HUMAN CLONING

Human cloning is a process (technically known as “somatic cell nuclear transfer”) in which genetic material from one person is artificially transferred into a human or animal egg cell, thereby beginning the life of a new human individual who is genetically nearly identical to the unitary parent. NRLC believes that human life at every stage of biological development is deserving of respect and protection regardless of the circumstances under which that human life was created. Some researchers wish to create human life through cloning for the purpose of destructive experiments on those humans, resulting in their deaths, a process sometimes referred to as “therapeutic cloning.”

In Congress, NRLC-backed legislation would prohibit the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning) to create any humans, including human embryos. In order to deflect a genuine ban on all human cloning, some members of Congress have proposed legislation (such as H.R. 2376, sponsored by Reps. Diana DeGette, D-Co., and Charlie Dent, R-Pa.) that would permit the use of cloning to create human embryos to be used in medical research (so called “therapeutic cloning”), but prohibit the implantation of such an embryo into a uterus. These bills are sometimes misleadingly referred to as “bans on reproductive cloning,” but they really do not ban human cloning at all – rather, they ban the survival of the human embryos who are created by cloning. Such a bill would impose a legal mandate that every such human embryo must be killed or allowed to die. NRLC strongly opposes such “clone-and-kill” legislation.

(16) Would you vote for a ban on the creation of human embryos by cloning, and would you vote against any “clone and kill” legislation (i.e., legislation that would allow the creation of human embryos by cloning but prohibit allowing such human clones to live past a defined point of development)?

Phil Jennerjahn: Again, I agree with President Bush here. No Federal money for these type of activities.

(17) Would you vote for legislation to prohibit any recipient of federal NIH funds from involvement in the creation of human embryos by cloning, and from use of such human embryos in research?

Phil Jennerjahn: Again, I agree with President Bush here. No Federal money for these type of activities.

HEALTH CARE RESTRUCTURING LEGISLATION

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (Pub. L. No. 111-148) (“ObamaCare”), which passed Congress over the objections of NRLC. When the government rations health care in a way that makes it illegal or impossible for Americans to choose life-saving medical treatment, food, and fluids, it imposes a type of involuntary euthanasia.

Through objectionable features separately described in questions 19-21 below, this legislation will result in unacceptable involuntary denial of life-saving medical treatment through rationing. It also provides subsidies for private health plans that cover elective abortion, and contains provisions that are likely to result in further expansions of abortion through administrative actions by various federal agencies.

(18) Would you vote to repeal the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (“ObamaCare”)?

Phil Jennerjahn: Absolutely. Destroying Obamacare is one of my primary goals if elected. The bill is unconstitutional and changes the very nature of our government. Obamacare makes us subjects, not citizens.

RATIONING IN HEALTH CARE

The law (“ObamaCare”) establishes an “Independent Payment Advisory Board” which is directed to make recommendations to prevent private health care spending from keeping up with the rate of medical inflation. The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is empowered to implement these recommendations through the imposition of “quality and efficiency” measures on health care providers. For example, no insurance plan offered through any of the state insurance exchanges may contract with a health care provider who fails to abide by the federally imposed “quality and efficiency” measures.

DOCUMENTATION: http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/ ObamaHCRationingBasicDOCUMENTATION.pdf

(19) Would you vote to eliminate the law’s directive and authority to impose measures to limit what private citizens are allowed to spend for health care?

Phil Jennerjahn: EVERYTHING about Obamacare has to be destroyed. It is the pathway to tyranny.

While cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from federal payments in Medicare, the law empowers HHS to limit senior citizens in spending their own money to make up the difference.

Under the law as it existed before, older Americans were permitted to add their own money, if they chose, on top of the government payment, in order to get insurance plans less likely to ration care (known as Medicare Advantage private-fee-for-service plans). The new law gives HHS the standardless discretion to reject any such plan and thus to limit or even eliminate senior citizens’ legal ability to add their own money to obtain health insurance less likely to ration their health care.

