Minnesotans: Citizen’s Council for Health Freedom Requests your continued Support!

Great News, Good News and Final Offer!

Here’s the Great News.

Due to early support, CCHF has moved forward to file an Amicus Brief with the U.S. Supreme Court against Obamacare! Thank you! As I mentioned to you in a previous email, we’re going to address a very specific, important aspect of Obamacare’s unconstitutional individual mandate requiring all citizens to buy government-approved health insurance or pay a fine.

Here’s the Good News.

New Deadline: We’ve been notified that we now have until this coming Monday, January 9, to tell the publisher how many originals of the Amicus Brief we want above and beyond all the originals that we must have printed and delivered to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices and their staff.

For a donation of just $100, we will send you an original of our compelling Amicus Brief. You’ll receive the exact booklet the U.S. Supreme Court Justices will be reading.

Here’s the Final Offer.

This is the only opportunity you’ll have to get an original Brief. There can be only one printing of the original document, so send in your donation today, or by 12:00 noon CST on this coming Monday, Jan 9, at the latest.

Thank you for any and all donations you’ve already made and will make to this critical effort to stop Obamacare. As always, YOU make the difference between winning and losing. Thank you!

Advancing freedom together with you,

Twila

-- Twila Brase, RN, PHN President Citizens' Council for Health Freedom (CCHF) 161 St. Anthony Ave Ste 923 Saint Paul, MN 55103 651-646-8935 www.cchfreedom.org

Governor Scott Walker Battling for America against Union Thugs Comming Soon?

Drama AGAIN  in Wisconsin as Union armies at this very moment are loading their weapons to remove  Scott Walker from the Wisconsin Governorship.    Read the following article about the impending recall:

 ”Why U.S. should cheer for Scott Walker”   by Nick Schulz   at USA TODAY:

“Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is currently the target of a recall effort spearheaded by national public employee unions. If his opponents get enough signatures by Jan. 17, Wisconsin will hold a gubernatorial election this summer. The outcome is crucial to the future of the country.

Wisconsin has emerged as a central battleground in the fight over the outsized political role played by, and the enormous privileges enjoyed by, public employee unions. The collective bargaining entitlement enables public sector workers to extract excessive compensation, benefits, and pension packages at the expense of taxpayers.

In March, Walker signed what is now nationally famous legislation that reformed public employee collective bargaining. The bill was crucial to putting Wisconsin on a sustainable fiscal path. Public employee unions fought bitterly, albeit unsuccessfully, to block Walker’s reforms. Now they are trying to recall him.

Guess what? It’s working

They face a tough fight, however. While the clash over collective bargaining garnered national attention, Walker has additional accomplishments to highlight. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which opposed Walker’s collective bargaining reforms, recently noted, “The governor did balance the budget … he did reduce the structural deficit significantly; he did put a lid on property tax increases; he did give schools and municipalities more control over their budgets than they’ve had in years.”

What’s more, the reforms pushed by Walker are themselves already having a beneficial effect. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett was Walker’s opponent in the 2010 election and later attacked his proposals to reform collective bargaining. But with the reforms on the books, Barrett used some of the bill’s provisions to help reduce the city’s health care bill, saying that the alternative was to cut 300 to 400 city jobs.

Here’s why the stakes in Wisconsin are so high. Public employee unions understand that the legitimacy of collective bargaining privileges is now in question, as cash-strapped states struggle under the burden of a costly public sector. If they can knock off Walker, they send a powerful signal to other reform-oriented governors not to target collective bargaining.

Interestingly, many labor-friendly figures have long understood that collective bargaining rights for public employees are illegitimate. “All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,” a pro-labor Franklin D. Roosevelt said in 1937. “It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.”

Electing your own boss

As political scientist Daniel DiSalvo notes in a recent issue of National Affairs, “public-sector unions have significant advantages over traditional unions. For one thing, using the political process, they can exert far greater influence over their members’ employers — that is, government — than private-sector unions can. Through their extensive political activity, these government-workers’ unions help elect the very politicians who will act as ‘management’ in their contract negotiations — in effect handpicking those who will sit across the bargaining table from them … Such power led Victor Gotbaum, the leader of District Council 37 of the AFSCME in New York City, to brag in 1975: ‘We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.’ “

Collective bargaining reform is also needed to enable genuine education reform. The collective bargaining privilege gives teacher unions political power that is used to block reform efforts and shield K-12 education from entrepreneurial disruptions that threaten established ways of doing things.

In a recent discussion, Walker told me that “collective bargaining in the public sector is not a right; it’s an expensive entitlement.” The struggle to rein in and reform expensive entitlements will define American politics for the next generation. A key front line is in Wisconsin.

Nick Schulz is the DeWitt Wallace fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and editor of American.com.

Krauthammer Rallies for Santorum

Knowing hat I live a millenium away from the machinations of national, state, and local political life, never for a second passes unnourished through my mind.

I am fully aware of my financial, physical, political, and social isolation.   That I live in paradise here in my home grounds  writing from  my tiny loft above my beautiful landscape garden in the beautiful and rich geography of this State of Minnesota, never misses a beat in my daily life.   That I am in love with my country is a given despite the growing tyranny of the disuniting, dishonest, disingenuous, duplicitous Barack Hussein Obama, the first non-American  ever to occupy the White House.

From this distance from the front lines of American political life, I, as is true of all of us, have to rely on thinkers, writers, and friends, the vast majority of whom I have never met personally and never shall for clarity in life.    I, as all of us interested in our America, must study the horizon to find friends whom we can trust…..friends closer to the wars and the wars of life’s stories.  

Trained as a  public school teacher, I first seek  unmet folk  who display acceptable character which befits the ideals I was raised since childhood  to decipher the good from the bad in life……I rally to  those who come closest to my understandings of goodness and character stretched from the personal to the state or national scene,  whereever  folks of public significance might  dwell.

I was taught by my old maid public school teachers to become a good citizen and to learn about the country and the world in which one lives.    I was taught to come to ‘know’ the nation’s public officials because I, teachers  told me, was a citizen in a free country which strived to develop a society in which  its people could live in liberty, be God-fearing, and seek happiness.

I learned that I have to pick and choose the trustworthy…..those with whom I agree……and those with whom I do not agree, but are nevertheless trustworthy.

There are very, very few Democrats on today’s American market led by foreigner, Barack Hussein Obama, I have found I can trust.    These Democrats are either stone silent, or dead.   Some are con-artists seeking presidential and public approval.   Among the  rare exceptions is Leon Panetta, the present Secretary of Defense.   I seek his voice whenever published.

I have met Dennis Prager whom I would trust with my soul.    I know him well, however, from the distance of my loft above my beautiful landscape garden “talking” with him every day in which I can listen to his radio show.

I seek out Charles Krauthammer whenever and ever, and likely will as long as I am still alive.   He is an Easterner, but nevertheless, he is my political and intellectual music  almost at the level of Beethoven.   I seek harmony with his observations.   Sometimes it doesn’t arrive.   All the better, for his unusual melodies push me to think broader, either to strengthen my own prejudices, or add to them…….or discard them.

I don’t think Charles likes Mitt Romney much…..Charles writes the following at the New York Daily News:

A worthy challenger to Romney:

 Could Santorum shake things up

in New Hampshire? 

by Charles Krauthammer    at  the New York Daily News:

“After every other conservative alternative to Mitt Romney crashed and burned (libertarian Ron Paul is in a category of his own), from the rubble emerges Rick Santorum. But he isn’t just the last man standing. He is the first challenger to be plausibly presidential: knowledgeable, articulate, experienced, of stable character and authentic ideology.

He’d been ignored largely because he appeared unelectable — out of office for five years, having lost his Senate seat in Pennsylvania by a staggering 17 points in 2006.

However, with his virtual tie for first in Iowa, he sheds the loser label and seizes the momentum, meaning millions of dollars’ worth of free media to make up for his lack of money. He’s got the stage to make his case, plus the luck of a scheduling quirk: If he can make it through the next three harrowing primaries, the (relative) February lull would allow him to build a national campaign structure before Super Tuesday on March 6.

Santorum’s electoral advantage is sociological: His common-man, working-class sensibility would be highly appealing to battleground-state Reagan Democrats. His fundamental problem is ideological: He’s a deeply committed social conservative in a year when the country is obsessed with the economy and when conservatism is obsessed with limited government. Republicans, after all, swept the 2010 election on economic concerns and opposition to big government. The Tea Party revolution was not about gay marriage. Which is why so much Tea Party fervor attaches to Paul.

Santorum did win the Tea Party vote in Iowa. But because he was such a long shot, his record did not receive much scrutiny. It will now. He is no austere limited-government constitutionalist. He participated in George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism, which largely made peace with big government. Santorum, for example, defends earmarks and supported No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. It’s a perfectly defensible philosophy — but now he’ll be called upon to actually defend it.

Moreover, Iowa is anomalous. It’s not just that the Republican electorate is disproportionately evangelical and thus highly receptive to Santorum’s social conservatism (as to Mike Huckabee‘s in 2008). It’s that Iowa’s economy is unusually healthy with only 5.7% unemployment, high agricultural prices and strong real estate values. Although the economy did rate as a major issue in the entrance poll, in such relative prosperity it registers more as a concern for the nation than as a visceral personal issue — diminishing the impact of Romney’s calling card, economic competence.

For his part, Romney remains preternaturally inert. His numbers, his demeanor, his campaign are flat-line steady: no highs, no lows, no euphoria, no panic.

With one minor exception. Romney wasn’t expected to do very well in Iowa. A top-three finish would have been good; a first or second, a surprising success. But feeling his Iowa prospects rise, he let fly a last-minute high. (Two hairs were seen dangling over his forehead.) He began touting his chance of winning, thus gratuitously raising expectations.

That turned a hairline victory into something of a setback, accentuating his inability to break out of his flat-line 25 or so percent support. How flat? His final 2012 Iowa vote count deviated from his 2008 total of 30,021 by six votes .