DOCUMENTATION: http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/ MedicareLimitsPFFS.html

(20) Would you vote to restore the previous law so that HHS could not limit the right of senior citizens to choose to add their own money on top of the government Medicare payment in order to obtain private-fee-for- service plans less likely to ration health care?

Phil Jennerjahn: If I am elected, Obamacare will be destroyed. I believe that the free market provides wonderful medical services. We need to get the government out of paying for health care.

Health insurers will be excluded from the new state-based insurance exchanges whenever government officials think plans offered by the insurers, inside or outside the exchange, allow private citizens to choose to spend an amount the government officials, in their standardless discretion, think is an “excessive or unjustified” amount on their own health insurance.

DOCUMENTATION: www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/ExchangeLimits.html

(21) Would you vote to remove the authority of state- based insurance exchange officials to exclude health insurers from competing within the exchange on the basis of how much the insurers permit private citizens to choose to spend on health insurance?

Phil Jennerjahn: These rules reek of tyranny. I do not support these limitations. The free market will provide the best health care options for all.

PRICE CONTROLS

When the government limits by law what can be charged for health care, it limits what people are allowed to pay for health care. While everyone would prefer to pay less – or nothing – for health care (as for anything else), government price controls in fact prevent access to life-saving medical treatment that costs more to supply than the price set by the government. The same is true when price controls are imposed on what people are permitted to pay for health insurance.

(22) Would you vote AGAINST legislation that would impose price controls on health care?

Phil Jennerjahn: Socialism destroys quality. Price controls only create a black market. Free markets provide innovation and high-quality services. Let people compete. Everyone wins.

(23) Would you vote AGAINST legislation that would impose price controls on health insurance premiums?

Phil Jennerjahn: I support free markets. I would vote against ALL Socialist attempts at price-controlling legislation.

EUTHANASIA ISSUES

From its inception, the pro-life movement has been as dedicated to protecting people with disabilities and older people from euthanasia as it has been to protecting unborn children from abortion.

INVOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA

Some hospitals have implemented formal policies authorizing denial of life-saving medical treatment against the will of a patient or the patient’s family if an ethics committee thinks the patient’s so-called “quality of life” is unacceptable, even though the patient and family disagree. The federal Patient Self-Determination Act currently requires health care facilities receiving Medicare or Medicaid to ask patients on admission whether they have an advance directive indicating their desire to receive or refuse life-saving treatment under certain circumstances.

(24) Would you vote to prevent involuntary denial of life-saving medical treatment by amending the Patient Self-Determination Act to provide that, if failure to comply with a patient’s or surrogate’s choice for life- saving treatment would be likely, in reasonable medical judgment, to result in or hasten the patient’s death, a health care provider may not refuse to implement the choice for life-saving treatment either;

a. on the basis of a view that treats extending the life of an elderly, disabled, or terminally ill individual as of lower value than extending the life of an individual who is younger, non-disabled, or not terminally ill; or

b. on the basis of the health care provider’s disagreement with how the patient or surrogate values the trade-off between extending the length of the patient’s life and the risk of disability.

Phil Jennerjahn: I am not a fan of any government deciding "quality of life" issues. It is a treacherous path to go down.

POLITICAL SPEECH AND GRASSROOTS ADVOCACY

In recent years, some powerful members of Congress, and some special-interest groups, have pushed for enactment of regulations on what they call “grassroots lobbying,” by which they mean organized efforts to encourage citizens to contact members of Congress and federal officials, including the President, to express a point of view about a public policy issue.

NRLC believes that such communication by citizens to their leaders should be encouraged, and that efforts to encourage such activity should not be subjected to federally imposed record keeping and reporting requirements.

(25) Would you vote against any legislation that would impose new regulatory burdens on efforts to motivate citizens to contact federal officials (so-called “grassroots lobbying”)?

Phil Jennerjahn: I would not support legislation like that. I think it would violate the First Amendment.

The federal Lobbying Disclosure Act is a law that already requires organizations that lobby Congress to report, on a quarterly basis, all of the legislative matters on which they contacted members of Congress or Executive Branch agencies, but the law does not require the reporting of the names of specific lawmakers or officials with whom they communicated. In January, 2010, President Obama urged Congress to adopt legislation under which every contact between lobbying organizations and lawmakers would be reported into a publicly accessible database. NRLC believes that such “contact reporting” is an infringement on the First Amendment right to petition government officials, is exceedingly burdensome, and serves no legitimate public policy purpose.

(26) Would you vote against any legislation that would require members of Congress or Executive Branch officials to report, into a public database, every contact they receive from an advocacy organization such as NRLC, or that would require an advocacy organization such as NRLC to report its contacts with individual elected officials?

Phil Jennerjahn: I do not support burdensome bureaucracy. Especially in a case like this, where it appears to be politically motivated.

In its January 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right of corporations (which includes nonprofit corporations, such as NRLC) to spend money to express viewpoints regarding those who hold or seek political office. Subsequently, President Obama, and some members of Congress, have advocated adoption of new restrictions to discourage corporations from exercising this right – for example, by telling corporations that if they engage in constitutionally protected speech on political matters, they will lose other rights.

(27) Would you vote against any legislation that would penalize corporations, including nonprofit corporations such as NRLC, for engaging in the types of free speech that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled are protected by the First Amendment?

Phil Jennerjahn: Corporations are created by, run by, and exist because of the free will of the individuals involved. The lefts misplaced hatred and distrust of corporations borders on a mental illness. I have no problem whatsoever allowing corporations to lobby or support their own goals, because those goals usually benefit thousands of their employees and eventually benefit millions of customers in the free market.

President Obama, and some members of Congress, have pushed for enactment of legislation (such as the so-called “DISCLOSE Act”) that attempts to discourage donations to organizations (such as NRLC) that comment on the actions of elected federal officials, by requiring the publication of the identities of such donors. Such restrictions would

________harm organizations engaged in advocacy on contentious issues, including pro-life issues, because many in business and others would be deterred from supporting advocacy organizations for fear of harassment, abuse, or boycotts by people who do not share their political opinions.

(28) Would you vote against any legislation that would curb the right of private citizens to support advocacy organizations without being “outed” by the government?

Phil Jennerjahn: I HATE McCain-Feingold or any other attempt to manipulate or control the lobbying, donations, or communications of like-minded political activists. ALL of these types of laws trespass on the First Amendment, and they should be eliminated.

Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, the Federal Election Commission promulgated new rules on defining what constitutes illegal “coordination” between candidates (including incumbent members of Congress and incumbent presidents) and citizen groups. The new rules specifically do not require that there be “formal agreement or collaboration” with a member of Congress or other candidate in order for an expenditure by a citizen group or political action committee to be a “coordinated expenditure” and thus a campaign “contribution.” Under the loose new definition of “coordination,” citizen groups and PACs that communicate with Congress on legislative matters and also conduct independent expenditures are at risk of being unintentionally “coordinated,” thereby making their independent expenditures illegal campaign “contributions.”

(29) Would you support legislation to re-establish that “coordination” means only a formal agreement or collaboration on a specific project between a candidate and a citizen group or PAC?

Phil Jennerjahn: Again, I hate McCain Feingold and I do not agree with government attempts to limit or interfere with political activities. There shouldn't even be laws about this.

Dan Bongino for U.S. Senate

I was tipped off to this patriotic Republican candidate by some of my Conservative website friends.

I had never heard of him before. He is a former Secret Service agent who is running for the U.S. Senate in Maryland.

This video is bit dark, as it was recorded by cell phone, but listen to the audio.

Bongino repeats a mantra that I will be using in my campaign.