For a front-runner who can’t seem to expand his base, he’s been fortunate that the opposition has been so split. But the luck stops here. Michele Bachmann is gone. Rick Perry will skip New Hampshire, then dead man walk through South Carolina. And then there is Newt.

Gingrich is staying in. This should be good news for Romney. It’s not. In his Iowa non-concession speech, Gingrich was seething. He could not conceal his fury with Paul and Romney for burying him in negative ads. After singling out Santorum for praise, Gingrich launched into them both, most especially Romney.

Gingrich speaks of aligning himself with Santorum against Romney. For Newt’s campaign, this makes absolutely no strategic sense. Except that Gingrich is after vengeance, not victory. Ahab is loose in New Hampshire, stalking his great white Mitt.

What a lineup. Santorum and Gingrich go after Romney, whose unspoken ally is Paul, who needs to fight off Santorum in order to emerge as both No. 1 challenger and Republican kingmaker, leader of a movement demanding respect, attention and concessions. And Jon Huntsman goes after everybody.

Is this any way to pick a President? Absolutely. It works. It winnows. And it has produced, after just one contest, an admirably worthy conservative alternative to Romney.”

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Further comment:   I do like Rich Santorum’s personage and message……..I would like to see this preacher of good things for America’s soul compliment the ticket.   Most Americans are no longer thinking, practicing Christians despite what they confess when pressed for an opinion.   I find  today’s Americans shallow,  poorly educated.   They have gone to university and left empty of knowledge and American values.  

Someone convince me Senator Santorum can overcome our culture’s university-taught anti-Christian, Christianity!!!   Mitt Romney is a decent, intelligent, practical, articulate leader from a hugely conservative religious culture kept quiet by public demand.    I also worry about Conservative bigotries…..the Ron Paul kind as well as others, which are aimed against  the full blooded  conservative American, Mitt Romney.

 

Despite Obama’s Refusal to Drill American Oil, Fewer Oil Dollars are going to Dictatorships

U.S. Oil Dependency and the Middle East

from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

“The one prominent issue that both American political parties can seemingly agree on is that the United States should be less dependent on foreign oil, especially from the Middle East.  This goal has been made much more feasible by the fact that the United States is in the midst of a mini oil boom, which has temporarily reversed the country’s increasing dependence on foreign sources of oil, says Ivan Eland, senior fellow and Director of the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute.

However, this should not be seen as a great victory against dictatorships and terrorism-sponsoring governments in the Middle East, and portraying it as such is misleading.  The simple fact is that increased domestic production, coupled with depressed domestic consumption, will have little effect whatsoever on those governments that partially lose the United States as a buyer.

• Dependence on overseas oil has decreased from 60 percent of U.S. consumption in 2005 to a little less than half now.
• Only about 18 percent of total imports originate from the Persian Gulf, and therefore changes in our supply and demand can have only a marginal impact on their economies.
• Furthermore, the prices that these nations receive for their oil are not determined by individual buyers like the United States but by the world market, meaning that even if the United States were able to cut out Persian Gulf imports entirely, the resulting price change would be minimal.
• Finally, the decision by American lawmakers to target the Middle East for removal from the nation’s list of imports is largely mitigated by international buyers who have no moral qualms about buying from that region.

These facts make it clear that even if limiting imports from the Middle East is a desirable policy end, the effects on the local governments would be minimal.

Additionally, despite claims that the world will soon deplete its dwindling oil supply, the United States need not convert itself into an aggressive hoarder of oil.  These claims preclude the fact that the oil production market is dynamic and capable of responding to market forces.  As demand has increased in recent years, production methods that were previously not economical became feasible, and the world oil market reacted.  This suggests strongly that the United States is in no immediate danger.”

Source: Ivan Eland, “No War for Oil: US Dependency and the Middle East,” Independent Institute, December 21, 2011.

For text:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3211

For more on Environment Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=31

MN Governor, Wrestler Jesse Ventura Floored by His Big Mouth

Today we Minnesotans have Al Franken occupying a Minnesota seat in the U.S. Senate,  and Muhammed somebody or another representing Minneapolis in the U.S. House,  once upon a time Jesse Ventura was actually Governor of our North Star State.    Although nominally ‘independent’, Jesse was a loud mouthed flaky  Democrat of his day.

College kids had elected this wrestler to run the state around the most recent turn of the century.

With Jesse temper and temper’s noise were always in, brains were generally there, but  hidden  somewhere, except for the statesman-like withdrawal the Governor made  from the Paul Wellstone televised ugly  funeral harangue in the late summer of 2002.  

Jesse didn’t know how to be polite.   He was always wrestling whenever in public.   This time the bully went down for the count…..click below for the video description of his ‘match’ and  the cause”

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/05/navy-seal-why-yes-i-did-punch-jesse-ventura-in-the-face-for-saying-we-deserved-to-lose-some-guys-in-iraq-at-a-wake-for-an-moh-recipient/