I have always felt that we need to privatize everything, because government wastes money and gives low-quality results...because they are spending other peoples money. With no repercussions for failure.

Bongino puts this into an explanation that everyone can understand.

Doctors don't even know what their operations cost...because "somebody else pays."

It is a recipe for disaster...every single time.

I don't know much about Bongino, but I will have to learn more.

I like what I am hearing so far....

Paul Clement: American Hero

If Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and goes down in flames, America will have a new patriotic hero to thank.

Paul Clement, the former Solicitor General, gave thoughtful arguments as to why the individual mandate was a threat to personal freedom.

He also seems to have convinced many of the judges that the coercive behavior by the Federal Government towards the States over Medicare funding was a path towards tyranny.

Here are some of his final words before the court...

Let me just finish by saying I certainly appreciate what the Solicitor General says, that when you support a policy, you think that the policy spreads the blessings of liberty. But I would respectfully suggest that it's a very funny conception of liberty that forces somebody to purchase an insurance policy whether they want it or not. And it's a very strange conception of federalism that says that we can simply give the States an offer that they can't refuse, and through the spending power which is premised on the notion that Congress can do more because it's voluntary, we can force the States to do whatever we tell them to. That is a direct threat to our federalism.

Brilliant and simple.

By the way, did I mention that he's from Wisconsin?

Jackson, Sharpton don't give a damn about Trevon Martin

One thing about this whole Trevon Martin death in Florida should be clear.

Certain prominent figures in this country (Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, to name two) are hovering around like vultures over the body of this poor kid. Neither Jackson nor Sharpton knew this kid or gave a damn about him last week, but now suddenly they are rushing to Florida in order to lead a march of "concerned citizens."

Meanwhile, dozens of young African-Americans have been shot dead in Chicago in the last two years, but there is no outcry or rally from these awful, exploitative poverty pimps Jackson and Sharpton. The reason? There is no money in it. The kids that got shot in Chicago were killed by other young African-Americans. Those types of stories are so common that they don't even make it onto the evening news.

I'm not saying the Trevon Martin case isn't a tragedy ...of course it is.

I tend to believe that this Zimmerman guy is responsible for the whole incident because he had "Barney Fife" syndrome...he had to run around making himself look like a hero.

If Zimmerman had backed off and let police question Trevon Martin, he would still be alive today. But for some odd reason, Zimmerman felt that the act of Martin simply walking around was provocation for the whole incident. I think he should have listened to the police dispatchers because Martin was not stealing anything or harming anyone. And common sense should have told Zimmerman that he could have been wrong in his assessment of Martin.

Anything Jackson or Sharpton are involved with should be viewed with a high level of suspicion.

Jackson slurred the entire New York Jewish community by calling it a "Hymietown".

In 1991, Sharpton helped provoke a race riot in New York where someone ended up getting killed.

Sharpton is also a tax cheat who owes the IRS over half a million dollars.

Sharpton should be serving time behind bars, not hosting a TV show on MSNBC.

Media Circus at Supreme Court today

(Hey, look! Even Presidential candidate Rick Santorum stopped by to throw in his two cents about Obamacare being unconstitutional!)

There will be plenty of action today around the Supreme Court as activists of every size, shape, and color come to make their feelings known about the upcoming ruling on Obamacare.

Yesterday, on Monday, the judges went through some procedural hearings which would decide whether or not it was even possible for them to hear the case. Their decision hinged on the court deciding that Obamacare either was or was not a tax.

Judge Scalia made fun of the Federal Governments attorneys by saying they were arguing that Obamacare was not a tax on Monday...so that the case could not be heard for two more years until the tax actually becomes active. Scalia also pointed out that the government would be arguing the opposite on Tuesday... that Obamacare was a tax and that the government had the right to do so under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Good point by Scalia -- and that lets me know where he is headed with this.

He is going to vote against Obamacare. So will Justice Thomas.

That's two.

We just need 3 more votes.....

Supreme Court to hear the case vs. Obamacare

Today is the day that Tenthers like me have been waiting for ever since the passage of Obamacare in March of 2010.

Today the Supreme Court of The United States will hear arguments from the 26 states that are suing the Federal Government in a dispute over the overreach of power by the Executive and Legislative branches in enforcing a mandated health care system on the citizens of the United States.

I wish I could be one of the attorneys in that building making the case.

I feel Obamacare is a clear abuse of power. Never before in American history has the government forced its citizens to purchase a particular product in the free market.

The case and the issue bring before the Court the seminal "broccoli" argument: If the government can force you to purchase health care, then can they also force you to purchase broccoli? (George H. W. Bush's least favorite food)

The argument against Obamacare is lock solid. The legal power that the Federal government is exercising here is a continual trespass against States Rights. It violates their sovereignty by disallowing them their own options and solutions for health care.

It is my opinion that Obamacare must he held to be unconstitutional and that Obama and the Democrats must pay for what they have done in the fall elections.

I am quite certain that my favorite judge, Clarence Thomas, will rule against Obamacare.

I'm hoping he gets four more votes to back him up.

Santorum drinks beer in Green Bay, Wisconsin!

Yep. That's former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum having a beer at the Titletown Brewing Company in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Maybe I will vote for this guy.

I think Romney and Gingrich would feel out of place in this setting.

But Santorum was cool with it.

The Elephant In The Room

When the June primary rolls around, I'll be going to the polls to vote for myself as a Congressional candidate, but I will also have to make a choice in the GOP Presidential primary.

I started out as a Rick Perry supporter, and I will also end that way. I have no strong feelings of support for any of the 4 candidates left.

Mitt Romney

Romney has a delegate lead and looks like the eventual nominee, but I won't be voting for him in the primary. Romney is a flawed candidate who has held too many liberal positions in the past to be trustworthy. He's also the father of "Romneycare" and mandates in the health services field. Far too "Big Government" for my choosing. I also don't like his flip flops on various subjects and lack of coherent message.

Like I said to a friend, if you can't win your home state, you should not be the nominee. Romney will lose Massachusetts where he was Governor. Winners who become Presidents win their home states or the states that elected them to high office.

Newt Gingrich

Gingrich is a brilliant man, but he won't be getting my vote, either. Gingrich has some Conservative credentials, but he also committed apostasy by hanging around with Nancy Pelosi and talking about Global Warming. He also made the poor decision to appear in public with Al Sharpton, who makes a living out of being a professional victim. Gingrich had some momentum at one time, but it is now gone. He's finished. A man who has so little self-control in his personal life (three marriages, two mistresses) should probably not be our party nominee.

Rick Santorum

Santorum is a tough call for me, because I generally like the guy on a personal level. He has some non-Conservative hiccups in his past -- so he's not perfect -- but he seems more consistent than the others. He has won a lot of primaries, but he is running out of time to break out and start routing Romney. He'll win tonight in Louisiana, and several other states along the way, but it won't be enough to catch Romney. Santorum really offended me when he started talking about "banning pornography". I'm not defending pornography, but people who want to run around and ban things all the time are acting like the totalitarians on the LA City Council. These type of people, when left unchecked, tend to misuse their power. So it would be a little unlikely for me to still support Santorum.

Ron Paul

Finally, we get to the elephant in the room. While all the other 3 have some RINO tendencies, Paul stays pretty true to his hardcore Constitutional views. He doesn't trample on personal freedom, which I really like about him. However, he isn't perfect either. There are accusations that he wrote some racist or anti-semitic articles a decade ago, and I still need to hear more about that from him. And he has a horrific idea about foreign policy that we should bring all our troops home and stop fighting wars. To me, this attitude encourages more Pearl Harbors and more 9-11s.

I don't know if I can support Paul. I'm still about 60-40 with Santorum vs. Paul.

I'm not sure who I will support.

If Rick Perry is still on the ballot, he gets my vote.

Ed Reyes hates jobs, growth, and America

Idiotic voters in Los Angeles' First Council District might want to put a muzzle on their Council member today.

Reyes is going to put up a proposition in City Hall chambers today to ban Wal-Mart from opening a store in their district and providing jobs, income and financial growth for the residents of that district.

Reyes, like many council members, has Socialist/Communist leanings and megalomaniacal intentions. Reyes doesn't want the Wal-Mart store to open in Chinatown because he says so.

Never mind the freedom of the company owner to open a new business.

Never mind the freedom of the citizens in District One to shop at this new store with it's low, low prices.

Reyes actions here are Communistic and anti-freedom.

Ed Reyes hates jobs, growth, and America.

Voters in the First District should be ashamed of themselves for putting this fool in power.

Obama, The Looter

One of my primary fears about Barack Obama wasn't that he was a Kenyan or a Muslim, or that he was trying to destroy America.

No, my biggest fear was that he didn't care about any of that.

I feared that he was a looter.

I feared Obama was just involved in politics to "bust the joint out" and break the bank.

To steal everything that wasn't tied down.

So far, he is only confirming my fears.

The Pharaohs on LA City Council decree: "Radio station KFI is racist!"

These people are monsters. They are not leaders. A leader doesn't need to meddle in every single human transaction or interaction that could ever possibly occur.

Thank God these people don't have an army under their command.

Here, below, is their latest act of government lunacy.

The Pharaohs on Los Angeles City Council have decided to decree that radio station KFI 640 AM is racist.

****************************

Public Testimony to be Heard as Los Angeles City Council Considers Adopting Resolution Targeting Recent Sexist, Racist, and Misogynistic Remarks on Radio

Los Angeles City Council aims to be first in the nation to declare derogatory, sexist, misogynistic, and racist language as having no place on public airwaves in one of the most diverse cities in the world

WHO: JAN PERRY, Ninth District (Author)
HERB J. WESSON, JR., Tenth District (Co-Author)
BERNARD C. PARKS, Eighth District (Co-Author)
Black Media Alliance
National Hispanic Media Coalition
Korean-American Bar Association
American Indians in Film and Television
Gloria Allred, Attorney (invited)
John Ziegler, former KFI conservative talk radio host
and other minority media groups and civil rights groups

WHAT: Los Angeles City Council to Consider Adoption of Resolution Targeting Sexist, Racist, and Misogynistic Remarks on Radio

WHEN: Wednesday, March 21, 2012, 10 AM

WHERE: John Ferraro Council Chamber
Room 340, City Hall
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

LOS ANGELES – On Wed., Mar. 21, at 10 A.M., the Los Angeles City Council will consider being the first City Council in the nation and state of California to adopt a resolution aimed at the recent national discourse on sexist, racist, misogynistic, and derogatory, language being used on public airwaves.

The resolution, in support of efforts by the Black Media Alliance, a coalition of African-Americans in media and broadcasting as well as other minority media groups and civil rights leaders, is being presented by Councilmember Jan Perry (9th District) seconded byCouncilmember Bernard Parks (8th District) and Council President Herb Wesson (10th District), and calls attention to the recent KFI 640 AM talk show hosts “long history of racially offensive comments as well as deplorable sexist remarks, particularly towards women and Black, Latino, and Asian communities.” These remarks including referring to Whitney Houston as a “crack ho” Georgetown law studentSandra Fluke as a “slut” and a “prostitute” as well repeated attacks on Black women, Latinos and other minorities.

In addition, the resolution points out the lack diversity among Los Angeles’ number one rated radio station, KFI 640 AM, where out of 15 hosts, none are African-American and one is female.

Other participants include: attorney Gloria Allred (invited), who recently sent a letter to the Palm Beach County Attorney's Office in West Palm Beach, Fla., demanding that Rush Limbaugh be prosecutedunder Florida statute, Section 836.04, which states, "Defamation -- Whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s.775.082 or s.775.083.; and former KFI 640 AM conservative talk radio host John Ziegler, who in recent weeks has publicly discussed his firsthand knowledge and experience of the racist attitudes towards Blacks from KFI 640 AM’s talk show hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou of the “John and Ken Show.”

Resolution Language

WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles has historically supported policies that prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, and disability; and

WHEREAS, KFI 640 AM merged with Clear Channel Communications in 2000, making KFI 640 AM Clear Channel's flagship AM radio station in Los Angeles;

WHEREAS, KFI 640 AM, averages approximately 1.5 million listeners during any given weekday; and

WHEREAS as noted in a recent L.A. Times article, a growing percentage of Southern California cities, including the Great City of Los Angeles, contain significant populations of at least two racial or ethnic groups; and

WHEREAS, KFI 640 AM, is listened to by all races, including but not limited to African-Americans, Latinos, Asians; and

WHEREAS, KFI 640 AM talk show hosts have a long history of racially offensive comments as well as deplorable sexist remarks, particularly towards women and Black, Latino, and Asian communities;

WHEREAS, February isNational Black History Month; and

WHEREAS, on February 15, 2012, KFI 640 AM’s talk show hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou of the “John and Ken Show” referred to pop music icon Whitney Houston as a “crack ho”, three days after her death;

WHEREAS, March is National Women’s History Month; and

WHEREAS, on February 29, 2012, on the eve of Women’s History Month, KFI 640 AM’s syndicated talk show host Rush Limbaugh referred to Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student, as a “slut” and a “prostitute” for testifying on Capitol Hill about women’s access to contraception;

WHEREAS, given ClearChannel Media Holdings stated view on the value they place on diversity, it is our belief that corporate action must start at the top with KFI 640 AM; and

WHEREAS, Clear Channel Media Holding’s commitment to diversity is not being realized at its flagship station KFI 640 AM, where out of 15 on-air personalities, only one is a female and none of them are Black; and

WHEREAS there are not any Blacks currently working in KFI 640 AM’s newsroom as full-time producers or engineers, or as outside paid contributors, fill-in hosts, or other on air personalities; and

WHEREAS, when you have an absence of Blacks and other minorities in the workplace, it is easy to become desensitized to what other groups find intolerable which ultimately fosters an environment where negative comments can go unchecked and corporate guidelines and policies are no longer being enforced; and

WHEREAS, a truly diverse work environment includes the continuous hiring of women, Blacks and other minorities;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that by adoption of this Resolution, the City Council urges KFI 640 AM’s station management and Clear Channel Media Holdings do everything in their power to ensure that their on-air hosts do not use and promote racist and sexist slurs over public airwaves in the City of Los Angeles; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the derogatory language used bysome radio personnel has no place on public airwaves in the Great City of Los Angeles or anywhere in America; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a truly diverse work environment must include the hiring of women, Blacks, Latinos and Asians not only as on-air talent, but as fill-intalent, paid contributors, producers, engineers, news reporters and online Web site owners.

The TSA: Your Tax Dollars At Work!

If any of you have seen this viral video over the last few days, you may have felt a slight bit of outrage over a handicapped child being treated as a possible terrorist.

I, on the other hand, am not so upset about this incident.

The government is simply doing what it does best.

Stealing billions in taxpayer dollars by providing the illusion that they will keep air travel "safe"!

The TSA is completely unnecessary and should be eliminated.

Scanning and groping everyone in the world in order to prevent a few isolated acts of terrorism is a ridiculous and oppressively expensive measure. Airports should be responsible for their own security...not the Federal Government!

Why? Because private companies actually have to get results!!

The government, on the other hand, can waste billions with in taxpayer dollars and achieve no statistical results.

The TSA has 4,000 bureaucrats in Washington D.C. making an average of $100,000 a year in salary. That entire department needs to be eliminated.

I am a big fan of the Israeli method.

Stop looking for the bomb, and start looking for the terrorist.

That decision alone could cut costs in half.

But our government has no interest in results. They want to continue having the same idiotic search rules applied to everyone, for fear of offending anyone.

State Integrity.org

A website called "State Integrity.org" has published a color-coded map of the levels of corruption in individual states.

For some odd reason, they color-coded California as being "green" or low levels of corruption.

Have these people ever been to Los Angeles and met "Boss" Wesson or Richard "Fredo" Alarcon?

Have they ever heard of Robert Rizzo?

This map is way off.

California deserves to be red like South Carolina or Georgia.

Yeah, it's that bad here.

Why Adam Schiff is wrong about SOPA

If you have been paying any attention to the media in the last few months, you may have heard some discussion about the phrase "SOPA".

SOPA stands for "Stop Online Piracy Act". It is attempt by the entertainment industry to increase the power of government to control and stop piracy of intellectual property. Critics were vocal about the overreach of the U.S. Government and the private entertainment industry using force to shut down search engines and foreign websites for possible copyright infringement. In fact, over 7,000 popular media websites "went black" or turned their pages off for a day to protest this potential legislation coming out of Washington D.C.

My opponent in the upcoming election, Congressman Adam Schiff, supports SOPA.

I don't. Here is why Schiff is wrong....

1) No private industry has the right to trample on the First Amendment in order to protect their profits.

As a member of the Screen Actors Guild, I clearly understand the need for the entertainment industry to protect their intellectual property. It is their life blood and keeps their corporations alive. However, SOPA goes too far in basically using the U.S. Government as a collection agency. It is an improper use of force by our government in order to protect the profit of a private corporation. No government should support the blocking of search engines or the shutting down of websites due to a dispute over property rights. There are courts and lawyers to sort these things out...yes...even if the websites are in foreign countries. Media corporations have the funds to fight legal battles outside of the United States, and should do so if they believe it is in their best interests.

The irrational fear that they might be losing out on money is not a legitimate reason to trample on the First Amendment.

2) Allowing the Entertainment Industry and the Federal Government to define "piracy" (a vague term) however they wish is a dangerous precedent with far-reaching implications.

If any of you saw the popular and viral "Wedding Dance video" on YouTube, you might want to think twice about this legislation. In the video, the wedding party is clearly dancing to a copyrighted performance of R&B singer Chris Brown. Theoretically, under SOPA, RCA/Jive Records could demand that YouTube delete that video, even though the 73 million hits the video experienced probably did the company no financial harm.

If you don't have a problem with this.... you should.

3) Theft and loss are a natural part of the business cycle. The Entertainment Industry is entitled to no more legal protection than any other corporation.

Every massive corporation has problems with theft and loss. Best Buy, Target, McDonalds, Starbucks...everyone has to deal with it.

But Target has no right to use Federal Agents to kick in your door in search of missing bottles of Tide Detergent. Target accepts that a small percentage of their merchandise will be lost, damaged, or stolen. It is part of the cost of doing business.

The Entertainment Industry has no right to use the Federal Government to destroy personal freedom and international internet communications in the overzealous pursuit of their protection of their private profits.

4) Adam Schiff is morally compromised on this issue.

As you can see from the graphic above, Adam Schiff accepts large financial donations from Big Media Corporations who would love to control all inter-personal communications in the United States. However, that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.

Because he accepts large amounts of campaign money from the entertainment industry, Schiff creates the appearance of having his vote in Congress being "for sale" to the highest bidder.

Schiffs financial stake in this vote makes his actions appear unseemly at best, and possibly downright devious and corrupt at worst.

Schiff should recuse himself from issues like this where he or his donors stand to personally benefit from this legislation.

If you would like to contact Congressman Adam Schiff and explain this issue to him, his office number in Pasadena is (626) 304-2727.